[gothic-l] Re: Goths, Eruli in the East

Tue Jan 15 08:44:22 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at y..., "einarbirg" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at y..., "faltin2001" <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at y..., "einarbirg" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> > > --- In gothic-l at y..., "faltin2001" <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> >   ***Hæ Dirk.
> 
>  Thanks for your kind answer.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You do not want to read about Barði´s  theories even if 
> > > they are related to the Heruli questions being discussed but 
feel 
> > > confident enough to come with all kinds of comments about the 
> > subject.
> > 
> > 
> > That is partly true. I am not really interested in a theory 
> proposing 
> > that Heruls moved to Iceland. It is too far-fetched in my view.
> 
>   Einar; In some of my posts from last sept.(when I very much 
> unprepared) I might have given(wrongly) the impression that Barði 
was 
> promoting the idea that the Heruli moved to 
> Iceland.                                              
> That could have happened when in a hurry in the overheated 
discussion 
> we had then...
> This is of course not true and that should be clear from my later 
> posts. Of course no Heruli moved to 
Iceland.                          
> Some groups emigrating to Iceland  were chieftainly families of 
East 
> Scandinavian origin though they might have come from within what is 
> now the borders of present day Norway.
> Of course no Heruli moved to Iceland.
> 
> If we belief Procopius story of the travel of the Heruli up North
> (Which most scholars seem to normally agree on. Or stay neutral)
then 
> of course these Heruli and their chieftainly families which were 
the 
> ruling class among them settled somewhere and kept on living.Right? 
> And they had descendants. 
> Maybe they became Ynglingar,Skilfingar,Skjöldungar or jarlar(earls)
or 
> all these even mixed to some degree. That does not matter 
here.       
> 
> It is a fact that Iceland was settled from Scandinavia. At least 
the 
> ruling class was of Scandinavian origin or of a mixed 
> Celtic/Scandinavian stock. These ruling class to some considerable 
> degree had their ancestry in East 
Scandinavia.                        
> You see that the the time period from that part of the Heruli 
settled 
> in East Scandinavian territory and these East Scandinavian 
> chieftainly families with a long tradition of being the ruling 
> class/elíte migrated to Iceland( Mainly from what was called 
Denmark 
> in 900 A.D but nowadays called Norway)is just about 350-400 
years.    
> The Heruli do seem to have been somekind of a tribe or tribal union 
> before migrating to southeast Europe and that happened maybe about 
3-
> 400 years before a part of them went again up 
North.                  
> According to historical sources the Heruli was a special tribe 
whith 
> a special character and 
customs.                                      
> Why is it not possible that these East Scandinavian chieftainly 
> families migrating eventually to Iceland carrying with them 
obviously 
> a little bit of a special culture/knowledge like the art of 
> skaldship,special knowledge of genealogies,different name practices 
> and a very extensive knowledge of legends and stories that can be 
> connected to the Huns,Goths and the Heruli could not have been 
> descendants of Heruli chieftainly families?
> I do not have any books with me now so I can not quote from any 
> sources but all kinds of legends/stories/poems/sagas(all in oral 
> form,or runic?) about the Huns,Goths and the Heruli were just 
> preserved in Iceland.And eventually written down later.(After the 
> Irish had taught the Icelanders to write) And then we can mention 
the 
> Eddas who are just as much a Germanic heritage as Scandinavian.
> Saxo Grammticus had to rely extensively on the Icelanders in his 
> writings about Danish kings and said that the Icelanders were the 
> greatest of historians. Why was that? Iceland had a small 
population 
> compared to European countries. Why was all this material conserved 
> in Iceland? But to a very much lesser degree or not at all in other 
> countries?
> Well these are all repetitons but you know that genetic reaserch 
> supports this theory. And many scholars seem to have come up with 
the 
> idea that the Heruli were the transmitters of these migration age 
> legends to Scandinavia. 

Hi Einar,

on what basis do these scholars belief that Heruls brought these 
legends to Scandinavia? Who brought the legends to other places like 
modern Germany?

(snipped)

The book´s main theory is that part of 
> the Icelandic chieftainly families were of East Scandinavian origin 
> and discussion about their religious practices,name 
> traditions,knowledge of skaldship,genealogies etc. And their later 
> involvment in saga writing.

I have no reason to doubt that. Anyway, I don't know enough about 
that.

> It comes as a natural step to assume and make a hypothesis then 
that 
> these chieftainly families had the Heruli as ancestors. 

I would regard it as a natural step if it was an established fact of 
early medieval Swedish history that Heruls made up the ruling elites 
of East Scandinavia. However, my reading and from Oscar's comments I 
gather that this is not the case. Therefore I don't find this natural 
at all.

> That you 
> would see if you would read this book. 

I agree, it makes little sense for me to argue against his book 
without reading it. So I must stress that I am simply doubtfull of 
the Herulic-Iceland link.

But nothing can be proved 
> there and Barði did not really try so 
either.                         
> Only good and solid archaeological and genetic reaserch can prove 
> this theory beyond any reasonable 
doubt.                              
> And you do not seem to be impressed by the fact that genetic 
reaserch 
> so far seems to support this theory!

If genetic research somehow shows that East Scandinavians moved to 
Iceland, I have no reason to doubt that. However, I don't believe 
that there is a 'Herulic gene' that could be discovered. Heruls were 
a policitally defined group not a biological group. Especially from 
Pohl's interpretation that I laid out in my last letter to you, it is 
clear that the Herulic kingdom gained in strengh by the affilitation 
of the most diverse warrior groups, who united under leadership of 
the Herulic king and who became Heruls themselves. Thus, some Heruls 
may have been of Sarmatian ethnic origin, others may have been of 
Alanic origin and probably a good deal of them might have been of 
Hunnic or mixed Germanic/Hunnic origin, as is perhaps suggested by 
the large proportion of artificial skull deformations in supposedly 
Herulic areas. In fact, I believe that many people would be in for a 
shock if they saw real Eastern Heruls of the late 5th century. 
Instead of fairhaired and blue-eyed giants many might have been more 
akin to Mongols or Iranians. Especially the elite families will 
likely have intermarried with their former masters the Huns.  Pohl 
called even the Greutungi and Tervingi 'polyethnic warrior bands', 
thus the Heruls are probably similar to that. 

> What to belief if not solid genetic 
reaserch?                         
> I suspect that genetic reaserch will solve this matter for us some 
> day. 

I hope so, but from my understanding it does not seem likely, because 
Heruls are not a biologically defined group.

cheers,
Dirk

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vf6MrB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/ 