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

Tue Mar 19 09:06:55 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at y..., george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
>
> --- faltin2001 <dirk at s...> 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.

Hello George,

there is a lengthy article in the 'Beitraege zum Verstaendnis der
Germania des Tacitus, part 2', which stated that the name Venedi
means something like 'lowland or grass land dwellers'. It was
probably an outside name for a number of different people.
Also, the name Baltic is derived from a word meaning something like
murky or dirty if I remember correctly.

The earliest
> Goths (those mentioned by Strabo and Tacitus in his
> Annals) would be neither coastal nor Wielbark, but (by
> Holmesian elimination) Przeworsk.

I do  not see this logic. In fact, I belief that the earliest Goths
are Wielbark people.

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.

We had a discussion about the name of Catualda some time back. I
think it was convincingly argued that it is basically Celtic. If I
remember correctly 'Cat-' means fight or so in Celtic.

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 don't see why. Hachmann identifies such a territory at the east
back of the Vistula away from the coast.

> 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.******

I find this too compicated to assume a separate group of
Scandinavians who are coincidentially also called Goths. With
Hachmann and Pohl, the possibility that the Gothic name spread over a
wider territory crossing the Baltic Sea from ssouth to North should
be considered.

> >
> >(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.

Yet, the Lemovii are usually counted as Germanic, if only from their
geographical location.

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.*******

An adoption of strong central kingship in general from the Celts is
argued by most archaeologists working in this field. Archaeology
shows that a more stratified social organisation spread from south to
north. See for instance Heiko Steuer. The Marcomanni are the first
Germanic people to adopt a strong kingship under a Celticised elite
(All names of Marcomannic kings are Celtic) and this process was
probably in development during the times of Ariovistus (who also bore
a Celtic name) and his Suebian followings.

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

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FREE COLLEGE MONEY
CLICK HERE to search
600,000 scholarships!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/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/