Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [gothic-l] Thuringians = Tervingian Goths

Expand Messages
  • macmaster@riseup.net
    The main questions I would have regarding this theory are: -- why wouldn t anyone 400-600 have called the Thuringians Goths ? They were allied to Theodoric s
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The main questions I would have regarding this theory are:
      -- why wouldn't anyone 400-600 have called the Thuringians "Goths"? They
      were allied to Theodoric's italian kingdom and generally appear as
      themselves but no mention is made of Northern Goths. the Gothic name at
      this time would be far more prestigious and I would assume that it would
      be much vaunted.
      -- wouldn't this involve a major linguistic shift from East Germanic? Is
      there any evidence of this?

      Tom


      faltin2001 wrote:
      > Hello all,
      >
      > I read the study „Stamm und Reich der frühen Thüringer nach den
      > Schriftquellen" (i.e. Folk/tribe and realm of the early Thuringians
      > according to historical sources) by Dr. Heike Grahn-Hoek, in
      > Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte, Vol. 56 (2002).
      > The study comprises 87 pages in small print. It is extremely well
      > sourced and argued to the highest academic standards. As indicated by
      > the title, the author relies exclusively on historical sources and in
      > fact explicitly excludes archaeological evidence to avoid circular
      > arguments. As far as I can see, her study was well received by other
      > historians (e.g. H. Castritius in RGA).
      >
      > The argument of key interest in my view centres on the origin of the
      > Thuringians. The author explains that the most common theory suggests
      > that the name was derived from an older tribal name Hermun-d u r e n.
      > However, she adds that this explanation has always been doubted by
      > linguists. Thus, the author re-examines the various name forms
      > provided in the earliest sources. Based on Malchus a Greek source of
      > the 5th cent. who provided the Greek form The-ou-r-ingoi (in Latin
      > The-u-r-ingi) she argues that this name may be derived from The-r-u-
      > ingi the name of the Gothic Tervingi through a simple switch of ou/u
      > and r. She states that there are other examples in antique sources
      > where such an `u - r switch' occurred.
      >
      > The author states that the time frame for the emergence of
      > Theuringoi/Thuringians and the disappearance of Theruingi/Tervingi
      > around 400 AD matches perfectly. The Theuringi are first mentioned in
      > 400AD (Vegetius), but the source implies that at this time they were
      > already very well known throughout the empire. Thus, the
      > identification of Theuringi with Theruingi would fill a gap in the
      > sources.
      >
      > Next, the author moves to the main part of her examination, the study
      > of historical sources in order to see whether a link between
      > Theuringi/Thuringians and Theruingi/Tervingians can be postulated. In
      > shortest possible terms, she takes the events surrounding Athanaric's
      > Tervingi as the starting point. Faced with the Hunnic onslaught, in
      > the 370s the Tervingi were beset by a crisis with a pro-Roman, pro-
      > Christian faction led by Fritigern which sought settlements within
      > the Roman empire and a pagan anti-Roman faction led by the Athanaric.
      > Athanaric had at one stage vowed never to set food on Roman soil.
      > Yet, for whatever reason he was later compelled to seek refuge with a
      > small following in Constantinopel. His part of the Tervingi was taken
      > over by `proximorum factione' (ie. relatives), who according to
      > Marcellinus Comes sought refuge "far away in lands (domicilium
      > remotum) unknown to the Huns". The author's argumentation here is
      > extremely detailed and suggest that these Tervingi were located
      > further north than often believed at that time.
      >
      > Next, the author discusses the campaign of Radagaisus in 405/06. She
      > explains that his attribution to Greutungi (Ostrogoths) or Tervingi
      > (Visigoths) is uncertain. Since he is described as a pagan in
      > contrast to the Christian Tervingi under Alaric some scholars argue
      > that he must have been a Greutungian Goths. However, the sources call
      > him simply a rex (basileus) Gothorum, i.e. a king of the Goths.
      > However, Radagaisus is not listed among the ancestors of the
      > Ostrogothic Amals. Thus, other scholars argue that Radagaisus was a
      > Tervingian and possibly even the one who succeeded Athanaric. Thos
      > who believe that he as a Tervingian successor of Athanaric usual
      > place him in the so called Caucaland, i.e. the Carpathian region.
      > Yet, most interestingly, Zosimos provides evidence for the
      > geographical origin of Radagaisus by stating that he had come from
      > the lands between Danube and Rhine. This is exactly the description
      > for the geographical location of the Thuringian kingdom and it would
      > make no sense if he had started out in the Carpathian mountain
      > region.
      >
      > The author points out that the name Radagais appears later in the
      > Thuringian/Warnian royal family with a prince Radagis. The component
      > Rada- is found in royal Thuringian names like Rade-gundis (two
      > princesses) and a 7th century Thuringian duke/king Radaulf. The `–
      > gais `component of Radagais is used again in the name of the
      > Thuringian prince Arta-gais/Arta – chis.
      >
      > As mentioned earlier, the author deliberately excluded archaeological
      > evidence in order to avoid circular argumentation. One a footnote in
      > her study refers to supportive archaeology. However, the
      > archaeological evidence available already is in my view a key support
      > for the theory that Theuringi/Thuringians are identical with
      > Theruingi/Tervingian Goths. Berthold Schmidt has shown already in the
      > 1980s and 1990s that substantial groups of carriers of the
      > Cheryhakovsk/Sintana-de-Mures culture (which is associated with the
      > Goths) arrived in middle Germany and settled at the centre of the
      > later Thuringian kingdom. These groups are known under the technical
      > terms Grossbadegaster and Niemburger groups. They arrived in middle
      > Germany in the 370/380s just at the time when Athanaric's Tervingi
      > disappear from the sources. Following Grahn-Hoek's argument these
      > would have been the Athanaric-Tervingi probably under the leadership
      > of Radagais.
      >
      > Overall, H. Grahn-Hoek's study is extremely well argued and provides
      > a wealth of information. I think it is particularly important not
      > only for its contribution to Thuringian history and in particular the
      > ethnic/political origin of this people, but also because of the
      > contribution to Gothic history. It now seems likely that besides the
      > various creations of historically important Gothic kingdom on the
      > territory of the Roman empire, there was also one historically
      > important Gothic kingdom founded outside the Roman empire `…remotum
      > ab omni notia barbarorum…' which, in line with Zosimos, was located
      > between Danube and the Rhine centring on an area that carries its
      > name to this day.
      >
      > Cheers
      > Dirk
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • faltin2001
      ... Thuringians Goths ? They ... name at ... would ... Germanic? Is ... Hi Tom, firstly, if Radagaisus belonged to this group (between Danube and Rhine), as
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 22, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, macmaster@r... wrote:
        >
        > The main questions I would have regarding this theory are:
        > -- why wouldn't anyone 400-600 have called the
        Thuringians "Goths"? They
        > were allied to Theodoric's italian kingdom and generally appear as
        > themselves but no mention is made of Northern Goths. the Gothic
        name at
        > this time would be far more prestigious and I would assume that it
        would
        > be much vaunted.
        > -- wouldn't this involve a major linguistic shift from East
        Germanic? Is
        > there any evidence of this?
        >
        > Tom
        >


        Hi Tom,

        firstly, if Radagaisus belonged to this group (between Danube and
        Rhine), as Zosimos seem to suggest, than the name 'Goths' was
        actually applied to them, albeit briefly and by Roman sources.
        Secondly, it is important to note that the Visigoths were not called
        Visi-g o t h s, but called themselves 'Vesi' after the name Tervingi
        disappeared. The name 'Goths' was added only later by Roman authors.
        Hence, the name 'Goths' was apparently not as prestigious to them as
        some people may think today. In fact, names like Greutungi and
        Tervingi may have been much more prestiguous at the time. Given the
        political/religious conservativism of the Athanaric-Tervingi it would
        not be too surprising if this particular group continued to use this
        particular name. In fact, it seem that a reversal to the name 'Goths'
        occured only when 'Goths' settled on Roman territory and most likely
        because of outside ( i.e. Roman) use of the term and not because of
        deliberate self-naming. Thus, the Teruingi - Teuringi in middle
        Germany would have preserved what appeared to them as the more
        ancient, prestigious and certainly more conservative name.

        Cheers
        Dirk










        >
        > faltin2001 wrote:
        > > Hello all,
        > >
        > > I read the study „Stamm und Reich der frühen Thüringer nach den
        > > Schriftquellen" (i.e. Folk/tribe and realm of the early
        Thuringians
        > > according to historical sources) by Dr. Heike Grahn-Hoek, in
        > > Zeitschrift des Vereins für Thüringische Geschichte, Vol. 56
        (2002).
        > > The study comprises 87 pages in small print. It is extremely well
        > > sourced and argued to the highest academic standards. As
        indicated by
        > > the title, the author relies exclusively on historical sources
        and in
        > > fact explicitly excludes archaeological evidence to avoid
        circular
        > > arguments. As far as I can see, her study was well received by
        other
        > > historians (e.g. H. Castritius in RGA).
        > >
        > > The argument of key interest in my view centres on the origin of
        the
        > > Thuringians. The author explains that the most common theory
        suggests
        > > that the name was derived from an older tribal name Hermun-d u r
        e n.
        > > However, she adds that this explanation has always been doubted
        by
        > > linguists. Thus, the author re-examines the various name forms
        > > provided in the earliest sources. Based on Malchus a Greek
        source of
        > > the 5th cent. who provided the Greek form The-ou-r-ingoi (in
        Latin
        > > The-u-r-ingi) she argues that this name may be derived from The-
        r-u-
        > > ingi the name of the Gothic Tervingi through a simple switch of
        ou/u
        > > and r. She states that there are other examples in antique
        sources
        > > where such an `u - r switch' occurred.
        > >
        > > The author states that the time frame for the emergence of
        > > Theuringoi/Thuringians and the disappearance of
        Theruingi/Tervingi
        > > around 400 AD matches perfectly. The Theuringi are first
        mentioned in
        > > 400AD (Vegetius), but the source implies that at this time they
        were
        > > already very well known throughout the empire. Thus, the
        > > identification of Theuringi with Theruingi would fill a gap in
        the
        > > sources.
        > >
        > > Next, the author moves to the main part of her examination, the
        study
        > > of historical sources in order to see whether a link between
        > > Theuringi/Thuringians and Theruingi/Tervingians can be
        postulated. In
        > > shortest possible terms, she takes the events surrounding
        Athanaric's
        > > Tervingi as the starting point. Faced with the Hunnic onslaught,
        in
        > > the 370s the Tervingi were beset by a crisis with a pro-Roman,
        pro-
        > > Christian faction led by Fritigern which sought settlements
        within
        > > the Roman empire and a pagan anti-Roman faction led by the
        Athanaric.
        > > Athanaric had at one stage vowed never to set food on Roman soil.
        > > Yet, for whatever reason he was later compelled to seek refuge
        with a
        > > small following in Constantinopel. His part of the Tervingi was
        taken
        > > over by `proximorum factione' (ie. relatives), who according to
        > > Marcellinus Comes sought refuge "far away in lands
        (domicilium
        > > remotum) unknown to the Huns". The author's argumentation
        here is
        > > extremely detailed and suggest that these Tervingi were located
        > > further north than often believed at that time.
        > >
        > > Next, the author discusses the campaign of Radagaisus in 405/06.
        She
        > > explains that his attribution to Greutungi (Ostrogoths) or
        Tervingi
        > > (Visigoths) is uncertain. Since he is described as a pagan in
        > > contrast to the Christian Tervingi under Alaric some scholars
        argue
        > > that he must have been a Greutungian Goths. However, the sources
        call
        > > him simply a rex (basileus) Gothorum, i.e. a king of the Goths.
        > > However, Radagaisus is not listed among the ancestors of the
        > > Ostrogothic Amals. Thus, other scholars argue that Radagaisus
        was a
        > > Tervingian and possibly even the one who succeeded Athanaric.
        Thos
        > > who believe that he as a Tervingian successor of Athanaric usual
        > > place him in the so called Caucaland, i.e. the Carpathian region.
        > > Yet, most interestingly, Zosimos provides evidence for the
        > > geographical origin of Radagaisus by stating that he had come
        from
        > > the lands between Danube and Rhine. This is exactly the
        description
        > > for the geographical location of the Thuringian kingdom and it
        would
        > > make no sense if he had started out in the Carpathian mountain
        > > region.
        > >
        > > The author points out that the name Radagais appears later in the
        > > Thuringian/Warnian royal family with a prince Radagis. The
        component
        > > Rada- is found in royal Thuringian names like Rade-gundis (two
        > > princesses) and a 7th century Thuringian duke/king Radaulf. The

        > > gais `component of Radagais is used again in the name of the
        > > Thuringian prince Arta-gais/Arta – chis.
        > >
        > > As mentioned earlier, the author deliberately excluded
        archaeological
        > > evidence in order to avoid circular argumentation. One a
        footnote in
        > > her study refers to supportive archaeology. However, the
        > > archaeological evidence available already is in my view a key
        support
        > > for the theory that Theuringi/Thuringians are identical with
        > > Theruingi/Tervingian Goths. Berthold Schmidt has shown already
        in the
        > > 1980s and 1990s that substantial groups of carriers of the
        > > Cheryhakovsk/Sintana-de-Mures culture (which is associated with
        the
        > > Goths) arrived in middle Germany and settled at the centre of the
        > > later Thuringian kingdom. These groups are known under the
        technical
        > > terms Grossbadegaster and Niemburger groups. They arrived in
        middle
        > > Germany in the 370/380s just at the time when Athanaric's
        Tervingi
        > > disappear from the sources. Following Grahn-Hoek's argument these
        > > would have been the Athanaric-Tervingi probably under the
        leadership
        > > of Radagais.
        > >
        > > Overall, H. Grahn-Hoek's study is extremely well argued and
        provides
        > > a wealth of information. I think it is particularly important not
        > > only for its contribution to Thuringian history and in
        particular the
        > > ethnic/political origin of this people, but also because of the
        > > contribution to Gothic history. It now seems likely that besides
        the
        > > various creations of historically important Gothic kingdom on the
        > > territory of the Roman empire, there was also one historically
        > > important Gothic kingdom founded outside the Roman empire `…
        remotum
        > > ab omni notia barbarorum…' which, in line with Zosimos, was
        located
        > > between Danube and the Rhine centring on an area that carries its
        > > name to this day.
        > >
        > > Cheers
        > > Dirk
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
      • faltin2001
        ... Thuringians Goths ? They ... name at ... would ... Germanic? Is ... Hi Tom, excited that somebody actually did respond to this new and important theory
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 22, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, macmaster@r... wrote:
          >
          > The main questions I would have regarding this theory are:
          > -- why wouldn't anyone 400-600 have called the
          Thuringians "Goths"? They
          > were allied to Theodoric's italian kingdom and generally appear as
          > themselves but no mention is made of Northern Goths. the Gothic
          name at
          > this time would be far more prestigious and I would assume that it
          would
          > be much vaunted.
          > -- wouldn't this involve a major linguistic shift from East
          Germanic? Is
          > there any evidence of this?
          >
          > Tom
          >

          Hi Tom,

          excited that somebody actually did respond to this new and important
          theory I forgot to comment on you second point. The author Grahn-Hoek
          does not discuss linguistics in the study and I don't really have an
          answer. I suppose the question is how 'major' was the different
          between East- and West Germanic in 380AD. We know from historical
          sources that at least two (probably three) West Germanic groups were
          incorporated into this Teruingi-Teuringi kingdom: Warnians, Anglians
          and Suebians. If the linguistic difference was mostly dialectual than
          this combination would have led to a levelling of the languages over
          the following centuries and there is no written evidence for the
          Thuringian language/dialect before 800AD.

          However, personal names are usually more conservative than the
          language as a whole and several authors have in the past noted that
          Thuringian personal names (e.g. Ermenefrid, Artagais, Radagais,
          Radaulf, Radegundis, Ermenegisl, Amalafrid etc.) are more typical of
          East Germanic personal names than of West Germanic personal names.

          Cheers
          Dirk
        • faltin2001
          ... it ... Hoek ... than ... of ... To add to my previous point: Berthold Schmidt in his archaeological study on Thuringia (in Studien zur Sachsenforschung,
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 23, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, "faltin2001" <dirk@s...> wrote:
            > --- In gothic-l@yahoogroups.com, macmaster@r... wrote:
            > >
            > > The main questions I would have regarding this theory are:
            > > -- why wouldn't anyone 400-600 have called the
            > Thuringians "Goths"? They
            > > were allied to Theodoric's italian kingdom and generally appear as
            > > themselves but no mention is made of Northern Goths. the Gothic
            > name at
            > > this time would be far more prestigious and I would assume that
            it
            > would
            > > be much vaunted.
            > > -- wouldn't this involve a major linguistic shift from East
            > Germanic? Is
            > > there any evidence of this?
            > >
            > > Tom
            > >
            >
            > Hi Tom,
            >
            > excited that somebody actually did respond to this new and important
            > theory I forgot to comment on you second point. The author Grahn-
            Hoek
            > does not discuss linguistics in the study and I don't really have an
            > answer. I suppose the question is how 'major' was the different
            > between East- and West Germanic in 380AD. We know from historical
            > sources that at least two (probably three) West Germanic groups were
            > incorporated into this Teruingi-Teuringi kingdom: Warnians, Anglians
            > and Suebians. If the linguistic difference was mostly dialectual
            than
            > this combination would have led to a levelling of the languages over
            > the following centuries and there is no written evidence for the
            > Thuringian language/dialect before 800AD.
            >
            > However, personal names are usually more conservative than the
            > language as a whole and several authors have in the past noted that
            > Thuringian personal names (e.g. Ermenefrid, Artagais, Radagais,
            > Radaulf, Radegundis, Ermenegisl, Amalafrid etc.) are more typical
            of
            > East Germanic personal names than of West Germanic personal names.
            >
            > Cheers
            > Dirk



            To add to my previous point: Berthold Schmidt in his archaeological
            study on Thuringia (in Studien zur Sachsenforschung, No. 13, 1999)
            shows that carriers of the Sintana-de-Mures/Chernyakhovsk culture
            settled in the centre of the later Thuringian territory. These people
            had come from the Black Sea region and their cultural characteristics
            are identical to graves discoverd between Danube and Dnjestr (e.g. at
            Tirgsor, Spantov, Independenta, Marosszentana and Oinac). Their
            migratory path from the Danube/Dnjestr region to middle Germany can
            even be approximiated by intermediate stations at Gross-Suerding
            (Zerniki Wielki) in Silesia and Liebersee (Kr. Torgau) in Saxony
            (Germany) to the core region of Thuringia.

            This geographical/archaeological evidence really limits the circle of
            East Germanic tribes that could have made up this group to Tervingi,
            Greutungi, Eruli, Sciri and Rugi. Schmidt noted that this group of
            East Germanic people was substantial in size, and he identifies
            almost 100 cemetaries of this group in middle Germany. It would seem
            odd that their name was not preserved along with the apparently
            smaller West Germanic groups of Warnians (Varni), Anglians (Angli)
            and Suebians (Nordsuavi), especially since their settlement areas
            seem to have encorporated the later 'royal centre'.

            Cheers
            Dirk
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.