[gothic-l] Re: Some alternative musings on Gothic origins

[george knysh]

--- faltin2001 <dirk at smra.co.uk> wrote:
> Rolf Hachmann (1970), also analysed the written
> sources of the frist
> centuries and also concluded that the early Goths
> did not live at the
> coast of the Baltic Sea, but further inlands. Other
> tribes that are
> also believed to be constituent parts of the
> Wielbark culture like
> the Rugi and Lemovii (I think) are specifically
> mentioned to have
> occupied the coast, while the Goths lived somewhere
> further south at
> the Vistula river.

*****GK: It is Tacitus who mentions the Rugi and
Lemovii (the latter sound as though they could have
been a Celtic tribe) as living along the seashore,
beyond the Goths. My tentative reconstruction (with
the help of the Ptolemy indications mentioned
previously) is that the Rugi territory began just west
of earliest Wielbark. They were connected with the
island areas (incl. Ruegen) and were remembered in
Gothic songs as the "Ulmerugi". Directly north of the
Goths, and on the coast, would be Venedic territory,
which I identify with both Oksywie and earliest
Wielbark. This is all very difficult and tentative of
course. One begins with a reiteration of the fact that
these "Venedi" were not Slavs. Perhaps their ruling
elements were the aforementioned Lemovii? Here are
some further revisable ideas. Why "Venedi" and
"Venedicus" Bay (Ptolemy)? Note that the Celtic root
for "white" is VIND(os). Note also that in the Baltic
languages "Balt-" also means "white". "Venedic" Bay
and Baltic sea would thus mean exactly the same thing.
Perhaps this is also where the name of the royal
Visigothic house also ultimately stems from (?). Why
"white"? In the colour scheme of the Iranians and
Balto-Slavs the colour "white" stands for "western".
In the view of the ancient Balts the "Baltic" sea was
the "western" sea, and the "Venedi" ("Balt-" would be
the population on their "west". A nomenclature adopted
by Celts when they seized control of the amber road,
and transformed the "Balts" into "Venedi". As
mentioned earlier I don't know that the ethnicity of
these "Venedi" was. Element X will do. The earliest
Goths (those mentioned by Strabo and Tacitus in his
Annals) would be neither coastal nor Wielbark, but (by
Holmesian elimination) Przeworsk. Your archaeological
point is important though. See below.******
>
>(DF) A location of the earliest Goths further inlands
at
> the Vistula might
> also be supported by the fact (as you said) that
> they had contacts
> with the Marcomanni. The fact that the Marcomannic
> prince Catwalda
> fled to the Goths might indicate dynastic links or
> at least
> presuppose some familiarity. Note that the names
> Catwalda and
> Maroboduus are actually Celtic.

*****GK: I'm open to that as to Catualda, though I
note that some also interpret it as a Germanic name. I
asked the linguists on cybalist about this but have
not yet received a  response. Note BTW that some
translate Tacitus' "inter Gotones" to mean that
Catualda was not so much a Marcoman noble exiled
there, as a Gothic noble exiled still further (beyond
the territory of the Gotones), who came back after the
initial defeat of Maroboduus. I prefer the former
scenario but can't altogether rule out the
latter.*****
>
> (DF)I don't see the necessity that the early Goths
have
> to be carriers of
> the Przeworsk culture, who are only later drawn into
> the Wielbark
> culture. Firstly, there is appartently no
> archaeological evidence
> that a Przeworsk group was incorporated into the
> Wielbark culture in
> the first century AD or BC.

******GK: I may have assumed this too quickly. I see
that some Polish archaeologists use words to indicate
that Przeworsk was simply pushed out of the phase C
area by Wielbark after 50 AD. I am still waiting for
Kokowski's book (1999) on Przeworsk. Note that at a
later phase of Gothic expansion Przeworsk elements
were included in the migrant groups. The archaeology
of Wielbark in Ukraine shows this conclusively. But I
admit that what was certainly the case in the period
170-220 may not have been the case earlier, and will
wait for further corroboration or refutation.******

 (DF)Secondly, the early
> Goths might have been
> dominated by or dependent of the Vandals or Vandalic
> groups, which
> does not necessitate that the Goths shared the same
> material culture.

*****GK: My problem here is that I see no room for the
Goths of Strabo, Tacitus' Annals, and Pliny in the
early Wielbark culture area. Strabo does not know (and
admits this) the identity of the peoples on the coast.
I suppose one might try to argue that the Goths were
located along the Vistula but significantly removed
from the coastline. This would make their territory
quite tiny. Not absolutely impossible, but improbable.
I prefer the view that the early Goths were the
Vandalic group which occupied the area of the later
phase C Wielbark prior to Wielbark expansion there
after 50 AD. Even if it should prove that the
Przeworsk inhabitants were pushed out (NB is there
evidence of violence, such as in the area of phase E,
where burned Przeworsk settlements indicate unfriendly
invasions?) we might apply the Bohemian scenario. A
victorious group of newly arrived Scandinavians
(perhaps also called "Goths" or something similar,
though this isn't necessary)and their Celto/Venedic
allies take over the land of the Goths and their
name.******
>
>(DF) To come back to the connection with the
Marcomanni:
> I think that the
> custom of inhumation instead of cremation was
> initiated by the Celts.
> Inhumation graves are sometimes called Heimstetten
> graves after a
> place near modern Munich in the territory of the
> Vindelici Celts. The
> contact that the early Goths had with the Marcomanni
> and their
> seemingly Celtic or Celtised elites may have led to
> the adoption of
> inhumations in the first century BC. My theory would
> be that at the
> same time the Goths would have adopted the concept
> of warrior-
> kingships (reiks) and warrior following
> (Gefolgschaften) from the
> Marcomanni and their Celticised elites. This
> 'innovation' might have
> allowed them to break free from Vandalic domination
> and to gain
> supremacy among the other groups within the Wielbark
> culture.

******GK: I'm not sure that the Vindelici or other
Western Celts or Western Celtisised Germanics would be
responsible for these innovations. In the first place
Celtic influence in Poland long antedates any possible
Marcoman input. Entire Celtic tribes settled here in
the 3rd c. BC. and were an important cultural factor
for centuries (La Tene). The Lemovii were the
Goths'next door neighbours. In the second place, I
doubt whether the peculiarly strong Gothic concept of
kingship was influenced by either Marcomans or Celts.
"Reiks" is certainly a Celtic input (and reflected in
Gothic royal names). "Kunigaz" would be Old Germanic.
But the specific Gothic term for "King" appears to
have been "Thiudans". I don't see any clear "outside"
influence for this, whether Celtic, Germanic, or
Scandinavian. It's something which came to be as a
result of the complex ethnogenesis mentioned earlier,
though the word coined for it was certainly
Germanic.*******


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
It's Easy. It's Fun. - Free Download.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BxtVhB/7XkDAA/_ZuFAA/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/