[gothic-l] Re: "Eruli", "Goths", "Danes" and wherefrom the runes

[bobbusam <bobbusam@yahoo.com>]

Let me inject a word of caution.

Dirk writes> > Again, the Goths of the 5th/6th century were
Christians! In fact, a large part of the Heruls were likely also
Christians, some of them even Catholocs as is suggested by tomb stone
inscriptions from Concordia (see Fibinger).

The Goths and Heruls of this period could not have been Christian in
more than name. There is no evidence to suggest that they actually
believed in Christianity as such. The Goths adopted an heretical form
of Christianity for which they would be damned in the eyes of actual
Judeo-Christian peoples. I suspect that this decision was made for
political, not religious reasons. Choosing an heretical brand of
Christianity helped them to win the trust of their mainly Christian
subjects while at the same time keeping them seperate racially and
politically. I would call it a kind of segregation of churches. The
eventual failure of the Arian church as a religion seems also to
proove that its real purpose was political and not religious. I
suspect that most Goths were entirely agnostic businessmen with a
penchant for battle.

 Those Heruls who had retained paganism,
> had
> > likely nothing to do with the Asir gods, but from the
> archaeological
> > remains of the Hegykoe group likely followed a syncretic form of
> > steppe-nomadic Shamanism and Germanic and other paganism.

I suspect that they followed whatever brand of religion furthered
their economic prospects, Germanic or not.
>
> ## That can well be right, but this "Germanic and other paganism"
> could have been the earlier form of Asatru as we know it and can be
> evaluated from Icelandic material.

The earlier form of this religion would undoubtedly be the
Scandinavian one. It would also be the least corrupt form. Goths and
Heruls were emmigrants who came into contact with many kinds of
people. Whatever religion they followed must have degenerated
accordingly. Their later Christianity degenerated to the point that
it became extinct.

 But even if not so the Asatru
> could have emerged in the 6th-7th centuries in Scandinavia as a
> result of the Heruli migration.

I do not think so. This religion is known to be substantially older
than this, at least in Scandinavia. Many Germanic peoples emigrated
from this region long before the period you mention. These people are
all believed to have carried this religion with them. Although these
emmigrant populations eventually became extinct, the real origin of
the religion itself must be in Scandinavia.


 Elements of Christianity, shamanism
> and even Mithraism (as far as I remember) can be found in Asatru.
> Asatru is centered around the ancestor-cult princip. That is food
for thought too.##

I suspect that you are reading a lot into this religion which could
never have been a real part of it. For instance, there is certainly
no evidence for elements of Christianity or Mithraism in what you
call Asatru. This is mixing apples and oranges. Christainty comes
from Judaism. Jesus and all of his apostles were Jews of middle
eastern extraction. Mithraism is of Persian origin. The religion you
are talking about is rooted in Scandinavia. It must have developed
independantly of these other religions. You should probably consult
an authority on Scandinavia archeology about the early inhabitants of
Scandinavia. This religion could well be thousands of years old.

> >
> > Those Heruls who went to Italy after their defeat in 509AD, were
> > likely Arian Christians. They also must have included the highest
> > ranking members of the Herulic royal clan, because otherwise they
> > would not have been received by Theoderic. Similarly, those
Heruls who joined the Langobards, may partly have been Christians.
The remaining group which wondered around, starving and suffering
abuse and defeat by Gepids likely included those Herulic elements
which were composed of steppe nomads of ethinic
Hunnic/Mongolic/Turkic/Alanic origin. The non-germanic names of
their later federate kings like Grepes, Ochos, and probably Datius
and Aordos would support this view. We must not forget that the
Heruls were a multi-ethnic group. The non-Germanic and non-Christian
components of the Heruls likely found it most difficult to seek
integration among Langobards and Ostrogoths, which would have been
the normal course of action otherwise.

As you say, they were certainly multi-ethnic.
>
> ## What is unlikley is that these non-Germanics steppe nomads would
> have migrated north to Scandinavia. They would rather have migrated
> east. If they were so starving and suffering they would have sought
> shelter by the next nation wanting them into their ranks. Even to
> become Christians to get rid of their suffering.

They adopted in name whatever religious or political affiliation
furthered their economic conditions. We must be careful not to over
romanticize these people.

 The last thing on
> their minds would have been migrating to a very far away countries.
> They would not have had the reasources anyway.

This would ceratinly be economically infeasible, as you say.

> Probably Procopius account has to be seen in the light of that a
> pagan people lost battle with a Christian people and the result for
> the pagans: hunger and suffering! A good teaching lesson for them
who opposed the real God!

Attributing political or military victories to the "real" god or gods
has always been a game for fools. The real motives for and results of
war have nothing to do with religion. Whether Gothic or Herulian, the
most intelligent members of the ruling class have always known this.

Bob Busam




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/