[gothic-l] Re: Ethnicity and religion

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

>
>
> I use the word ethnicity in this case as a common glue for peoples
> originating from the same god.This is what kept them together from
the
> beginning and what remains their contact even after all other
> cooperation is abandoned. Observe that they never had a common land
or
> realm all Goths never went to Vistula and  then towards Rome. There
> were, as I see it, just a number of peoples  with the same
motivation of
> power for their respective ruler claiming origin from Gaut -
directly
> for himself and generaly for the people.This is what made their
survival
> as single peoples possible even after  the Latin language and Roman
> milieu had surrounded them. After conversion Arianism fulfilled the
same
> function, completing the heritage. Ethnicity does not nessecarily
have
> to be defined as biological, geographical or political! Besides
these
> "many" Germanic peoples all either claimed origin (Origo, Diaconus
et
> c.) from Scandinavia or have provenly lived in the vincinity. In
this I
> include present Northern Germany in connection to present Denmark
and
> maybe locally also along the South coast of the Baltic. Also the
> Vistula-area of course since the Goths themselves (read
> Jordanes/Cassiodorus/Ablabius)claimed Scandinavian origin in the
first
> hand.



Hello Ingemar,

you seem to argue that the cult of Gaut originated in Scandinavia.
As the ancestors of its adherents spread out to settle vast areas from
Germany to Poland they continued to believe in Gaut, which thus is a
trait of common ethnic origin. In short, from the western Jutes (and
Saxon?) to the eastern Goths they are all 'Gothic-folks', because they
all included a god Gaut in their pantheon.

One problem with that is that Plinius said that the early continental
Gutones were part of a Lugian 'cultic' group. Wolfram stated that
until about 50AD the Goths were subject to the Celtic-dominated Lugian
group, which was from about 50AD Vandili dominated. Wolfram
explicitly stresses the strong Celtic influence on the Goths, which
may have been stronger than on many other Germanic tribes. At any rate
this Lugian-Vandili group included at different stages many tribes,
such as the Silingi, Asdingi, Lakringi, Victufali, Narharnavali,
Helvecones, Harrii, Gutones etc. The Gutones later broke away from
this group, which initially also dominated by the Markomanni.

This scenario also seems to fit well with early geographic locations
of the continental Gutones. Tacitus as well as Ptolemy seemed to have
placed them north/east of the Lugian group (Oder-Warthe area), not too
far away from the Markomanni (Bohemia) and not at the Baltic Sea
coast, from which they were separated by a series of Baltic tribes in
the North-East and the Rugii and Lemovii in the North-West. Moreover,
archaeologists always point out that the centre of the Wilbark culture
is not at the Baltic coast, but further south, inlands at the banks of
the Vistula and that its closest relation is the Przeworsk culture
which is usually identified with the Lugian-Vandili.


>
>
> > If I understand you correctly, then a common cult is enough to
> > establish common ethnicity, which I am not at all convinced is
> > justifiable.
>
> As I state above - that is my opinion. You are allowed to think what
you
> like of that.


As I said earlier, cultic beliefs and traditions are variable. In Rome
the Isis cult was in fashion at some stage, later it was the Mitras
cult and Christianity. In an inclusive rather than exclusive pantheon
of many gods, people could shift their favours among gods and add new
gods. Medieval rulers liked to trace their ancestry to Julius Caesar,
which did not mean that they were of common ethnic origin, while
Caesar said he was decended from Greek heros and demi-gods.


best regards
Dirk




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/