--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "F.E.J.D. IV" <visigoth at a...> wrote:
> Here please find the first part (or preamble) of some observations
> about the Goths and religion.
> I read Ingemar’s synopsis and it is truly quite interesting.
> I am of the opinion that the Goths most likely nucleated around a
> religious idea; the latter being one of the most powerful bonds
humans
> can have as we see in such stories as Abraham and Isaac…
> First however, I would like to digress in order to emphasize a point
> that is central to certain of the present views on ethnicity and
> Gothic scholarship and one that allows us to theorize about the
> elements that might have kept the Goths united.
> At the onset we must remember that it was in reaction to Romanticist
> attitudes that Reinhardt Wenskus developed the influential
> ‘Ethnogenesis Theory’ which argues that individual barbarian
tribes,
> whose members came from diverse backgrounds, were welded into
> politically and culturally cohesive units through allegiance to a
> group “Traditionskern†that resided in, and could be
manipulated by, a
> king or an aristocratic clan. Scholars such as Herwig Wolfram and
> Walter Pohl have continued to develop this theory, though it has
come
> under increased ((criticism)) for perhaps ((itself)) incorporating
and
> continuing Romantically informed assumptions (Amory, 1997).
I would say that the view of multiple ethnogeneses of the various
distinct Gothic tribes is well accepted nowadays and well supported
by the evidence we have. In fact, the view that the Goths were a
unique coherent and continuous group reflects, in my view,
romantically informed assumptions.
Recent
> decades have seen greatly increased interest in ethnicity and
> identity, and as has been revealed here in recent posts and in
> scholarly anthropological research on the subject it is extremely
> surprising how complex and poorly understood these phenomena
remain. I
> invite others to consider that at present, most anthropologists
> believe that ethnicity is grounded in the shared subliminal
> dispositions of social agents that shape, and are shaped by,
objective
> commonalties of practice which provide the basis for the recognition
> of commonalties of sentiment and interest, and the perception and
> communication of cultural affinities and differences (see Jones,
> 1997). The latter could, but might not include conceptions of shared
> ancestry (real or imagined). â€" It voices the reality that ethnic
> identity is very plastic and can assert itself in such things as
> historic European Gothicism, or a person’s desire to assert or
> identify with the various phenomena present in their own particular
> personal, cultural and/or historical milieu. In the case of
Spaniards
> and Swedes (among a few others) the latter has been perennial since
> their mutual histories are RICHLY and UNDENIABLY intertwined with
that
> of the Goths.
Well, Swedish Gothicism evolved already in the late middle ages on
the basis of misunderstandings, nationalism and pure ignorance of the
evidence. So even typing 'richly' and 'undeniably' in capital letters
does not improve on the accuracy of that claim;-) I assume you read
the recent (2002) book by Arny Soeby Christensen? If not, it will be
a real eye-opener.
For the latter no apologies need be made since it is a
> matter of record. It is also a well-known fact that a group’s
belief
> in shared ancestry remains a defining ethnic factor for many
scholars.
> In view of ethnicity’s plastic nature it becomes apparent that the
> ethnic affinities of any group (here more precisely of ancient ones)
> could be based on one or a number of particulars that anyone could
> have rallied around, (even us at present).
> Thus, in my opinion, it is quite likely the Goths nucleated around
> deep religious ideas and ceremonies held in common. Such a set of
> communalities could have begun in a group living in a geographically
> bound area at some point in time.
Yet, there is nothing specific Gothic in this and from your argument
one would have to conclude that every tribe had a relgious origin,
which is definitely not correct.
What cemented the group was most
> likely the “binding nature†of religious ideas and ceremonies.
> However, by the time the Goths left their ancestral geographic areas
> and were experiencing threats from other tribes it is quite likely
the
> criteria for acceptance changed in order to allow the admission of
> other groups and/or individuals with which they could combine to
fend
> off attacks. Thus, at such times religion became secondary to the
> pressures of mutual preservation. In fact, from before the time of
> Hadrianople until after the sack of Rome there were times when the
> Goths allowed groups and individuals into their ranks. Nonetheless,
I
> believe that the nature of the latter mergers is worthy of more
> investigation since certain mergers could have been quite tenuous
> and/or perhaps even temporary. In other words, individuals may have
> joined the Goths at different levels of commitment and for different
> reasons during a time of mutual necessity, some, in order to defend
> themselves from other tribes and/or to escape harsh economic or
social
> conditions or to run away from slavery. It is possible that some of
> the latter groups and individuals could have continued on with the
> Goths or on the other hand, DROPPED OUT of the tribe once they had
> ameliorated their condition or fulfilled their goals. The latter is
> hardly discussed, and not well understood. There is little or no
> direct certainty from a later period of time that “most of those
who
> joined at an earlier time were still members of the Goths years
> later.†Nor are there ample or adequate detailed descriptions of
> Gothic ranks from Roman or other sources around 410CE detailing what
> we need to know. After all, Romans would NOT have required
credentials
> of those sacking their capital, neither would they have questioned
the
> particular commitment to the Gothic tribe of a man about to split
> their cranium with a 10-kilo axe.
I hope you meant this jokingly, because if the Goths were foolish
enough to use 10-kilo axes they would never have made it as far as
Italy;-)
> Alas, it makes no qualitative difference who comprised their ranks.
> But it would be interesting to know how many joined and stayed and
how
> many joined and quit and their accompanying reasons.
My guess is that the available sources will not be sufficient to
answer such detailed questions. What the sources, however, do
indicate is that some of the Illyrian, Iranic tribes that are
recorded along the Danube until the 3rd century did merge into a
Gothic identity and that the ranks of the Goths swelled due to the
intake of Roman slavs, miners and peasants.
Nonetheless,
> whatever it was that united most of them for so long is quite
> remarkable despite the tenuous commitment or ulterior motives that
> some might have had.
> I hope others might enjoy discussing what is known about the
religion
> of the Goths,
There is an excellent article on pagan Gothic religion by Prof. A.
Schwarcs, which discusses basically everything that is known and that
can be said about Gothic paganism, but you will probably have read
this already. Also, if you have not done so, Volker Bierbrauer's
study on Gothic archaeology is an absolute must read on this subject.
Cheers
Dirk
------------------------ 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/