[gothic-l] Re: Counts of Coimbra ?

[F. E. Ximenez]

Greetings again Dirk:


> > Hi F.E. Ximenez,
>
> > > Julian von Toledo (died 690) distinguishes in his Historia Wambae
> > > Regis only between Spaniards (Hispani) and Gauls (Septimani and
> > > Galli). He does not mention Visigoths (or Suevi) in Spain, which
> > > has been interpreted to mean that Visigoths no longer had a
> > > distinguishable identity by that time, but considered themselves
> > > mainly as Spaniards. The chronicles of 754 also makes no
> > > mentioning of Visigoths for the whole period from 711,
> > > which also underlines the fact that a separate
> > > Visigothic identity had become at best an amorphous concept by the
>
> > > time of the Moslem conquest.

> > SOME THINGS TO CONSIDER:

> > 1). There could be reasons (OTHER THAN THE ONES YOU STATE)  for not
> > mentioning some sort of Visigothic identity in the Wamba Regis.

> Certainly, yet in the Wamba Regis Visigoths were identified as
> Hispani, which seemed to have been agreeable to them, thus indicating
> that a Visigothic identity had become amourphous. This is also only
> natural, since Visigothic elites had intermarried with the Roman
> elites (and other local groups) for several generations. Thus, the
> term Hispani was likely seen as more accurate than Visigothic for
> most of them.

What would you say to the Epistolae Wisigothicae (recognizing a
Visigothic Identity) written shortly after the Wamba Regis plus the
sundry citations Bertil has cited?

Perhaps you are looking at it as "a glass half empty", on the other
hand, perhaps I am looking at it as "a glass half full": Thus, in the
latter view, perhaps the "Spaniards" that you speak of (had been) or
(were in the process of) for lack of a better term, becoming
"Gothicized". An interesting question to ponder is [whose identity was
becoming amorphous, that of the Hispano Romans or that of the
Visigoths?]. I dare think that both were becoming amorphous, that is,
lacking the form each of those identities had early on in the Visigothic
period. Nothing is static after all; the culture of the Goths under
Ermanaric was no longer the same culture by the time Wallia was anointed
king - by that time - were they still Visigoths, or something else ?
(Surely, there is a point at which an identity becomes so amorphous that
it becomes forgotten or can no longer be discerned). There seems to be
good evidence that a strong Visigothic identity remained viable well
into the founding of the Castilian Kingdom. Even at present, many people
(especially north of Madrid) still identify with their Visigothic
heritage. It is strongest in Asturias where the bulk of Visigothic
palaces, churches and relics still exist and whose emblem is the cross
of Victory; the processional cross that Pelayo the Visigothic Noble is
mythically purported to have seen in a vision before he defeated the
Moors at Covadonga. As an aside, the recognition of the mainlanders as
descendants of the Goths can be comical. Once as I landed at Tenerife
(Canary Islands) for a vacation. One of the first things I saw was a
sign that read: "Godos Fuerat" [Goths go home!] a reference to Spanish
mainlanders who are termed Goths and who flood the beaches in the
wintertime. ----

Nonetheless, getting back to our discussion - Shortly after the time of
the Germanic invasions Europe can be seen as a crucible in which the
cultures of a rapidly declining Roman empire and the relatively newly
arrived cultures of Germanic peoples (which had ascended into power)
combined in ways that became the foundation for the Europe of today. Not
wholly Germanic and not wholly Roman in tradition (Certainly Catholic).
Undeniably however, is the fact that Europe is in great part (so to
speak) a "Germanic" interpretation of the Roman Empire (The Holy Roman
Empire) with its (Germanic) emperor.

> > 2). Isidore of Seville D.636 (writing prior to the Wamba Regis)
> mentions
> > certain traditions, customs and habits peculiar to the Visigoths.
> One
> > such was the way the Visigothic Kings traveled. Isidore tells
> us: "They
> > wore a golden crown, were encumbered with a heavy robe of silken
> > embroidery, and reclined on a litter or car of ivory drawn by two
> white
> > asses led by valets, as was the way the Gothic kings of those days
> went
> > about". With the latter in mind allow me to mention two ( 2 )
> peculiar
> > equine bits found by archaeologists some time ago. They were
> identified
> > as King Witiza's due to a latten inlay bearing the initials V over
> A as
> > well as their provenance. The curious thing about the TWO bits is
> that
> > they have no fillet reins, which means that a mounted rider could
> not
> > have used them. Instead, we find two rings for the fastening of
> leather
> > straps by which a valet could lead the animal about. (Artiñano y
> > Galdecano, P.M., "Exposición de Hierros Antiguos Españoles" 1919:
> 42).
> > The latter shows that certain Visigothic traditions were still
> alive in
> > 710 CE,  a year prior to the invasion by the Moors.
> > 3). The Wamba Regis is only one manuscript as opposed to so many
> others
> > that do mention a Visigothic identity during different periods in
> > history. For example, THE CITY OF UVIÉU, (OVIEDO) IN what is now the
>
> > province of ASTURIAS (AN AREA NEVER BREACHED BY THE MOORS), BECAME
> THE
> > URBS REGIA, THE 'ROYAL SEAT' OF THE (VISIGOTHIC NOBILITY) AFTER THE
> > MOORISH INVASION. Oviedo in essence became the staging ground of the
>
> > Reconquest. It was in Oviedo that Alfonse II (of direct Visigothic
> > ancestry) reinstates a second Visigothic kingdom. THE LATTER IS
> ATTESTED
> > IN HIS OWN WORDS IN THE CHRONICLE OF ALBELDA IN ABOUT THE YEAR 822
> CE.
> > (Many years after "Wamba Regis"). The Chronicle of Albelda
> reinstates
> > the Visigothic Kingdom at Ovieu in the following words:
> > "OMNEM GOTORUM ORDINEM SICUT TOLETO FUERAT " ( THE WHOLE
> ORGANIZATION OF
> > THE GOTHS JUST AS IT WAS AT TOLEDO).
> >
>
>
> I am not familiar with these sources. Yet, I know the assessment that
> I presented has a firm basis in the academic literature .
>

Unfortunately,  the latter is dismissed quite readily!

>
> > > However, Moslem leaders did claim decent
> > > from king Witiza, whom they regarded as the last legitimate king.
> In
> > > these claims the Visigothic ethnic component was, however,
> > > irrelevant - let alone their Christianity of course. What was
> > > important to the new Moslem/Berber elites was to cement their own
> > > legitimacy to rule over Spain by (initially mainly invented)
> > > association with the previous dynasty.
> > >
> > > I suppose there is reason to believe that a Visigothic ethnic
> > > identity was only 'resurrected' later during medieval times,
> probably
> > > in conjuntion with the 'Reconquista',

When do you think the Reconquista started?
It started in 722, eleven years after the defeat at Covadonga, under
Pelayo, a Visigothic noble. There was no need to resurrect an ethnic
identity since no ethnic identity had died.

> when the Visigoths were
> seen as
> > > legitimate, and above all, Christian Catholic rulers of Spain, as
> > > opposed to the Moslems, who were seen as illegitimate usurpers. I
> > > think that claims to Visigothic decent by individual noble
> families
> > > should mainly be seen in this context.
> >
> > There are pedigrees (many directly to the Visigothic kings) for a
> great
> > majority of the Nobles that took refuge in Asturias, many seem to
> have
> > been aware of their ancestry and its implications.
> >
>
>
> That is well possible. However, as I mentioned also Moslem and Berber
> elites claimed decent from Witiza and there was intermarriage between
> Moslem and Christian (Visigothic) elites in the preceeding period.

Remember now- we are talking about two areas here, one in the north,
where the Visigothic nobles retreated and began the Reconquista
(Asturias) never breached by the Moors and free of muslim influence -
and another area to the south under Moorish domination where Moors,
using propaganda tried to legitimize their caliphate.
There were a few marriages in the occupied areas, NOT in Asturias. The
mtDNA paper I discussed earlier in another thread bears this out.

> > > They were more a reflection of
> > > Christian Medieval Spanish identity rather than a reality
> connected
> > > directly to the end of the Visigothic period. This does of course
> not
> > > change the fact that some of the oldest noble families
> (especially in
> > > regions like Asturias) were partly of Visigothic decent, but this
> was
> >
> > > mostly irrelevant in the context of the late 7th century but only
> > > assumed importance in later centuries.
> >
> > The word "partly" and "descent" are very problematic. I suppose
> that any
> > individual may be "partly" descended from many different things e.g.
>
> > (apes, paleolithic people, Celts, the ancient autochtonous
> populations
> > of certain areas. An Englishman may be all of the latter despite the
>
> > fact that he and his ancestors may have lived in Anglia since the
> 40,000
> > Angles landed there in the early fifth century thus, he may claim
> to be
> > of English descent, but is he really?.
> >
>
>
> I don't think that the words 'partly' and 'decent' are very
> problematic. These supposedly Visigothic nobles would almost
> invariably have had also Roman and other local ancestors. So their
> decent can only have been partly Visigothic at any rate.

That IS precisely the point - that IS the reality - everyone is ALWAYS
only part (anything), especially in Europe - whether we call ourselves
Swedes or English, Dutch or French, we are only PARTLY Swedish or Dutch
or French because we are always related to some other ethnicity
somewhere along the line.

> A. Schwarcz
> has shown in an article on Visigothic elites in the 5th century, that
> even Visigothic military leaders were sometimes actually Roman
> aristocrats. What will have mainly mattered to them in the 7th/8th
> centuries was the fact that they were Catholic Christians. This was
> something that united them with all other Catholic Hispani in the
> country and distinguished them from Moslems and Jews.

Wholeheartedly agreed here!


 I suppose that this topic brings to mind the question: What was it that
made a Goth a Goth or a Visigoth a Visigoth? His language, his customs,
allegiance to a leader, religious belief, (all - or some of these
things?). In kind of the same way, when do we stop calling him Goth or
Visigoth? This may be an interesting question for a future topic.
Regardless of the extant literature it may be interesting to revisit
this at some point.

Cheers,
F. Ximenez


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O3jeVD/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/