Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:11:10.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theories and Facts: the Early Gothic Migrations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2014

Thomas S. Burns
Thomas S. Burns*
Affiliation:
Emory University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The most salient fact about the Gothic migrations is that they forcefully underscore how old theories never die. They linger to play upon the intellect for generations until they seem to constitute facts themselves. The study of the migrations tempts the unwary with marvelous sagas and apparently straightforward accounts of trusted ancient authors. Even if we follow Odysseus' lead, and with our ears carefully plugged with scientific beeswax, rivet our eyes to the narrow channels of fact, the old theories still beckon; after all, Roman history is in part a series of thrusts and counterthrusts along the northern peripheries of the Greco-Roman world, in need of explanation then as now. The origins of the migrants and invaders of the Roman frontiers was a question appropriate to Tacitus in the late first century A.D. and to countless others across the centuries. All too often the questioners were far removed from the contact zones and looked down upon a simple battlefield of “we and they.” Such self-proclaimed Valkyries chose sides for their own reasons, usually preconditioned and often totally unrelated to the struggles below. This essay traces the evolution of the theoretical and factual elements of the early Gothic migrations and concludes with a personal sketch drawn in light of recent studies of the Roman frontier and insights from other areas, especially comparative anthropology.

The historiography of the early Gothic migrations is a classic example of the impact of contemporary attitudes, problems, and methodologies on the study of the past. So meager is the evidence that is likens to a broken kaleidoscope in which the few remaining pieces can be jostled easily from place to place.

Type
Research Article
Information
History in Africa , Volume 9 , 1982 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © African Studies Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1. Jordanes, , Gothic History, 25-28, trans. Mierow, C.C. (Cambridge, 2nd ed., 1915), 57–58.Google Scholar Much of the archeological data discussed in this essay is treated in greater detail in my “Pursuing the Early Gothic Migrations,” Acta Archeologica [Budapest], 31(1979), 189–99.Google Scholar

2. Muellenhoff, T., Weltkarte (Berlinder Philologische Wochenschrift, 14, 1894)Google Scholar; Theodor Mommsen in the preface to his edition of Jordanes, in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auct. Antiq., 5 (Berlin, 1882)Google Scholar; Hodgkin, Thomas, Italy and Her Invaders, 376-814, I/1 (New York, 1892).Google Scholar

3. Kossina, G., “Die ethnologische Stellung der Ostgermanen,” Indogermanishce Forschungen 7 (1896), 276ff.Google Scholar, Das Weichselland, ein uralter Heimatboden der Germanen (Danzig, 1919)Google Scholar; Blume, E., Die germanischen Stäamme und die Kulturen zwischen Oder und Passarge zur römisahen Kaiserzeit (Mannus-Bücherei, 8 and 14, Würzburg, 1912 and 1915)Google Scholar; Schindler, R., Die Besiedlungsgeschichte der Goten und Gepiden im unteren Weischselraum auf Grund der Tongefässe (Quellenschriften zur ostdeutschen Vor und Frühgeschichte, Bd. 6, Leipzig, 1940).Google Scholar See also Heym, W., “Der ältere Abschnitt der Völkerwanderungszeit auf dem rechten Ufer der unteren Weichel,” Mannus, 31 (1939), 3–28Google Scholar, who stressed the role of the Gepids.

4. Schindler, , Besiedlungsgeschichte, 102–05.Google Scholar

5. Oxenstierna, Eric C.G., Die Uhrheimat der Goten (Leipzig, 1945).Google Scholar

6. Kmieciński, J., Zagadnienie tzw. Kultury gockogepidzkiej na Pomorzu Wschodnim w Okresie Wezesnorzymsk'n (Societas Scientiarum Lozdiendzia, Stc. II, no. 46)Google ScholarActa Archeologica Lodzienzia, 11(1962)Google Scholar, German summary, 188. Among the early scholars who put forward these criteria were Hollack, E. and Peiser, R.E., Das Gräberfeld von Moythien (Königsberg, 1904)Google Scholar; contra, see Bohnsack, D., Die Germanen im Kreise Neidenburg unter Berücksichtigung der neuesten Funde (Altpreussen, Nr. 3, 1938), 57–59.Google Scholar

7. Cambridge Medieval History (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1924) 1:198.Google Scholar

8. Bury, J.B., The Invasion of Europe by the Barbarians (New York, 1928), 8–17Google Scholar; Dahn, Felix, Urgesahichte der germanischen und romanischen Völker, (Berlin, 1881) 1:68–86.Google Scholar

9. Recently see Cantor, Norman F., Medieval History, The Life and Death of a Civilization (New York, 1963) 121–22Google Scholar, who repeats the food supply theory and adds an interesting comment that the Germans sought “to participate in [Rome's] higher standard of living.”

10. Kmieciński, J., “Problem of the so-called Gotho-Gepidian culture in the Light of Recent Research,” Archaeologica Polona, 4(1962), 270-85, esp. 278–80.Google Scholar

11. Almgren, B., “Graves within the settlement” in Stenberger, M., Vallhager, a Migration Period Settlement on Gotland, Sveden (København, 1955) 293–308.Google Scholar

12. Stjernquist, B., Sirmis: On Cultural Connections of Scania in the Roman Iron Age (Lund, 1955), 65–68.Google Scholar

13. Kmieciński, J., “Niektoŕe spoleczne aspekty epizodu gokiego w okresie srodkoworzymskim na comorzu [Some social aspects of the Gothic Episode in Pomerania in the Middle Roman Period],” Zeszyty Naukove Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego [Nauki Humanist-Spol. Ser. 1, 12(1959)], maps 2-4 between 16-17, German summary, 21–22.Google Scholar

14. Kmieciński, J., ed., Odry. Omentarzysko kurhanoew z okresu rzymskiego w powiecie chojnickim [Acta Arohaeologioa Lodzienzie, 15], (Łódż, 1968), 134.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., 107.

16. Ibid., 120-23.

17. Godłowski, Kazmierz, The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods in Central Europe (Krakow, 1970) 35–37.Google Scholar

18. For example, Weibul, C., Die Auswanderung der Goten und Schweden (Góteborg, 1958).Google Scholar

19. Czarnecki, J., The Goths in Ancient Poland (Miami, 1975).Google Scholar

20. Kempisty, A., “Some Problems of Research on the Roman Period in Masovia and Podlachia,” Acta Baltico-Slavica, 4(1966), 67–78.Google Scholar

21. Okulicz, L. and Okulicz, J., “The La Tène and the Roman Periods in Northern Masovia and in the Southern Mazurian Area in the Light of New Discoveries,” Archaeologia Polona, 4(1962), 286–94.Google Scholar Their assertions are borne out in their inventory of artifacts, “Période romaine tardive et période des migrations des peuples en Masovie,” Inventaria Archaeologica, 15(1965).Google Scholar

22. The study of local variations in dialect by Antoniewicz, J., “Tribal Territories of the Baltic Peoples in the Hallstatt-La Tène and Roman Periods in the Light of Archaeology and Toponomy,” Acta Baltico-Slavica, 4(1966), 7–27Google Scholar, although very hypothetical and difficult to accept completely, does nonetheless point out the lack of total cultural unity even in language. There is wide linguistic diversity even among supposedly “united” primitive groups today, Fried, Morton, The Notion of Tribe (Menlo Park, Ca., 1975), 26–30.Google Scholar

23. Kuharenko, I.V., “Le Problème de la civilisation Gotho-Gépide en Pólesie et en Volhynie,” Acta Baltico-Slavica, 5(1967), 19, 25–28.Google Scholar The new sites are listed on 31.

24. Ibid., 33-35.

25. Ibid., 36-40. Priscus passed the site of an ancient battle between the Ostrogoths and Sarmatians on his way to Attila, , Getica, 178.Google Scholar The similarities between northern and Cherniakov combs, fibulae, and pottery was pointed out long ago by Reinecke, P., “Aus der russichen archäologischen Litteratur,” Mainzer Zeitschrift, 1(1906), 42–50Google Scholar, particularly the illustrations on 43-45. More recently see Diaconu, Gheorghe, “On the Socio-Economic Relations between Natives and Goths in Dacia” in Relations Between the Autochthonous Population and the Migratory Populations on the Territory of Romania [Bibliotheca Historica Romaniae, Monographs, 16],(Bucuresti, 1975) 67–75.Google Scholar See also the reasonable survey of the problems by Shchukin, M., “Current Aspects of the Gothic Problem and the Cherniakhovo Culture,” w/English summary, Arkheologicheskifi Sbornik, 18(1977) 79-91, 129–30.Google Scholar

26. Kuharenko, , “Problème,” 33.Google Scholar

27. Strabo, vii, 1.3.

28. Tacitus, , Germania, 44.Google Scholar The mss. are almost equally divided between “Gotones” and “Gothones.” The latest edition, Winterbottom, W. in the Oxford Classical Texts (1975)Google Scholar prefers “Gotones,” but the critical edition by R.P. Robinson (1935) has “Gothones.”

29. Ptolemy, , Geographia, II. 11.16.Google Scholar

30. Hachmann, R., The Germanic Peoples (Geneva, 1971), 81–108.Google Scholar

31. For an introduction to the various types of tribal organization see Sahlins, Marshall D., Tribesmen (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968).Google Scholar

32. MacAdams, Robert, The Evolution of Urban Society (Chicago, 1966).Google Scholar

33. The segmentary lineage is a particularly well-studied adaptation for aggression. See Sahlins, M.S., “The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion,” American Anthropologist, 63(1961), 322–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Diaconus, Paulus, Historia Langobardorum, ii. 33Google Scholar, ed. Bethman, L. and Waitz, G.M.G.H. Scriptores Rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum, sec. vi-ix (Hannover, 1878).Google Scholar

35. Burns, T.S., “The Barbarians, and the Scriptores Historiae Augustae”, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, v.i. [Collection Latomus, 164](Bruxelles, 1979) 521–40.Google Scholar

36. Wenskus, Reinhard, Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmittelalterlichen gentes (2nd ed., Köln, 1977) 466Google Scholar, believes in a continuity of the Gothic thiudans from the earliest times, but this is not the case. Thompson, E.A., “Constantine, Constantinus II, and the Lower Danube Frontier, Hermes, 84(1956) 372–81Google Scholar, proved the iudex was a temporary expedient first appearing in the mid-fourth century. The iudex was probably a Roman rendering of thiudans; see my The Ostrogoths: Kingship and Society [Historia Einzelschriften, 36], (Wiesbaden, 1980) 35–42.Google Scholar

37. Eunapius frag. 55, ed. Dindorf, L., Historici Graeci Minores (Leipzig, 1870).Google Scholar

38. The archeological data revealing the superimposition of a Germanic elite is carefully analyzed by Ionitǎ, Ion, “The Social-Economic Structure of Society during the Goths’ Migration in the Carpatho-Danubian Area” in Relations Between the Autochthonous Population and the Migratory Populations in the Territory of Romania (Bucuresti, 1975) 77–89Google Scholar, and Kovrig, I., “Nouvelles trouvailles du Ve siècle découvertes en Hongrie,” Acta Archaeologica, 10(1959) 209–25.Google Scholar

39. Langenfelt, G., “On the Origin of Tribal Names,” Anthropos, 14/15 (1919/1920), 295-313, esp. 308–10.Google Scholar The most recent study is that of Svennung, J., Jordanes and Scandia (Stockholm, 1967), 32–135.Google Scholar Svennung's locations for certain tribes is highly conjectural, especially for the Greuthungi whom he places east of the island of Orust on the mainland and for the Tervingi, who supposedly were settled on the island of Tjorn. These names were in use as late as Ammianus Marcellinus and may well refer to settlement areas north of the Danube.

40. The traditional notion that toponymic labels apply only to tribal-size groups is expressed clearly by Langelfelt, , “Origin of Tribal Names,” 307.Google Scholar

41. Tjäder, J.O., ed., Die nichtliterarischen lateinischen Papyri Italiens aus der Zeit 445-700 (Lund, 1955)Google Scholar, papyri 3 and 8 both dated mid-sixth century.

42. Fagerlie, J.M., Late Roman and Byzantine Solidi Found in Sweden and Denmark [Numismatic Notes and Monographs, 157], (New York, 1967).Google Scholar

43. Procopius, B.G. II, xi, 32-36; IV, xxv, ii; IV, xx, 4-6.

44. Ibid., II, xiv, 24. A Rogi, Eraric, even became king, but his reign was brief. Ibid., III, ii. 1-3.

45. On Dexippus see Miller, F., “P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third-Century Invasions,” Journal of Roman Studies, 59(1969), 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Naulobatus is mentioned by G. Syncellus writing in the ninth century, an. 248. p. 717 ed. W. Dindorf, (Bonn, 1829). Syncellus did use Dexippus but also other sources now lost.

47. See Fried, Notion of Tribe; Southall, Aidan: “The Illusion of Tribe,” Journal of Asian and African Studies, 5(1970), 28–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacWhite, Eoin: “On the Interpretation of Archeological Evidence in Historical and Sociological Terms,” American Anthropologist, 58(1956), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48. For example see the attempt to substitute “cult unit” by Naroll, R. “On Ethnic Unit Classification,” Current Anthropology, 5(1964), 283-91, 306–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Hachmann, Rolf, The Germanic Peoples (Geneva, 1971)Google Scholar and his Die Goten und Skandianvien [Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach-und Kulturgeschichte der germanischen Völker, 34 (158)] (Berlin, 1970).Google Scholar

50. In general see Godłowski, Chronology. For Pollwitten, , Eggers, Han Jürgen, “Das Kaiserzeitliche Gräberfeld von Pollwitten, Kreis Mohrungen, Ostpreussen,” Jahrbuch des romischgermanishcen Zentralmuseums Mainz, 11(1966) 154–75.Google Scholar A very detailed study and inventory of the Przeworsk Culture is now available, Kenk, Roman, “Studien zum Beginn der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit in der Przeworsk-Kultur,” Bericht der römischen-germanischen Kommission, 58(1977) 161–446.Google Scholar

51. Stenberger, Vallhagar, and Stjernquist, Simris.

52. For a very useful and particularly well-illustrated discussion see Bóna, István, The Dawn of the Dark Ages. The Gepids and the Lombards in the Carpathian Basin (Budapest, 1976).Google Scholar

53. For the Germanic groups in general see Reinhard Wenskus, Stammesbildung and the still valuable Phillpotts, Bertha S., Kindred and Clan in the Middle Ages and After. A Study on the Sociology of the Teutonic Races (Cambridge, 1913).Google Scholar

54. Tacitus documented various stages in this process in his Germania. In general the closer a group was to Roman influence the more durable and complex were its structures. See especially Thompson, E.A., The Early Germans (Oxford, 1965).Google Scholar

55. Such interaction between newcomers and the indigenous populations may account for the peculiar distribution of graves (styles and sites) at Weisory, see Kmieciński, J., “Niektóre spoleczne aspekty epizodu gokiego w okresie srodkoworzymskim na Pomorzu [Some social aspects of the Gothic Episode in Pomerania in the Middle Roman Period],” Zeszyty Naukove Universytetu Lodzkiego, Nauki Humanist-Spol. Ser. 1/12(1959) 3–22.Google Scholar

56. Godłowski, K., Chronology, 32.Google Scholar

57. For the types and chronologies of Roman items see Wølągiewicz, Ryszard, “Der Zufluss römischer Importe in das Gebiet nördlich der mittleren Donau in der alteren Kaiserzeit,” Zeitschrift für Archaolögie, 4(1970), 22–49.Google Scholar

58. Mitrea, Bucur, “La migration des Goths reflétée par les trésors de monnaies romaines enfouis en Moldavie,” Dacia, n.s. 1 (1957) 229–36.Google Scholar

59. Ibid, 233, and V.V. Kropotkin, “Topografiia rimskidi i rannevizantijskich monet na terrltorii SSSR,” Vestnik Drevnei Istorii, 3N°49 (1954) 152-80. Tribal dislocations were noted by Roman authors, e.g. Dio Cassius, lxxii, 3.3 and Scriptores Historiae Augustae, vita Commodi, xiii, 5–7.Google Scholar

60. Salamon, A. and Lengyel, I., “Kinship Interrelations in a Fifth-Century ‘Pannonian’ Cemetery: An Archaeological and Palaeobiological Sketch of the Population Fragment Buried in the Mözs Cemetery, Hungary,” World Archaeology, 12(1980) 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Lengyel discusses some of his techniques in his Paleoserology. Blood Typing with the Fluorescent Antibody Method (Budapest, 1975).Google Scholar