question relating to Wielbark and Scandinavian burial customs

Thu Jan 26 13:26:37 UTC 2006

****************

Hi Konrad!

The question you have brought up for discussion is really very 
interesting. I took an interest in a similar issue in connection 
with the Chernyachov culture that is regarded nowadays as 
a probable successor of the Wielbark culture. Characteristic for 
the Chernyachov culture is arbitrary alternating cremations 
and inhumations with totally almost equal ratio of both. 
For this culture, with the "political" leadership of the Goths 
and anthropologically fixed prevalence of Sarmatian population, 
such a mixture looks natural as the nomads always used inhumation 
while the Goths (and probably the Slavs as well, but I do not want 
to incorporate the Slavic disputable topic into our consideration) 
should cremate their decedents. Nevertheless, I did not find any 
specific researches on this matter though the overall impression 
remains that the answer might be not so trivial. However that 
may be, dissemination of inhumations among cremations in 
Scandinavia cannot be explained so simply. In respect of 
the Chernyachov culture, I have suggested in due time three 
possible reasons for possible replacements of incineration by 
just burial. Those were:
  (1) a decedent was unworthy of cremation;
  (2) there was not enough fuel (firewood) at the time or at 
the scene; 
  (3) there was not enough time or available forces (people) 
at the time.

Due to attestation of Ibn-Fadlan ("the funerals of a noble Rus" 
in the description of his Travels to Volga), it has been accepted 
that cremation provided to the dead a direct way to Elysium. 
Accordingly, the right to set fire to a pile has been considered 
as an honor granted usually to a next of kin or close friend. 
And you should keep in mind that stocking a pile with amount 
of firewood sufficient to reduce a body to ashes is a heavy task. 
It requires time and many hands. Not always both are present 
in time. Perhaps the widely known Scandinavian custom of 
the Viking Age to burn up seafarers in their ships was born in 
woodless areas where there was no other fuel. (The same used 
to do the ancient Greeks long before the Vikings if we entrust 
to the film "Troy".)
I believe some of my argumentations are applicable to the Wielbark 
culture as well as Scandinavia.

Regards,
Vladimir

-----Original Message-----
From: gothic-l at yahoogroups.com [mailto:gothic-l at yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of akoddsson
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 9:17 PM
To: gothic-l at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [gothic-l] Re: question relating to Wielbark and Scandinavian
burial customs

Tore, thank you for the link below. 
I have been reading about iron age scandinavian burial customs for 
some time, even visiting sites myself. Also, in reading about the 
Wielbark finds some months ago, I quickly noticed that they matched 
the overall scandinavian pattern. This book also confirms this. 
However, one thing which is not explained here, or in other sources 
that I have seen, is the difference about cremation and inhumation 
burials, which is found in the Wielbark culture and throughout all 
of Scandinavian during this period. What I am wondering is, why were 
some members burned and others inhumed? This book mentions a young 
girl inhumed over an older cremation grave, and similar mixes occur 
widely in the archeaological finds from this period. There must have 
been some reason why occasional inhumations occured in a culture 
which otherwise cremated its dead, like other IE folk. IE religion, 
as attested in Hinduism, for example, strongly favours cremation, 
and various theological reasons are given for this, such as the view 
that man is spirit and not matter; furthermore, there is no belief 
in a future physical recurrection of bodies from the earth, such as 
in the semetic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Clearly, 
Goths from the Wielbark area, as from Gotland, and Scandinavians 
more widely, shared a common view about the insignificance of the 
body after death, which was generally cremated. However, we do find 
inhumations as well. The question is: why? Do you know of links to 
articles on this topic, footnotes or comments about it, etc.? One 
thing that I suspect, but cannot confirm, is the existence of some 
kind of legal stricture about the cremation/inhumation issue in the 
oral laws of this period, probably connected to a religious belief 
of some kind. Otherwise, one suspects that either form of burial 
would become quickly universal at the expense of the other. This is 
not what the archeaological record shows. On the contrary, the two 
forms coexist throughout the entire roman iron age, even as far back 
as 1000BC in Scandinavia (which is technically later Scandinavian 
bronze age), but with cremation as the clear overall victor, both in 
sites where inhumation also occurs, as well as in those where only 
cremation occurs (sites vary widely in the number of finds, etc.). 
Finally, let me rephrase my question: what was the reason for the 
simulteaneous occurance of cremation and inhumation over such a long 
period? Why did inhumation not just die out completely, but instead 
staggered along in the shadow of cremation for such a long period? 
Could there have been a legal stricture, or belief, which caused the 
continued inhumation of certain individuals, but not most? Could the 
age of the deceased, for instance, have had something to do with it, 
social position, manner of death, or reputation?

Regards,
Konrad. 

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Tore Gannholm <tore at g...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Have you read Kaliff's book "Gothic connections"
> 
>   
http://www.stavgard.com/Gotland/gothicconnectio_/gothic/default.htm
> 
> Tore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Wilhelm Otto wrote:
> 
> > Dear Gothic list,
> >
> > Is this a chat list just for the language itself or for a wider  
> > approach to
> > the gothic culture, as history?
> >
> > If it serves the later purpose as well I will raise a subject. 
I  
> > have just
> > read Peter Heather:
> >
> > "The Goths" and this book gives me an entirely new view of the 
old  
> > gothic
> > world. He tells us about Jordanes' Gethica and claims that it is 
among
> > contemporary historians Jordanes' fault that people still 
believe  
> > the Goths
> > originated in Scandinavia before moving across the Baltic.  
> > Secondly, from at
> > least the the third century the Goths was divided into two 
groups: the
> > Visgoths and the Ostrogoths and thirdly that these groups were 
led  
> > by two
> > families with unique royal prestige, the Balthi and the Amals.
> >
> > These ideas, Peter Heather says, have set an agenda around 
which  
> > argument
> > has raged.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have been trying to discuss the first of these topics, the  
> > exodus, on a
> > Swedish chat list and am very confused by the response. There 
are  
> > members
> > who claim there has been an exodus, although Peter Heather 
claims  
> > that the
> > dating of relevant objects from both sides of the Baltic shows 
that  
> > there
> > has been none. And Peter Heather seems to be a man who to day  
> > carries the
> > weight of argument. I have a general feeling that in Sweden the 
Gothic
> > exodus is a valueloaded topic, and that it is difficult to give 
it  
> > a fair
> > treatment.
> >
> >
> >
> > For me this is a matter of preserving my bearings in a world I  
> > thought was
> > rational, at least in these circumstances.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is this a topic for the Gothic list?
> >
> > Wilhelm Otto
> >
>

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

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

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