[gothic-l] Re: Cultic leauges

[ingemar.nordgren at EBOX.TNINET.SE]

Hi Dirk,

you wrote:

> > A cultic league for example must not, or rather should not, be 
> connected
> > with overruling political power over the peoples being part of the
> > league. There are a number of politically independent
> > peoples/tribes/gentes who share the same cultic system. 
> 
> Walter Pohl (Die Germanen) summarises the current state of research 
on > those 'cultic leagues', i.e. the 'old and true names' of Tacitus 
at > some length. One of the findings is that the significance of 
these > leagues was likely overrated by historians in the past. 
Overall, there >  seems to be very little agreement and understanding 
of what this > concept was and how it would translate into our 
terminology. 

Indeed there is disagreement as far as you try to connect political 
connections with the idea of cultic leagues. My definition, which is 
new and my own opposing the earlier definition, excludes political 
supremacy and similar connections. The alliances are formed between 
independent chiefs sharing the same motivation  to rule. When other 
tribes are politically subdued under a kind of central rule you may no 
longer in my definition talk about a cultic league.

> I suppose Sun and Moon were revereed as gods in many cultures at 
this > time, perhaps in all of Europe and beyond....

So they were in a sense but I am now speaking specially of the Nordic 
pantheon and linguistically the word  suiþioþ and svíakonungr makes 
sense as the sun people and the sun king. It also goes well along with 
both rock-carvings from late Bronze-Age and late Bronze-Age and early 
Iron Age artefacts.I think the focus has been to much on the 
traditional fertility gods in general and to less on the year cycle.

> The king in> > respective tribe/people was the reborn sungod  
Ingr/Úllr. His title > was> > the sun-king which in Old Nordic is 
Svíakonungr and the tribes > making up> > this cultic leauge  was by 
outsiders called Suiþioþ, the sun people.

Maybe not only outsiders but themselves as well. The outsiders anyhow 
continued to use the name suiones about the whole area and the peoples 
 there and now it is Swedes. The Gauts never gave namn to the area 
among the continental writers. This means they all were regarded as 
the sun people from the beginning by the Europeans. Sun is derived 
from "svida" still pronounced 'svia' in Gautic tounge meaning 
'burn,shine' et c. and þioþ from the ON word for 'people'. The god 
Sviþdagr, a sun-god married to the moon godess Freja, means 
accordingly 'the sun shining in the day'. Ingr was the first known 
vanir god   who performed the burial of the sun, in those days ÚllR. 
When the cult of Óðinn arrived it was accompanied by the new name 
Frejr. That is why the Ynglingar(Inglingar), named after Ingr,later 
accepts Óðinn as their original ancestor and places Ingr (Yngve) in 
the third generation. I suggest you read e.g. Charlotte Fabech, Ellis 
Davidson, Karl Hauck and Lotte Hedeager who among else are agreed with 
my opinion of Óðinn arriving from the continent.

> > They all, I must underline, were politically independent with own 
> sacral> > kings ruling but they all had the same interest to keep 
the common> > motivation for power - they were all the sun god reborn 
guaranteeing> > fertility and crop.
 
> There is a recent study of germanic 'Fuerstengraeber', i.e. princely 
> graves by Fehr. The authors uses the temporal and geographic spread 
of >  those graves to determine the development of social sturctures 
in the > early 'Germanic' world. He finds that the earliest princely 
graves > occur in Bohemia/Moravia in the 1st cent. AD and may be 
linked to the > Marcomanni. From there the distribution of princely 
graves progressess > northwards, with the so called Luebsow-graves in 
Thuringia, > Brandenburg and Lower Saxony forming the biggest group. 
The first > princely grave in Scandinavia appears in the 2nd/3rd 
century in > Norway, but the original excavators stated that its 
content is so > completely continental that there is a strong 
possibility that this > prince came from the continent, most likely 
Jutland. In addition, the > fact that the word reiks was apparently 
borrowed from Celtic > underlines that social development spread from 
south to north. 

I fail to see the importance of the Fürstengräber. They represent an 
international group of wealthy warriors having close personal 
relations and being part of the Gefolgschaft system. They have nothing 
at all to do with cultic leagues and they are also mostly later than 
the times I discuss. Remeber these old leagues were dissolved or under 
dissolving. For the Goths in the time of the Cerniachov culture it was 
only the last death-shrugs of a league    which the kindins   fought 
to preserve. Arianism  became the substitute for a time   but the 
development towards different political states had already gone too 
far.
 
> What is the timeframe for this? You are presupposing a social 
layering > in commoners, nobles and kings, but the research on 
'Fuerstengraeber' > suggests that such a structure came about rather 
late in Scandinavia.

No, I am not proposing a social layer in nobles and commoners in a 
medieval sense. With commoners I mean farmers, non fighting persons, 
and the nobles you interpret are simply the warriors. Of course there 
are kings/chiefs however.The time is about 500 BC to the beginning of 
our era concerning the Gaut period, and so sucessively Óðinn merges 
and also the Gefolgschaften meaning the odinistic kings grabbing both 
the religious and political pover and the leagues gradually decline. 
When we reach the Migration period,5th and 6th cc,the leagues are 
definitely disappeared in practice but the traditions could be used by 
the rulers anyhow.

> What is the basis for the assertation that Ingr became Frejr and 
Ingun > became Freja? And why is the Odin cult continental in origin?

See above.
 
> Actually, Pohl argues -citing Lund-  that the earlier interpretation 
> which wanted to asign a special role to the Semnones were a 
misreading > of Tacitus. The famous 'Semnonenhain' may only have been 
a cultic > place of the Semnones themselves.

Possibly but having read Tacitus I am not convinced that Pohl is 
correct.
 
> Kuhn and Kossack (Voelker zwischen Germanen und Kelten) say that the 
> Nerthus tribes of Jutland were not Suevi if I remember correctly, 
but > I cannot see how this is provalbe.

Quite right, they were not called Suevi. I reckon it depnds of the 
fact that they were stronger and situated closer to the old leagues 
centre and because of that could continue the old tradition by 
themselves. The Semnones, being more pheripher tried to collect the 
rests to build a state but failed. Their league was just a means and 
hence no real league. What mattered was the Gefolgschaften and the 
continental,odinistic warriors which led to a diversity of kings and 
chiefs   fighting for personal profit.

> 
> Suebes, accordingly, also are the sun 
> people.
 
> Interestingly, Caesar reported that the Usipii and Tencteri, who 
were > not Suevi reported that the Suevi were the most glorious and 
powerful > of all people east of the Rhine and '...that not even the 
importal > gods are equal to the Suevi...'. (whatever that meant).

The Suevi must derive their namn from the same word 'svida'and their 
cultic habits from Semnonenhain is exactly the same as in the Nordic 
Helgikviðas.
 
> As Andreas Schwarcz explained recently on the list, Pytheas never 
> actually mentioned the Goths or Gothones. 

I know there is a debate about that. Sorry to say I have not read him 
myself in original but most writers, e.g. Hachmann, Wenskus et al.seem 
to have interpreted him so.

 About the status of the latest archaeological research on the Goth 
in > northern Poland, Tadeusz Makiewicz wrote:
> > "Recent archaeological research and lengthy debate on this subject 
> have, however, established that the Wielbark Culture did not simply 
> come into being as a result of the arrival of tribes of Scandinavian 
> Goths in Pomerania. Instead, it evolved from the development of the 
> local Oksywie Culture, possibly having been subject to outside 
> influences from Scvandinavia. This is evidenced primarily by the 
fact > that in its initial phase, the Wielbark Culture had exactly the 
same > territorial extent as the  Oksywie Culture, many cemeteries 
having > been kept in continued use by these two societies. Wielbark 
> communities comprised mostly members of tribes already settled in 
this > area with the addition of Scandinavian migrants, who maybe 
arrived> here in small groups." 

I never argued about that. I stated small groups but the one about 
beginning of our era was larger since the ceramics and burial customs 
abruptly changed. I stated the impression of a cultic league and not a 
total Scandinavian invasion even if the newcomers must have been quite 
strong to be able to spread the cult that far.Heather has got the same 
impression of a league.

  This about
> > 350-300 BC. Also the language  should come from that period. The 
> second> > group, both Swedes,Jutes and Norwegians - The Kattegat 
group - is > due> > about the beginning of our era and have a burial 
tradition like what > you> > find in West Sweden. The third part is 
the multiochtonous forming of > the> > Gepidic tribe around the 
Sambian peninsula with people from all over> > Scandinavia and the 
former Wielbark culture. 
 
> There are no Wielbark or Masovia culture graves on the Sambian 
> peninsula (Samland). Most archaeologists argue that the Gepids 
formed > in the Vistula delta entirely out of the remnants of the 
Wielbark > people without any migrantions. 
> > http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm

Okulicz says otherways and definitely states immgration from all 
Baltic and Kattegat area and also local population from Wielbark. The 
graves of the Elblag group are in several layers showing definite 
immigrants.I have discussed this in lenght with Jerzy.

 
> This list must also include the Saxons, who believed that Hatha-Gaut 
> was their ancestral god and the Thuringians who had a founder god 
> calld Gaus, but who at the same time were Suevic Hermunduri unlike 
the Saxons. But that also the Langobards were Suevi (Very confusing).

Why confusing? The Saxons might well have been inside the area of the 
old league and broken loose as did the Jutes. Later they were in 
alliance. Maybe also that the Saxons, working with the Jutes, were 
just influenced.About the people from Thüringen I dare not say      
but they might have been influnced or also broken away as the other. 
The Langobards are just mentioned as a small group visiting 
Semnonenhain and then disapering again. It makes good sense that they 
were breaking away from the old league. Remember they changed from 
Vinnili to Langobards. Also remember that the "Suebian league" in 
connection with the Semnones in the time of Tacitus was no real league 
but a political union aiming towards a state. Hence a lot of peoples 
periodically could mention themselves or be called Sueves.I suggest 
you find a translator who could interpret what I have written in the 
book about "Kultförbundsproblematiken", 'the problem of cultic 
leagues.' As you can see this chapter is not so very long, and there I 
just treat the Sueves in the final part.

Best
Ingemar



You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/