[gothic-l] Re: Jordanes and the Scandinavian Eruli

[Troels Brandt <trbrandt@post9.tele.dk>]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
> --- "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at p...>"
> <trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> > I agree, but Procopius wrote "one of the most
> > numerous nations there 
> > are the Gauti [Gautoi], and it was next
> > [para=at/beside/by] to them 
> > that the incoming Eruli settled at the time of
> > question"
> 
> ******GK: Hello Troels and Tore! Has anyone tried to
> make something of the seemingly redundant "at the time
> of question"? Arguing that Procopius was aware of a
> subsequent expulsion, but chose not to mention it? And
> that while the Eruli did "remain on the island" (as he
> earlier stated), by the time he completed his work
> (ca. 553/4) they were no longer where they were in
> 508-548?*******

The expression "tote" was discussed a year ago at Germanic List in a 
discussion about "para" and an immidiate integration. It was by 
Andreas translated "just then", and I found elsewhere the 
translation "at that time", but we agreed that this could mean that 
they had moved earlier. This appear to be the only reason to use the 
word as you indicate.

Also Jordanes and an expulsion before 519 was discussed in those 
mails.

I agree that Procopius expression "remained there on the island" 
indicated that they did not return, but I have only seen Alvar 
Ellegaard claiming that.  


> > This makes enclaves in the forests of Smaaland the
> > most probable 
> > choise in my opinion. Here the Dani had a reason to
> > expell them and 
> > they would live "para" the Gautoi. 
> > 
> > Troels
> 
> ******GK:If one assumes that Jordanes is reporting an
> event (the expulsion) which occurred earlier than the
> northward trek of the Procopian Heruls, then we have a
> paradoxical situation. Jordanes, in 551, is writing
> about something the Dani did to the Heruls a couple of
> generations ago, but is unaware of the aforementioned
> northward trek, of the Heruls' current location, or of
> the entire "king summoning episode".

In that case you can't avoid a paradox. The chapter is by nearly all 
scholars accepted to be written by Cassiodorus, except maybe the 4 
words about the Heruls which Andreas mentioned "probably" were 
written by Jordanes - because of the short timeframe 509-519. If we 
follow your logic, why didn't Cassiodorus in his text about the 
people in Scanza mention the Heruls going to Scanza 10 years earlier? 
I think this was what he did mentioning the most recent event he knew 
in that connection. 

> I find it easier
> to assume that it is Procopius who omitted to mention
> the post-548 demise of the northern Herulian political
> society because of his lack of interest in these
> "barbarians" unless they were of immediate relevance
> to Byzantine political and military issues,

If it was a recent event when Procopius wrote it had political 
relevance, but if it took place before 519 it was irrelevant. As 
discussed above he nevertheless indirectly revealed that he knew such 
an earlier event.  


> than that
> Jordanes knew nothing at all about them after the
> obscure pre-508 expulsion.== One would also have to
> assume, I think, that this pre-508 expulsion of some
> group of Heruls already in the north would have been
> mentioned by Cassiodorus, whom Jordanes merely copied.
> That is why, on balance, I find it more "economical"
> to take the view that it is indeed Jordanes and not
> Cassiodorus who is reporting the "expulsion" of the
> Heruls by the Dani, and that this expulsion is that of
> the Heruls who went northwards as per Procopius from
> the areas they occupied "at the time in question". The
> expulsion would thus be a very recent event, and
> Jordanes would not have to repeat the Procopian
> information.== I realize of course that any scenario
> here is based on pretty tenuous analysis. I just feel
> somewhat more comfortable with one that involves less
> (possible) assumptions than another.*****  

Let me answer with a scenario following the rules above:

The Heruls arrived in 509 passing without violence the Danes and 
settled in the borderareas between the Danes and the Goths (para 
Gautoi) where Eastgermanic horsemen had operated in periods the last 
75 years according to archaeology. The Heruls had to take up their 
old way of living from Moravia and were accordingly expelled by the 
Danes within 10 years - which was heard by Cassiodorus from Roduulf 
or another source. Therefore there are no obvious archaeological 
signs of this settlement. They had to escape the Danes going or 
sailing against north and became under the next 25 years members of a 
big society being the Gauts or the Svear. When the Heruls in Illyria 
needed a king the dynasty in Sweden was still powerfull enough to be 
attractive, but the integration into a new culture eliminated their 
few archaeological characteristics. At that time the new 
archaeological Vendel Culture with rich warrior burials and European 
connections emerged with Uppsala as the center. Jordanes did not care 
about Heruls - neither Illyrian nor Scandinavian - and Procopius 
mentioned Datius (as a part of a numerous dynasty) because he was 
relevant for Roman politics, but nothing about events or politics in 
Thule - he was more interested in the travel, the wild Sami and the 
midnightsun indicating that his eyewitness had been farther north 
than most Danes comes today.

I think the logic in the historical wording and generally accepted 
archaeology is followed here in the most simple way, though we 
probably have put more thinking in the words than the authors.

Did they go to the Gauts or the Svear? The Gauts were probably on 
high alert due to these dangerous neighbours and the Heruls would now 
be tempted by the contemporary growing richness of the Maelar region 
(metals in Bergslagen and trade at Helgoe) making the Maelar region 
the most probable choise. This is also confirmed by the indirectly 
indicated distances from the Danes and the midnightsun.

Earlier I have explained how the burial customs did not contradict 
such an integration - which can be found at Germanic-List or my 
website.

Tore wrote:
> ..This could also answer the question about Öland. The
> Danes expelled them from the mainland but the Heruls
> kept Oeland and continued up to Lake Mälar area.

As far as I remember the changes at Oeland are normally dated in the 
470'ies - pointing maybe at the earlier Eastgermanic warriors instead.

Troels


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/