[gothic-l] Cultic origin as ethnicity

[Ingemar Nordgren]

Hi Dirk,
You wrote



"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."


Dear Dirk,

It's a pity you can not read my book in spite of you having a copy. I
have argued a lot about these matters. In short the dependence of the
Celtic Lugii-group was in my wiew political and not cultic, as Wolfram
argues.When the Vandili were strong enough they broke loose. The same
goes  for the Gothic dependancy of the Vandili - political - and they
also broke loose. Note that the burial customs differ between Goths and
Vandili. However the Goths and Vandili may have an earlier common
background  having traces back to Gaut since both might be of Nordic
ancestry. The Vandili are supposed to come from Jutland as the Jutes and
hence the  Vandili can have an original Gothic background in spite of
not mentioning themselves after the progenitor. This could also be true
of Langobards having lived in the old cultic influence area of the old
Nordic Bronze Age cult  and the rising cult of Gaut. Also the
Burgundians may have those connections.A  political, technical influence
from the Celtic oppida-culture does not mean these peoples could not
have had Gaut as original creator. The common Gaut-background can be as
old as from about 500 BC and the Vandili where earlier omn the continent
than the Goths. Please also observe that certain areas of present
Nortwestern Germany was part of the old Bronze Age culture area of
Scandinavia.
About the extension and centre of the Wielbark or Goto-Gepidic culture
neither archaeologists nor antique autors are at all agreed with each
other. Hachmann and Bierbraurer are not the only serious archaeologists.
Jerzy Kmiezinski and Jerzy Okulicz for example go astray and so do many
other.I regard the whole river-mouth-area and also the Masovian area as
Gothic - an expansion over time gradually covering more and more.

I stick to my definition of ethnicity as a common cultic origin -
peoples  being created by the same god.

I am going away a couple of days for holiday travels now so possible
answers to your expected commentary may be quite delaid.

Cheers
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/