[gothic-l] Gothic identity

[faltin2001]

The question of an ethnic Gothic identity is indeed very interesting. 
I agree with Ingemar, that there are indications that the earliest 
Gotonic identity might have been linked to specific cultic practices. 
Thus, we know that the Willenberg/Wielbark culture was characterised 
by weapon-less burials. Hence, a dead Willenberg warrior (supposedly 
including Gotones) had no need for weapons in the afterlife. In 
contrast the Przeworsk (Oder/Warthe) culture, which most likely 
included the Vandals and the closely related Lebus-group (associated 
with Burgundians) send their warriors heavily armed to the after-
life. Similarly, Elbe-Germanic and all North Germanic groups 
practiced weapon burials which clearly seems to contrast their 
thinking about the afterlife from that of the Willenberg/Wielbark 
Goths, who maintained the custom for several centuries. 

However, in seems that Gothic identity changed fundamentally at the 
Black Sea area. Scholars widely agree that the shift to the Black Sea 
resulted in a fundamentally new Gothic ethnogenesis, which 
incorporated different ethnic groups and most likely different 
cultic/religious ideas, including non-Germanic Alans, Sarmatians etc. 
The adoption of Sarmatian imagery is likely an indication of that. 
The very name of the Goths seemed to have faded into the background 
in the course of the 4th century and the various new tribal groups in 
that regions preferred names like Vesi, Terwingi, Taifali, Greutungi 
etc. It was probably only the Roman naming or lumping together of 
various groups as 'Gothi' which preserved the name and expanded its 
usage. In a similar way Roman ethnic naming had 'created' the 
Alamanni and the Franks. Clearly, the Goths were the first Germanic 
people to come into close contact with Christianity and attempts by 
individuals to convert must have been seen as threatening the pagan 
cults, which did result in persecutions. 

The adoption of Arianism by the Goths was not by choice, but quite 
accidental, as Arianism was the leading form of Christianity in the 
East in the 4th century. The differences to Catholicism are subtle 
and often technical rather than fundamental. As such I would 
therefore not emphasise Arianism as explanation for certain political 
behaviour. Especially is Arianism not the cause for tolerance which 
some groups have practiced at certain times, while others, like the 
Vandals have not. But I agree that Arianism did set the Goths (and 
other Germanic people like Vandals) apart from the Romanic 
population. 

Gothic identity at the start of the 5th century was, I think, largely 
determined by what others, i.e. the Romans regarded as Goths. Thus, 
the king and his magnates at the court of Toulouse were Vesi and 
regarded themselves as Vesi. This Vesi leadership commanded or was 
allied also to other groups, which increased their strengths, which 
presupposed military success, which in turn led to more people 
joining the Vesi and adopting their name. Wolfram specifically 
mentions runaway slaves, miners and poorer peasants. In the 6th 
century Visigothic rule and identity was threatened to fall apart in 
Spain. The kingship was extremely weak, the Visigothic elite sought 
to set itself apart from the majority population. Sources tell that 
non-Visigoth were denied certain positions as they 'lacked the 
nobility of the Gothic blood'. The great Visigothic magnates sought 
to extend their influence killing their kings almost at will, thus 
plunging Spain into decades of turmoil and weakness. Only at the end 
of the century, did Visigothic rule strengthen again and an important 
reason for this was the conversion to Catholicism. No longer divided 
from the majority population and linked to the church outside Spain, 
Visigothic kings could reassert central power. 

Kings such as Chindaswind and Recceswind were keen to end the 
division between Goths and Romano-Hispanics, abolishing the divisive 
legislation of Alaric II and adopting common law for all Catholic 
subjects. Indeed, in this time ethnic differences, as defined in our 
modern view played very little role. Instead, religion and social 
class was far more important. However, the ideas or ideals of 
Visigothic ethnic identity were revived and exaggerated later during 
the Reconquista to provide some form of common Christian-Visigothic 
identity to contrast from the Moslem-Arab rulers in the south. 


Cheers
Dirk










--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Ingemar Nordgren <ingemar at n...> 
wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> Now the discussion starts getting really interesting with the 
> introduction of the Agotes and specially so after Fernandos last 
mail 
> concerning the possible religious background of the Gothic 
ethnicity. 
> Those of you having had occasion to read my book Goterkällan-The 
Well 
> Spring of the Goths - in Swedish already know I have worked very 
hard to 
> make it probable the Gothic ethnicity indeed was religious from the 
very 
> start but definitely mixed genetically and linguistically, and I 
> consider myself to have succeeded fairly well in making that 
hypothesis 
> quite probable. I have however of course not finally proven I am 
right 
> but the indices are really convincing. There is also an English and 
a 
> German summary. I have already an English version ready but I have 
still 
> not found a publisher which means I am soon considering printing it 
by 
> myself. This however presupposes a number of forehand-orders that 
can 
> make it economically possible to print and distribute a book of 486 
pp 
> in size 17,5x25 cm weighing 1 kilo. (Anybody interested please mail 
me 
> personally.) I think however I will do some final searches for a 
> professional publisher at first.
> 
> I accordingly presupposes that religion was the etnic marker of the 
> Goths already from the start and that the old cult was surrogated 
with 
> Arianism which still divided them from the Mediterraneans and gave 
> possibility to internal control. The ethnic composition did not 
start to 
> break gradually until Reccared et consortes accepted the Catholic 
Nicean 
> faith and started follow the pope and his gang, persecuting Jews, 
the 
> own nobility et c.
> 
> Before I continue please read the article below concerning the 
history 
> of Arianism that is a summary of a lecture I gave at a symposion on 
Tree 
> of Life Slabs in Sweden and Byzantium in year 2000. After that it 
is 
> more easy to follow my reasoning.
> 
> Article from Liljestenar (Tree of Life Slabs):
> 
> The Tree of Life slabs are claimed to be relatively late medieval - 
12th 
> to 13th cc. - and they are classified as Romanesque grave-stones 
> influenced from England. This is indeed quite dubious both 
concerning 
> the supposed function and as well the proposed origin of influences 
and 
> the dating. To clarify these questions it is nessecary at first to 
> examine the religious background of the motive having been 
interpreted 
> in different ways in different cultures and times. You then have to 
> settle both the specific probable geographical area of origin and 
the 
> interpretation valid for that area and time, and so compare the 
result 
> with the local conditions.
> Generally the iconography of these slabs is founded on pre-
Christian 
> influences from Mesopotamia with details as stair-zikkurates, Trees 
of 
> Life and similar patterns. What is vital now is to decide when 
these 
> motives enter a Christian context, wich calls for an excurse in 
history 
> of religion.
> 215 AD in Rome Sabellius declared as his opinion that the Father, 
the 
> Son and the Holy Ghost were only different manifestations of God. 
He was 
> part of the modalistic school. Immideately he was classified as 
heretic. 
> Hundred years later the presbyterian Arius in Alexandria launched 
what 
> later was called Arianism. The modern definition of this faith says 
> shortly that the Son, the pre-existent Christ, is not of the same 
divine 
> character as the Father but the first created entity. This is 
however a 
> rude simplification of the complete story. Arius himself claimed 
the Son 
> had both a human and a divine nature. He was born human and raised 
to 
> divinity through a righteous life, like a boddisathva or deva being 
> given a divine status. This implies that even other humans could 
have 
> the chance being devinated in this way. Regarding the above 
mentioned 
> Sabellianism you could even interpret Arius saying Jesus was a 
human but 
> the reincarnated Christ was an incarnation of God, but in the 
visual 
> shape of Jesus. In this way both Sabellius and Arius succeed to 
give a 
> picture of a monoteistic God in opposition to the later in Nicea 
created 
> trinity God, which was understood as three different Gods by the 
Arians. 
> A great majority of the Eastern bishops sympatized with Arius and 
the 
> leading were the two Eusebius' in Caesarea and Nicomedia-the 
Eastern 
> residential city of the emperor. They had however a formidable 
opposer 
> in Alexander, pontiff of Alexandria and later this position was 
taken by 
> his deacon Athanasius, one of the most ruthless clergymen ever 
known in 
> history and fully comparable with e.g. Al Capone using the same 
criminal 
> methods to control the Alexandrian economy and the church. He was 
> several times abolished by the joint bishops, both Nicaenan and 
Arian, 
> because of his methods. Nota bene that all bishops used rough 
methods 
> but this was too much to take even for them. Athanasius and his, 
mostly 
> Western, followers claimed that the Father and the Son were of the 
same 
> nature, and hence they were regarded as polyteistic from Arian 
wiew. The 
> traditional Eastern wiew includes a God who is an abstract entity 
and a 
> single God. This goes as well for the Mosaic religion and it also 
> explains the later volontary Egyptian conversion into Islam.
> In 325 the famous meeting in Nicea was held. Emperor Constantine 
had 
> engaged the old bishop Hosius of Spain who sided with Athanasius 
and the 
> Westerners but because of the strong opposition there was a 
compromise. 
> The Arian bishops agreed that Father and Son were of the same 
nature but 
> interpreted it as being of a similar nature, not same. The Father 
was in 
> command of the Son and the Son was created. This resulted in almost 
> total victory for the Arians for a considerable time. In spite of 
the 
> compromise they fundamentally claimed there was but one real God. 
> Arianism dominates until the death of emperor Valens and the 
Vesigoths 
> accept the Arian faith in his time, and the Goths also send 
missionaries 
> converting all the other Germanic continental tribes of major 
importance 
> to Arianism except the Franks. The famous find in Pietroassa 
contained 
> also a collar with Byzantine reliefs picturing the motiv of the 
heart, 
> which is found on so many of the Tree of Life slabs in 
Västergötland. 
> This is tied to Mary. This opens for the possibility Arian 
Christians 
> lived in Scandinavia already around 500 AD because, according to my 
> research of the Goths, it seems that the continental Goths all the 
time 
> kept the contacts with their kin in the North, and this is also 
> supported by archaeological indications in Scandinavia but of 
course not 
> proven
> ( I. Nordgren 2000).
> Theodosius then calls a meeting in Constantinople in 381 forcing 
the 
> assembly to accept a dictate saying that the Father, the Son and 
the 
> Holy Ghost are of the same essence and that the Son existed 
together 
> with the Father before all ages. To get the Arian bishops to sign 
that 
> decision an amendment was issued, saying that the Father worked 
through 
> the Son and the Spirit and so stressing the unicum of the Father. 
As 
> soon as the Western delegates had returned home they rejected this 
> amendment. Soon after this Teodosius issued an edict banning 
Arianism by 
> law, and so it ceased in the empire but flourished in the Germanic 
> states. The united church was still in reality divided and now the 
> divison focused on the amendment which finally resulted in the 
split 
> 1054 because of the Filioque-question.
> Within the Eastern half of the pro-forma united church the old 
Arian 
> fight continued but now disguised as the Theotokos-debate. There 
were 
> two centrals, Antioc arguing the Arian wiew and Alexandria the 
Nicaenan. 
> The question was wether God could be born by a human woman. The 
> Antiocenes meant Jesus was both human and divine and hence could be 
> borne by a woman, but this was rejected by the Alexandrians 
claiming 
> Jesus Christ was wholly divine. In the long run this gives Mary a 
> similar position of type Boddisathva as Arius had given Jesus and 
she 
> is, as the first ever, made a saint. Her saintly background is of 
course 
> also closely connected with Isis and Harpokrates in the Late 
Antique 
> cult of Serapion and further back to the different Mother-
goddesses. 
> Here we touch also a connection to the Tree of Life. The council of 
> Efesos in 431 aknowledged the position of Mary as Theotokos. Jean 
> Damasce`ne writes in the 7th c. that Mary was the tabernacle in 
which 
> logos was incarnated into Jesus, finally making him Christ. Also in 
> James's protevangelium 4:1 and in Photius is stressed, that Marys 
> mother, Anna, had a vision that her daughter should be the 
instrument 
> delivering human blood to Christ, to be let out for the salvation 
of the 
> world. There is accordingly no doubt that Jesus is described as 
born 
> with human blood. After death Theotokos raised to heaven, now 
residing 
> with the Father and the Son. This is illustrated in the grave-
chapel of 
> Chora church, where Mary wears the imperial purple mantle.
> Here we are, accordingly, the old Orientalic trinity with father, 
mother 
> and son. Adding also the Gnostics we have a unification of male and 
> female-spirit and matter- both leading to the single allmighty God, 
the 
> result of both the forces like O and H becoming OH2. The female 
power is 
> connected to the Earth and the growing things and the male is the 
> spiritual force. Hence, also in Christian context Mary is connected 
with 
> plants and fertility. Very early the Tree of Life is connected with 
her 
> and so is the heart-palmette. The Tree of Life, in combination with 
the 
> hearts, indicates indeed Mary and her son, the Tree, growing out of 
the 
> soil but on a divine foundation of a zikkurate, and thereby 
stressing 
> that Jesus is born human, by a human mother, and is indeed the Son, 
not 
> the Father. Arianism has succeded to survive even in Västergötland 
year 
> 2000 AD. There is no doubt whatsoever of the Byzantine origin of 
the 
> motive and with all probability this style was originally connected 
with 
> the iconoclasm. The way influences came could be several. We have 
the 
> värings from the imperial guard as seen even on the Eastern crosses 
on 
> rune-stones and cists both in East- and West- Sweden, the possible 
> marriage between Syritha/Sigrid Storråda and Eric the victorious 
via 
> Bohemia, as proposed by Lindblom, MacMathan et al., the 
clunyasensis 
> (Mac Mathan) or the intermarriage liasons of Olof Skötkonung and 
his 
> daughter with the Kievan royal family. His daughter became an 
orthodox 
> saint. The fabrication was evidently centralized and controlled 
which 
> could point to nobles or rather the king, residing in exactly the 
area 
> around Kinnekulle where the real concentration of slabs occur. 
After 
> 1054 the Catholic church would not have admitted such stones unless 
> Hyenstrand is correct assuming a crusader as the initiator. Before 
1054 
> however even Adalberth had plans to establish himself as Patriarch 
over 
> the North. Hamburg-Bremen was affiliated with the emperor in the 
> investiture fight and also the Ottonian empire, specially Otto III, 
can 
> have influenced as his church in Gernrode from 963 might have 
influenced 
> the one in Husaby. England, however, is the least probable origin 
as it 
> seems. Their function is most likely as votive-stones and even 
standing 
> altar-stones, presumably originally placed inside or along the wall 
of 
> the early wooden churches and maybe also continously used for a 
while, 
> when early stone churches started to be constructed.
> It could be added that the only locations I have found relatively 
> similar stones except Byzantion and Västergötland is in Spain close 
to 
> Compostela de Santiago - in the Asturian area - and some single in 
Braga 
> and Carcassonne.
> .
> Literature: (above general standardworks of history of religion)
> 
> Karahan, Anne Den Heliga modern och Gudsriket, Dragomanen 3, s.48-
59, 
> Stockholm, Konstantinopel 1999 (The Holy Mother and the Divine 
Realm)
> Nordgren, Ingemar Gravmonumenten vid Husaby, Götiska Minnen 106, 
> Lidköping 1990 (The grave monuments at Husaby)
> Nordgren, Ingemar Gotlands kelto-romerska arv, Götiska Minnen 113, 
> Lidköping 1992 (The Celto-Roman Inheritance of Gotland)
> Nordgren, Ingemar Goterkällan-Om Goterna i Norden och på 
Kontinenten, 
> Göteborg 2000 (The Well Spring of the Goths)
> Photius/CyrilMango The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of 
Constantinople, 
> Cambridge, Mass. 1958
> Rubenstein, Richard E. When Jesus became god. The epic flight over 
> Christ's Divinity in the last days of Rome, New York, San Diego 1999
> S. Jean Damasce`ne/P. Voulet Homélies sur la nativité et la 
dormition, 
> Paris 1961
> 
> Well, to continue the reasoning from above I will stress some 
social and 
> religious factors within the Visigothic society in Spain during the 
> Arian epoch
> It is known already from the Toulose-realm that there were both 
Arian 
> and Catholic bishops and that every citizen could choose freely - 
all 
> were in fact not at all Goths in the poulation but also the Goths I 
> think were tolerant towards each other as well as they were 
tolerant 
> towards confessors of other religions. The Jews e.g. had special 
> permission from the king to establish an own community. In the 
period 
> after Reccared the intolerance towards Arian grew worser but as far 
as I 
> know Arianism was not forbidden and also practiced by many, both 
> commoners and nobles. There were several revolts towards the 
different 
> ruling kings and these were founded both on political and religious 
> base. The most disastrous during this epoch was however the 
> Toledo-councils of the church and the demand from the pope to 
persecute 
> Jews ending up in their total slavery in 702. No wonder they 
supported 
> the moors. The Jewish question took I presume that much effort that 
> there never was taken real action against the remaining Arians. 
Many of 
> these might have stayed in the Moorish areas where they presumably 
were 
> better treated than by Catholics. Remember their opinion of Jesus 
is 
> much closer to the Moslem wiew as demonstrated by the Egyptians. 
Now 
> after 711 however the remaining Catholic rests of the former 
Visigothic 
> state up North must have considered these Arians as illojal and 
> presumable traitors, but still have well known that they were 
deeply 
> religious and that they allways had attended the Visigothic 
churches. 
> Also remember that before the filioque-guestion caused the final 
split 
> in 1054 a lot of the "Catholics" still were in fact "Arian" or in 
any 
> case "Eastern" in their interpretation. There was a broad agenda to 
act 
> within with other words.
> These "traitors" hence could not reasonably be totally expelled by 
the 
> church but they could be punished with a low social position and 
> restrictions similar to those in fact applied by Hitler with the 
> Jew-stars et c. They could also loose the right to be called 
> Goths-Gotas. The little letter 'a' in Latin and Spanish means among 
> else'no,not'. The Agotas then could be the 'Non-Goths''the Un-
Goths', 
> the humans beings denied to be called Goths any longer. In 
surrounding 
> countries they still for a time seem to have been regarded as just 
Goths 
> in e.g. the example with Bisigotas given in another mail. In time 
the 
> Spanish name spread to other countries but not in the same form and 
> hence we have the Cagots. They were allowed to visit church but not 
> allowed to communiate but had a special 'benitor' saint to attend 
to. In 
> time their pure Arian background was forgotten and they were 
regarded 
> Catholics but I am sure they never really were Roman Catholics even 
if 
> the society around regarded them as such. Maybe they at last even 
> themselves were not aware of the difference and of the original 
reason 
> of their status.
> 
> Well here I stop right now. I suppose somebody will tell me I am 
totally 
> wrong out and that all my ideas are stupid. If so I am used to that 
> reaction. This is just a try to a possible solution of the Agota-
mystery.
> 
> Best wishes
> Ingemar



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Z1wmxD/DREIAA/yQLSAA/wWMplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/