[gothic-l] Re: Gothic Religious Ancestry

Tue Mar 19 08:45:38 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at y..., Ingemar Nordgren <ingemar.nordgren at e...> wrote:
> Yurij Knysch wrote:
>
> ".... It would therefore appear that a somewhat complex
> ethno-political process was underway in northern
> Poland after ca. 50 AD. The original Vandalic Goths
> were progressively absorbed into the Wielbark culture
> where they co-existed with the descendants of early
> Wielbark (Venedi) and with Scandinavian newcomers. The
> resulting community of peoples retained the name
> "Goths" as an umbrella appellative. One can speculate
> about the reasons for this: perhaps the Scandinavian
> intruders (the new ruling class acc. to our later
> sources) were also called "Goths" or variants thereof;
> or possibly the powerful kingship of the community had
> its territorial center among the Goths of the west
> rather than among the Venedi of the north and east.
> And all this already before phases D-F.
>
> 4. Obviously this is a very rough sketch which
> requires polishing and emendation. The key point is
> that if the original Goths were a Vandalic people of
> the Przeworsk culture,then we must ask under what
> conditions the term "Goth" became associated with
> them.
>
> Greetings Yurij!
>
>
> The first concrete information of Goths	emanate from about
BC. The first one
> mentioning them is Strabo writing about Boutones and who are
connected
> with Marbod (Strabo, Geogr. IV, 1, 3). Zeuss proposed the reading
> Goutones (Zeuss 1837, s.134) and it is since that generally
accepted. It
> is written after the victory of Germanicus year 16 AD but probably
> before the  flight of Marbod because this happening is not
mentioned.
> Plinius writes 79 AD   of Guiones or Gotones and  also  refers to
> Pytheas who is supposed to have known of the Goths in connection
with
> the amber trade. This is however by Hachmann and some other
regarded as
> an misunderstanding, so there is accordingly several opinions of
that.
> He regards the Goths as part of the Vandili and they are mentioned
> together with Burgundians, Varines and Charines (Hist.Nat.14). His
> geographic information is vague in the Eastern part of Middle
Europe.
> Tacitus writes 98 AD about the Goths as allies of Catualda in his
fight
> against Marbod. He calls them Gotones. About their  settlements he
> writes: "Trans Lugio Gotones regnantur, . . . Protinus deinde ab
Oceano
> Rugii et Lemovii, . . "( Germania 44). Accordingly he beleives they
live
> North or Northeast of the Lugii and further into the mainland than
> Rugii, Lemovii, Aesti and Sithones who he explicitly says live at
the
> Sea. Close to the Lugii (later Vandili) he mentions Helvecones
which he
> regards as part of the Lugii. These Helvecones Ptolemaios calls
Ailouaiones.
>
> We are accordingly dealing with the area around the lower
> Vistula/Weichsel and it's outflow in the Baltic. He does not
mention the
> river but he sees a border in the East between the Germanics, which
he
> counts to the Suebi, and the Sarmatians in that area he calls
Sarmatia.
> He does not know wether he shall include Peucini, Venethi and Fenni
with
> the Germanics or the Sarmatians.(Germania 46)
>
> Ptolemaios mentiones c:a 150 Gudones  but not in the same location
as
> Tacitus did. Beyond Weichsel he gives Ouenedichos Kolpos, South of
these
> at Vistula/Weichsel Gudones. At the coast he mentions Seidinoi
> (Sithones), Rougichleioi (Rugii), Ouenedai (Venethi), Ailouaiones
> (Helvecones? Aesti?) and Bourgountes( Burgundii). Further in the
land
> along the Western side of Vistula/Weichsel and it's upper part are
> mentioned Lougoi (Lugii). Ptolemaios also mentions Goutai and Guti
> (Gautar, Gutar,) as living on the island Scandia (Ptolemaios II,
11. 16).
>
> If these sources are trustworthy we can  conclude the name of Goths
or
> variants has been recognized in the area since the 3rd c. BC.
If Pytheas
> is counted out Strabo is the first source.

Hello Ingemar,

as we have heard several times, and all authors seem to agree Pytheas
does not mention the Goths and the first source is Strabo.

If he knows of them about 16
> AD they must have a considerably longer history on the continent
and so
>   I reckon at least during the 1st c.BC the developement ought to
have
> started and preferably still earlier.

That is practically impossible to assume. The emergence or formation
of the Goths can under no circumstances be dated earlier than 50BC,
based on historical and archaeological sources.

> We also note the Goths are mentioned by Tacitus to live North of
the
> Lugii wich is  at the Weichsel/Vistula.
> Hence  we do in fact not know exact where they lived or they
preferably
> were spread over a bigger surface. We also can conclude that it is
> probable the formation  of the Goths took some time and that
several
> tribes were part of that formation. Heathers sense of a cultic
league
> seems  more and more convincing.
>
> The real trigger however can have been the late Scandinavian
influence
> during the 1st c.BC and the 1 c.AD even if there probably already
were
> Scandinavians present before.

This is not borne out by any of the archaeological reports that I
read, but we have been over that many times. The key things to
remember are the Oksywie and Wielbark cultures were autochtonous and
thus developed without significant imports from other cultures.
Scandinavian influence is very spuradically only possible at the end
of the first century AD.

>
> You, Yurij,  propose a Vandilic connection and so does Herwig
Wolfram. I
> agree to a certain extent. Wolfram sees a cultic league between
Vandili
> and Goths but I rather see kind of political dependance during an
inital
> period. In one way however I can agree with Wolfram. They probably
have
> a common cultic background in part even if the Vandili not have a
> teophoric name. My Ring name survey, published in Migracijske Teme
1-2,
> Zagreb 2000, indicates a relationship between Goths, Burgundians
and
> Vandili pointing towards a common Scandinavian background. Dirks
> proposal the warrior kings and the Gefolgschaft should come out of
> direct Celtic influence via the Vandili I do not buy.

The fact that the Germanic 'Gefolgschaftssystem' was adopted from the
Celts is widely held and not contested at all. In general, this is
reflected in innovation in the material culture, i.e. the spread
of 'princely graves' and 'weapon graves' etc. which all originate
from Celtic areas.

> Gefolgschaften is
>   a common Germanic thing and the  title 'reiks' is a title applied
by
> the Romans/Wulfila and not by the Goths themselves.

Are you sure that the name 'reiks' was not used by the Goths? It did
seemed to have entered their personal names (endings in -ric) quite
strongly, which leads me to suspect that it was long before the time
of Wulfila adopted into Gothic.

cheers,
Dirk

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4.
No Minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BgmYkB/VovDAA/ySSFAA/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/