Romanian History and Culture

A Library of Knowledge from the Web. An Educational Website

Geto-Dacians and the Goths. Where the Goths Getai?

 THE GOTHS IN GETO-DACIA

 Photo at: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ro/thumb/7/74/Tezaurul-pietroasa.jpg/350px-Tezaurul-pietroasa.jpg

The Treasure of Pietroasa, by Tim Judy

Text and photos at: http://www.vivid.ro/index.php/issue/77/page/artbeat/tstamp/0

 

The Ostrogothic Pietroasele treasure, uncovered in 1837 by local villagers, is on display at the National Museum of Romanian History, in Bucharest.

http://cercetati.blogspot.com/2011/06/muzeul-national-de-istorie-camera.html 

On a muggy August afternoon in 1956 a line of Romanian soldiers stood ready at the Mogosoaia train station near Bucharest under orders to receive a freight train due to arrive from Moscow. Hovering into view, the armoured wagons groaned under the weight of tonnes of valuable artworks. Among the thousands of items that were carefully unloaded and placed under armed guard to be transported to Bucharest was the greatest discovery ever unearthed in Romania – the Treasure of Pietroasa.

 The golden hoard of ancient treasure had already gained international fame before its reappearance on that late summer day, travelling the exhibition circuit through the imperial capitals of Paris, London and Vienna.

When Europe was plunged into the first world war the treasure’s path became twined with monumental social upheavals.

Fighting on the side of the Entente, the Romanian government found itself on the run from encroaching German troops. Holed up in the northeast city of Iasi, desperate officials sent the treasure along with a hoard of other priceless goods to Tsarist Russia for safekeeping. The Bolsheviks seized power soon thereafter and the treasure disappeared for 40 years before a thaw in bilateral relations led to its return.

The Romanian people bestowed an almost mythological aura to the series of gold objects, naming the treasure the Hen and Her Golden Brood, and poetic platitudes celebrated the homecoming of part of Romania’s soul.

Former dictator Nicolae Ceausescu gave extra impetus to the legend, paying the Hen special attention when he presided over the 1972 opening of the National History Museum of Bucharest, where the treasure can still be admired. “This has been her (the Hen’s) most glorious day,” he declared among much communist pomp.

But the origins of the treasure never did square with official party history, which

 

 

http://www.bucurestiivechi.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/35.tezaur-pietroasa.JPG

conveniently glossed over the shadowy era of Romania’s past, when the Romans withdrew south of the Danube, the Dacians disappeared from the historical record and swarms of tribes from the icy regions of the north and the rolling steppes of the east moved in to fill the imperial vacuum.

 

 The obvious starting point for tracing the origins of the treasure is the village of Pietroasa, in the county of Buzau, which sits at the base of Istrita hill, a 754-metre-high, dome-shaped peak that suddenly interrupts the monotony of the great Wallachian plain. The strategic position of the hill has attracted a constellation of tribes throughout the region’s history, making it an archaeologist’s paradise.

Excavations in the area began as early as the mid 19th century, and each year since archaeologists have struck spades into the earth to reveal Bronze-Age cemeteries, Dacian sanctuaries, Roman antiquities and Gothic cemeteries.

But the greatest find in the area, the Treasure of Pietroasa, was discovered by happenstance in 1837 by two peasants cutting limestone in a quarry.

The discovery consisted of one large eagle-headed fibula and three smaller ones encrusted with semi-precious stones; a patera, or round sacrificial dish, with carved figures of what appear to be Gothic gods in Greek dress surrounding a seated three-dimensional fertility goddess; a twelve sided cup, a neck ring with a Runic inscription, a large tray, two other necklaces and a pitcher. There were 22 pieces in total, but only 12 have survived.

 http://www.cimec.ro/p/Clasate/11426_taler.jpg

 Polychrome style

During the 2nd century the Goths of southern Russia discovered a new found taste for gold figurines and objects inlaid with precious stones. This style was borrowed from Scythians and the Sarmatians, had some Greco-Roman influences, and was also popular with the Huns. Perhaps the most famous examples are found in the fourth-century Pietroasele treasure (Romania), which includes a great gold eagle brooch (picture). The eagle motif derives from East Asia and results from the participation of the forebears of the Goths in the Hunnic Empire, as in the fourth-century Gothic polychrome eagle-head belt buckle (picture) from South Russia.

The Goths carried this style to Italy, southern France and Spain. One well known example is the Ostrogothic eagle fibula from Cesena, Italy, now at the museum in Nuremberg. Another is the Visigothic polychrome votive crown (picture) of Recceswinth, King of Toledo, found in a votive crown hoard of c. 670 at Fuente de Guarrazar, near Toledo. The popularity of the style can be attested to by the discovery of a polychrome sword (picture) in the tomb of Frankish king Childeric I (died ca 481), well north of the Alps.

Debates still continue over whether the treasure dates from the 4th or from the 5th century but undoubtedly the hoard belonged to the Goths who lived in Dacia from the 3rd to the 5th century AD. Alexandru Odobescu, one of the pioneers of Romanian archaeology who published in the late 19th century a 650-page comparative work called Le Tresor de Petrossa (Paris, 1889-1900) believed it

 http://mail.mnir.ro/ro/colectii/tezaur/Pietroasa/tezaur-Pietroasa/oenochoe.html

http://mail.mnir.ro/ro/colectii/tezaur/Pietroasa/tezaur-Pietroasa-1.html

 dated from the 4th century and belonged to Athanaric, leader of the Gothic Tervingi tribe. He believed that some of the pieces were forged in Byzantine workshops, but the Goths made the more ornamental items, having learned this technique from the Scythians and Sarmatians who had spread the technique across Europe, from Novocherkassk in south-east Russia to Pietroasa in Romania.

 Pietroasa, a centre of Gothic power

Today Pietroasa is best known for its strong wines, processed from vast swathes of vineyards that are buoyed by rich soil and an almost Mediterranean climate. Limestone is ubiquitous throughout the village. It is said that the Geto-Dacians had cut the rock in the same quarry where the treasure was found to build their fortresses at Coasta Dogarului and Gruiul Darii; the Romans and Goths also cut rock for their forts and settlements. To this day natives extract blocks of limestone for wells, pillars, fences, houses and all the monuments that are set up in the villages clustered around Istrita.

Pietroasa is also a focal point for a dispute that has dogged Romanian historians since the founding of the nation state: the degree of influence the migratory tribes exerted in ancient Romania.

The official history has always run along the lines that after the Emperor Aurelian withdrew Roman troops from the territory of Dacia, Romanisation remained ingrained among the Geto-Dacians giving the native population (the alleged ancestors of modern-day Romanians) a sense that they belonged to a superior civilisation to that of the migratory peoples, whose level of cultural development was rudimentary.

 

 

http://www.enigmatezaurului.blogspot.com/

 

A pathera – a large sacrificial dish with a seated three-dimensional woman in the centre, thought to be a fertility goddess.

 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PietroaseleTreasureMNIR_Tezaur.JPG

 

  But as the historian Lucian Boia points out in his book Romania: Borderland of Europe, “The northern half of the Balkan Peninsula was part of the Roman Empire for some six centuries, long enough to permit the consolidation of a thriving Roman lifestyle. To the north of the Danube, on the other hand, in the present-day territory of Romania, the Romans ruled only half of Dacia; moreover, the extent of Romanisation in this province is open to question, as it belonged to the Empire for only 165 years (from AD 106 to 271, when it was abandoned as the Romans withdrew to the Danube). Then there is the problem of the so-called dark millennium between the withdrawal of Roman rule in 271 and the foundation of the Romanian states in the 14th century.”

 It was during this “dark millennium” that groups of armed Germanic tribes left Scandinavia and northern Poland to find new fertile lands east and southeast of the Carpathians, creating the Cernjachov culture that spread through modern-day Wallachia, Moldavia and southern Ukraine (in Romania it is known as the Santana de Mures culture, named after the city where a Visigothic cemetery was discovered). The Carpi, a group of “free” Dacian tribes established east of the Carpathians, initially put up a resistance but were completely overwhelmed and many were resettled south of the Danube, paving the way for Gothic dominance, which, according to the Roman historian Ammianus, extended from the Danube to the Don and from the Carpathians to the Black Sea.  

Solid gold eagle-headed fibulae encrusted with semi-precious stones, one of the surviving pieces of the treasure.

In light of archaeological finds in Pietroasa, the village appears to have been one of the seats of power for the 4th century Goths. (Archaeologists have identified five other Cernjachov sites that appear to have been political centres in the north Pontic region). The village is like an open air museum, hosting the ruins of a fortress, which was originally excavated by Odobescu in 1866, and a once luxurious villa that was decorated with stained glass windows and marble inlays and equipped with underground heating (hypocaustum) fed by the valley’s springs. Groups of Cernjachov graves have also been discovered in the area, distinguished by the spread of inhumation rather than cremation, the lack of weapons in the men’s graves and brooches (fibulae) and necklaces in the women’s burial places. (A short sword was found in one of the men’s graves in Pietroasa, as well as Roman coins, which most likely indicates that the deceased was of high status.) 

 Professor Mircea Babes, Director of the School of Archaeology at the University of Bucharest and editor of a 1976 critical edition of Odobescu’s work, believes the fort and the villa were home to Athanaric, leader of the Tervingi (traditionally known as the Visigoths) and, like Odobescu, believes that Athanaric was the original owner of the treasure.

“The treasure, fortress, villa and Cernjachov-style graves are all connected to the 4th century, owing to the dating of the pottery and Roman coins found in the area,” says Mr Babes, who has been leading excavations in the area since the 1960s.

Dr Marius Constantinescu and Professor Mircea Babes, standing in front of the monument where the treasure was found.

In the 4th century an economic revolution was sweeping through Germanic Europe and production and trade flourished, with goods being distributed over wider areas. With new wealth being generated the tribes’ social structures also started to change. Dominant social elites began to emerge, evidenced by the rich burial goods and separate elite dwellings, like the fort at Pietroasa.  

This would mean, in effect, that Athanaric was the leader of a powerful, independent political unit, and oversaw a strong centre of production and consumption.

The idea that the Germanic peoples were capable of establishing legitimate centres of power clashes with the belief held by a few Romanian historians that the Goths and other migratory peoples had only a negligible influence because of their backwardness. Archaeologist Dr Marius Constantinescu, former head of the History Museum of Buzau and who is leading the excavations of the Cernjachov graves, dismisses any notion that Athanaric could have been the resident of such an exquisite villa or that his followers made up a formidable force. “The fort and the villa, were used solely by the Romans as a defensive line to protect Constantinople,” he says. “The Goths were only capable of building from wood and had a very rudimentary lifestyle.”  

File:Pietroasele thaermae 01.jpg

Roman thaermae, Pietroasele, Buzau county, Romania

Ruins of old first century AD Roman castra and thermae were discovered in the area in the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pietroasele_thaermae_01.jpg

Mr Babes agrees that the fort and villa were built by the Romans, but says they were built for Athanaric and his Visigoths in an attempt to enlist them as allies, in protecting the Danube frontier. (Conform datarii propuse de Alexandru Odobescu in urma cercetarii intreprinse de acesta in anul 1866 si confirmata recent de un colectiv condus de dr. Gh. Diaconu de la Institutul de Arheologie "V. Parvan" din Bucuresti, constructia castrului s-a facut intre 324 - 328, in timpul lui Constantin cel mare (306 - 337 d.Hr). Folosit ca avanpost al legiunilor romane cantonate in Moesia, castrul de la Pietroasele a cunoscut o rapida dar efemera inflorire a vietii militare si economice de-a lungul unei jumatati de secol, in timpul imparatilor Constantiu II (337 - 361), Iulian Apostatul (361 - 363), Iovian (363 - 364), si Valens (364 - 378). 
    Cimitirele din jurul castrului, unele de inhumatie si altele de incineratie, contineau un inventar constituit in general din armele folosite de defruct in tipul vietii, alaturi de "obolul lui Charon" moneda rituala care se punea in mana sau gura mortului. Majoritatea mormintelor sunt orientate N-S cu exceptia unuia din necropola 1, datat in primul sfert al sec. V d.Hr. si care a apartinut unui crestin (orientare V-E). At:

http://www.primariapietroasele.ro/index.php?rewriteparam=prezentare_locala

 http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-Luxury.html

Sevso Treasure

 

The Sevso Treasure is a hoard of silver objects from the late Roman Empire, that may be illicit antiquities.

The treasure trove consists of 14 large decorated silver vessels and the copper cauldron which contained them, and has been dated to the late fourth or early fifth century AD.

Most notable is a large dish, 70 cm in diameter and weighing nearly 9 kg, which bears the inscription:

Hec Sevso tibi durent per saecula multa
Posteris ut prosint vascula digna tuis
May these, O Sevso, yours for many ages be
Small vessels fit to serve your offspring worthily.

The location, archaeological context and provenance of the find remain unknown. The existence of such a hoard first came to attention in 1980 when a single piece in the possession of two antiquities dealers from Vienna was offered for sale in London. Further pieces reached the market, and what is believed to be the complete hoard was acquired by a consortium headed by Spencer Compton, 7th Marquess of Northampton.[1]

In September 2006, London auctioneer Bonhams announced that it would exhibit the treasure privately, in a move seen as a prelude to a sale by private treaty or by auction at a future date.[1] A spokesman for the Ministry of Education and Culture in Hungary, which still claims the Treasure, said it had informed the UK authorities that the treasure must not be sold.[5] On 12 October 2006 further written answers were given in the House of Lords, from questions by Colin Renfrew, Baron Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, particularly relating to Hungary's possible revised claim to the treasure since its admission to the EU.[6] Bonhams went ahead with its private exhibition of the Sevso Treasure on 17 October 2006.[7]

In March 2007 The Art Newspaper reported that a further "187 silvergilt spoons, 37 silvergilt drinking cups, and 5 silver bowls", previously unknown, but part of the original hoard, were reputed to exist.[8]

Research presented in February 2008 by the archeologist Zsolt Visy has strengthened the view that the origin of the treasure may be the Lake Balaton region of Hungary.[9]

The Channel 4 archaeology program Time Team aired a special on the treasure in December 2008.[10] The programme presented further evidence for the likely origin of the hoard being near the town of Polgárdi in Hungary. The Marquess of Northampton withdrew from planned participation in the programme and Channel 4 was not given permission to film the treasure, held in a vault at Bonhams auctioneers in London.

The large dishes and the ewers were similar in form with the one from Pietroasele Treasure.

Castrul roman de la Pietroasele

Fort red.png Castrul roman de la Pietroasele
Pietroasele thaermae 03.jpg
TipCastru auxiliar
Tip construcţieZid de piatră
Perioadă
de activitate
prima jumătate a secolului III -
Unităţi prezenteLegiunea a XI-a Claudia[1]
Dimensiuni şi suprafaţă158 x 124 m2 (1,95 ha)
LocalitatePietroasele

Se crede că acest castru a fost construit de către împăratul Constantin cel Mare în perioada campaniei din anul 332 împotriva goţilor de la nord de Dunăre. În această campanie armata bizantină, condusă de Constantin al II-lea - fiul împăratului, îi înfrânge pe goţi şi, ca urmare, ţinuturile de la nord de Dunăre reintră pentru o perioadă sub stăpânire romană. În castru se instalează Legiunea a XI-a Claudia venită de la Durostorum.

În necropola alăturată castrului s-au descoperit monede din perioada împăratului Constantin al II-lea. O raritate o constituie siliqua în greutate de 2,09 g emisă de Oficina din Arles [2].

În situl arheologic din apropiere au fost găsite fragmente de olane romane, provenind din reţeaua de alimentare cu apă a castrului şi aşezării civile din sec. IV p. Hr. [2] precum şi o instalaţie de aducţiune şi de distribuire a apei săpată în piatră. [3]

Castrul roman de la Pietroasa (124 m x 158 m), care a fost descoperit în anii '90, cuprinde şi termele (băile termale romane) înconjurate de zidul sudic de apărare, aparţinând de cultura Pietroasa. [4] Castrul roman va fi prezentat parţial publicului, prin amenajarea unui muzeu ce va cuprinde termele şi zidul sudic de apărare. [5]

 Note

  1.  Poporul român - Continuator al civilizaţiei neolitice europene, de Ştefan Stanciu
  2.  Raport de cercetare arheologică Pietroasa
  3. Descoperire arheologică extrem de importantă în Castrul Roman de la Pietroasele
  4. Se redeschide castrul roman de la Pietroasa
  5. Amenajarea Castrului roman de la Pietroasele

Legături externe

 Vezi şi

 Descoperire arheologică extrem de importantă în Castrul Roman de la Pietroasele.

Arheologii au scos la lumină un apeduct care datează din secolul 4. Experţii spun că piesa descoperită oferă informaţii de însemnătate majoră în privinţa modului de viaţă şi al obiceiurilor din fostul castru roman. Lucrarea, care va fi expusă, în curînd la Muzeul Judeţean, este de fapt o instalaţie de aducţiune şi de distribuire a apei săpată în piatră.
Arheologii spun că noua descoperire de la Pietroasele arată un nivel de civilizaţie evoluat al locuitorilor pe care castrul îi avea în secolul 4.
Astfel de vestigii au mai fost descoperite în două locuri din ţară, în judeţele Cluj şi Constanţa. La Buzău, sisteme de aducţiune care serveau celebrelor băi romane, scoase la lumină de săpăturile arheologice, au fost descoperite în anii 70. Acele vestigii sunt însă diferite fiind formate din tuburi de ceramică.
Ultima descoperire de la Pietroasele ar putea fi exploatată şi în scopuri turistice. Arheologii se gîndesc să amenajeze în aşa fel şantierul încît să fie asigurat accesul publicului chiar pe locul unde s-a făcut descoperirea

 Nationalism and archaeology in Romania

The role of the migratory peoples was also greatly downplayed during communism, when much emphasis was placed on ethnic continuity of the Romanian people and historians were under political pressure to stress the strength of the local population, the alleged Daco-Romans, over foreign invaders. “The propaganda section of the Central Committee of the Communist Party prodded us (archaeologists and historians) to write as little as possible on the various tribes that came through present day Romania, such as the Scythians, Sarmatians, Celts, Goths and especially the Slavs,” Mr Babes says.

“In the 1970s and 80s even the Romans started to fall out of favour and the role of the Dacians started to grow. When Ceausescu said ‘we are Dacian and Roman’ a group of influential amateur historians, who have been tagged by professionals as Dacomans [Dacomaniacs is the best English translation] would say ‘No, the Romans were foreigners; they were our adversaries who destroyed the Dacian kingdom.’ This idea began to catch on among members of the Institute of Party History, which was under control of the Central Committee, and they started to advance this belief on xenophobic grounds.” 

One person who adhered to this idea was Ceausescu’s brother, Ilie, who edited The Military History of the Romanian Nation, which was published in 1983 and became the first official history book, which was used in all schools. One chapter was even titled, “The battle of the Romanians against the migratory peoples of the 4th century.” As Mr Babes points out “nobody can say there were Romanians as early as the 3rd and 4th centuries and there was certainly no kind of organised Romanian state. The first mention of the Romanian people was in the 9th century when Arabian sources cited the Valachs.” (WRONG). Still today the Dacomans, led by Napoleon Savescu, are writing and lecturing, making fantastic claims about a great Dacian empire that rivalled the Roman’s. They also continue to propagate an old argument that the Treasure of Pietroasa was Dacian, a claim that started as far back as the early 20th century by Nicolae Densusianu, founder of the faulty Dacologie school of thought.

A 4th century burial from the Cernjachov culture, near the village of Petroasa

“Because the treasure is so rare and unique in all the world, such as the fibulas shaped as birds, the runic inscription on the necklace, and because of the myths that have been built up around it, the nationalists refuse to believe that it could have belonged to anyone else but the Dacians,” Mr Babes says.  

The inflated beliefs of the Dacomans have been easily pierced by professional archaeologists. And Athanaric, the most likely owner of the treasure, was no low level barbarian but a powerful figure who could hold his own against the might of the Roman empire.

The story of Athanaric will continue in Part II of this article, to appear in Vivid’s next issue, in February. It will also cover the Hunnish invasion, the great river crossing and the strange events surrounding the discovery of the Treasure of Pietroasa.

Nuclear analyses of the Pietroasa gold hoard by V Cojocaru - 1999 http://www.springerlink.com/index/6ML7107X184633R3.pdf

 Micro-PIXE measurements for treasure Pietroasa

This stage had the prime purpose of a study of gold objects from Romanian cultural heritage - namely Treasure Pietroasa (Pietroasele, Buzau County) - PIXE method (Particle induced X-ray Emission) with microprobe (microfascicul) - in short, micro-PIXE to determine the elemental composition and the presence of - potential - metallic inclusions in order to determine the source of metal used to make these objects of outstanding historical and artistic value. It should be mentioned here that the origin of the materials from which they were made of metal objects of cultural heritage is a matter of importance to historians and archaeologists. Study of the composition of archaeological evidence-ago metal can give important clues on the origin of the metals used to make objects and can reveal valuable information on manufacturing and / or trade of the time. The pieces made of precious metals play an important role in Archaeometry, not only because of the intrinsic value of objects, but also because they are very stable to corrosion. For this reason, these objects are well preserved regardless of their age and can be easily analyzed using nuclear techniques and destructive atomic surface such as PIXE (Particle-induced X-ray Emission), PIGE (Proton induced gamma-ray Emission), CPAA (Charged Particle Activation Analysis), NRA (Nuclear Reaction Analysis) and / or XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence).

Micro-PIXE PIXE method is a variant that uses fasicule limited space, the spot size of the order of micrometers, with the advantage of providing simultaneously respect the distribution of surface details - at the micrometer scale - of the content of the sample, a surface scanning technique allows limited sample (area of hundreds of microns or even millimeters square). The relevant results are obtained from experiments on the composition of the test sample and its homogeneity, ie whether or not present evidence of inclusions (micrometer areas with different elemental composition of the remaining sample). Microprobe results of experiments are generally presented as sets of elemental maps, achieving one map (scanned image of the surface plane) for each metallic element of interest. Another way is the acquisition of spectrum in a given point (pixel), whose size (the order of micrometers or tens of micrometers) can be determined by the experimenter.

In this stage the work executed by researchers at IFIN-HH, micro-PIXE method was used to study the distribution of elements behind gold archaeological evidence to investigate their origin. In particular, analysis of gold objects from the treasure of Pietroasa aimed at determining the possible inclusion of metallic elements platinum (Ru, Rh, Pd, Os, Ir, Pt) and high melting point elements (Ta, Nb), these elements are essential in determining the origin of the metal used to make objects.

Also, the stage were analyzed and samples of known provenance of gold geology (in particular the Apuseni mountains) to determine their possible connections with the composition of archaeological samples, as well as for detailed characterization ( minor and trace elements) the sources of gold in the Apuseni Mountains.

Studied objects were fragments of objects from treasure Pietroasa ("The Hen with Golden Chicks "); these fragments, the size of square millimeters - were taken during a previous restoration. Also in this phase were analyzed and several samples of native gold from the Western Mountains (Brad-Rosia Montana region).

Measurements made during this phase were carried out at accelerator YEAR 2000 Laboratory Nazionale of Legnaro (LNL), Italy. Experiments in LNL received financial support from the European Union Framework Programme VI - action Transnational Access to Research Infrastructure (Countries).

It should be mentioned here that these studies concerns the origin of gold of which were manufactured pieces of hoard of Pietroasa  Have existed since before this project. Thus, in June of 2005 were made of micro-PIXE measurements at the accelerator Aglaia Musée du Louvre, Paris, with financial support from the European program I-ARTECH. For Experiment Aglaia using a 3.2 MeV proton beam extracted into atmosphere of helium beam currents of the order of tens of nA and nA and spot sizes of 30 and 100 microns. Acquisition system was one Multiparameter, having two detectors based on Si (Li). The experimental data required for calculating the rolling code GUPIX specially developed for the analysis of PIXE spectra. During this preliminary experiment were established optimum operating conditions for the detection of various elements platinum - using absorption filters of various materials (Cu, Al) to increase detection limits for trace elements of interest. Some of these quantitative results are presented in table levels of this progress report.

In the experiment conducted in November 2005 Nazionale di Legnaro Laboratory (LNL), we used a proton beam of 2 MeV generated by the accelerator Van GraaffAN AN-2000. Beam was focused to the size of the order of 3 '3 mm 2. Maximum beam current was around 1 nA. To reduce the intensity of spectral peaks in low energy region (below 4 keV), using a funny filter of 100 micron thick aluminum (orifice 0.4%). The maps were scanned on areas of 255 '255 pixels. The detector used was hiperpur germanium (HPGe) and had a resolution of 150 eV FWHM at 5.9 keV. Acquisition times ranged from one spectrum to another, being generally of the order of several hours, this being due to requirements to obtain a satisfactory statistical analysis for each area or point.

In all cases, evidence of gold - archaeological and mineralogical - were placed on adhesive tape. Precautions were taken not to analyze the samples cracked areas or areas affected by previous manipulations. Micro-PIXE preliminary experiment was carried out optical examination of samples with a microscope.

For all samples analyzed were obtained sets of elemental maps for each area scanned, also, and spectra were acquired in a given point (pixel), with dimensions of tens or hundreds of microns, whose location was chosen experienced by the team, according to areas of interest present in each sample (ie the point where it was ultimately a specific element concentrations higher than surrounding areas).

As was stated above, the following experiments were obtained sets of elemental maps for each sample. The interpretation of microprobe is far from being a trivial operation. Which is aimed at finding correlations between factors, ie presence of an element (or more) and no others in certain areas, are finding their superposition results in the presence of inclusions. Spectra acquired in point (a small area, the size of the order of microns) inclusions permitted to clarify the hypothesis.

To analyze the X-ray spectra obtained at LNL GUPIX program was used, specially developed computer code for fitarea X-ray spectra, resulting in his running both qualitative results (which are elements in the sample) and quantitative results (concentrations).

Regarding the samples from the treasure Pietroasa, results (media elements compositions, maps) obtained for each subject were completely different, confirming that the gold source and processing workshops were distinct for each item - see Table 1, Detailing concentrations point / points for each of the samples analyzed. Results indicate that recipes (elemental composition) is completely different parts analyzed according to the classification of objects previously created by stylistic criteria.

Thus, Patera and cup oenohoe are Greco-Roman style, combining features of style basket dodecagonal sassanid (Persian) and influences of steppe art, while fibulae belong to the tradition of steppe (ground bird of prey). From the analysis carried rezultăa that Treasur is unusual, consisting of parts produced in different times and places. Obviously, only an extensive analysis of all parts of the Treasur may lead to conclusive results and applied to the whole set of objects.

In some samples - such as that taken from the treasury of Pietroasa Patera - iridium was revealed, the characteristic element of gold eastern Mediterranean, most likely originated in Anatolia, the gold region of the river Pactolus, now exhausted by such deposits of gold.

As for the dodecagonal basket  most important result of these experiments is the presence of traces of palladium (Pd). The only available sources of gold with PD at that time were those of Nubia (Sudan) and Anatolia (Turkey), commonly used in workshops in Egypt (Alexandria) and Syria (Antiochia) palladium was revealed that the latter element of coins Alexander the Great after conquering the Persian Empire. High gold content of the evidence also suggests the presence of remelting procedure, probably using imperial Roman coins minted in the Eastern provinces.

Analyzing the elemental maps in one of the samples, part of the fibula in the form of bird-clips were found inclusions of Ta-Nb (tantalum and niobium, see , With a PIXE spectrum in terms of your concentration high, the presence of visible and Nb; Figure 3 Your distribution is a map with a small fragment of the fibula). These are heavy metal fuses, and have resisted melting process. These elements are specific gold deposits from the Urals - type ore samarskite / Columbia. The conclusion is that gold has been achieved in this piece is from the Urals ore origin.

If Romanian native gold samples studied in particular the presence of specific elements such as tin-ago, antimony, tellurium, mercury, lead. The goals Transylvanian gold and antimony were found in virtually all elements behind specimens, lead and mercury appeared behind evidence that elements of the tree (besides tellurium and antimony) - in very small quantities.

Note that was not detected in any sample the presence of tin, gold element specifically Mediterranean , which is found in several pieces of hoard Pietroasa, worked in the Greco-Roman style and Greek-Oriental. Transylvanian gold contains silver naturally from 5% to 25% more in comparison with gold analyzed archaeological pieces that have a low content of silver. Given these results, it appears very clear that Transylvanian gold  coincides with the composition of pieces of hoard of Pietroasa.

Summarize the results obtained in this stage, conclude that the analyzed objects belonging Pietroasa treasure, there are four possible sources of gold: the southern Ural Mountains, deposits of Nubia (Sudan), micro-Asian source (most likely in the Pactolus River central Anatolia) and / or various Roman imperial monetary emission.

Should be noted that measurements performed up to now have affected parts as "Germanic", as well as large pan and colanele simple.

Experiments in this stage may be set in a detailed study of the presence of such elements and micro-inclusions ago in heritage objects of gold, using micro-PIXE technique to obtain conclusions about the origin of historical objects studied. Elemental compositions and the resulting maps allowed the extraction of several historical conclusions, several hypotheses can be advanced regarding the origin and method used metal processing. We tried also a Transylvanian native gold characterization, reaching the conclusion that the hoard of gold objects Pietroasa analyzed so far were made with gold in this geographical area. Experiments are only a first step in this project extensive study of objects made of precious metals of Romanian cultural heritage.

The results described above have been obtained at IFIN-HH physicists and their historical interpretation was done in collaboration with historians and experts from the National History Museum of Romania (MNIR) and the Faculty of History, University of Bucharest (FI -UB).

 

 

 THE GOTHIC OIUM

Text at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oium

Oium or Aujum was a name for an area in Scythia, where the Goths under their king Filimer settled after leaving Gothiscandza, according to the Getica by Jordanes, written around 551.[1][2][3][4] Jordanes does not give the etymology, but many scholars interpret this word as a dative plural to the widespread Germanic words *aujō- or *auwō- and means "well-watered meadow" or "island".[2][3]

According to some historians, Jordanes' account of the Goths' history in Oium was constructed from his reading of earlier classical accounts and from oral tradition.[5][6] According to other historians, Jordanes' narrative has little relation to Cassiodorus,'[7] no relation to oral traditions,[8] and little relation to actual history.[9]

Archaeologically, the Chernyakhov culture of parts of Ukraine, Moldava, and Romania corresponds with Gothic Scythia.[10]

 

Danube Frontier 166-192

http://www.balkanhistory.com/ancient.html 

 From the middle of the 2nd century the Danube frontier came under increasing pressure from Germanic tribes. In the West the Marcomanni, Quadi, Lombards, Gepids and Vandals crossed the Danube as part of what is known as the 'barbarian conspiracy'. In a series of wars between 166-179 AD  Marcus Aurelius and then  his son Lucius repelled invasions by these tribes. Similar incursions were made into Moesia by the Scythians and Sarmations. Whilst Rome stood firm the outcome was only temporary. The great migrations continued to put pressure on the Danube frontier.

 Gothic Wars 214-270

 The Goths who originated in Scandinavia and Northern Prussia dominated the area north of the Danube by the end of the 2nd century6 . The Western Goths who became known as Visigoths were originally mostly infantry. Their Eastern relatives the Ostrogoths took up the use of heavy cavalry from the Sarmatians supported by mostly bow armed infantry. In addition the Goths developed the use of wagon laagers as mobile forts providing a useful base in hostile territory.

Early raids by the Goths into Thrace and Moesia were repulsed but as the Empire suffered internal strife Gothic raids increased. Cuiva, King of the Goths defeated a Roman army at Philippopolis in 250 and Forum Terebronii (Danube Marshes) the following year before being bought off by Emperor Gallus. The Goths quickly broke the agreement but were held on the Danube line by new Roman commanders. They had more success with sea raids through the Bosporus controlling most of the Aegean except Greece by 268.

 There was a Roman revival under the Illyrian Emperor Claudius II ('Gothicus') who defeated the Goths at Nish in 269 before destroying their naval base at Thessalonika. Claudius's death resulted in further attacks driven off by Aurelian although Dacia was abandoned (270).

 The Empire Divides 286

 After years of civil war Diocletian divided the Empire East-West with 4 major administrative regions/armies. The Balkans were split between 3 of these regions, although the main Danube frontier was in Illyricum with a HQ at Sirmium (Mitrovica).

 Constantine 305-337

 Diocletian's abdication lead to further civil war between Constantine and Licinius. Constantine's victorious Balkan campaign of 314 (battles of Cibalae and Mardia) pushed Licinius into Asia. War broke out again in 323 with further victories at Adrianople and a naval battle at the Hellespont. The decisive victory took place in September 323 at Chrysopolis (Scutari) following which Licinius was executed. Constantine established his capital as sole Emperor and renamed it Constantinople.

 While the Romans fought each other the Goths sought to expand their territory. Constantine succeeded in holding the Danube line with a divide and rule policy between the Goths and Sarmatians. The Goths were eventually victorious and the remaining Sarmatians were allowed to settle in the Empire.


Goths 350-376

 Ermanaric united the Ostrogoths and Visigoths in a kingdom which included all the Balkans North of the Danube. The Romans lurched into yet another round of civil wars with one of Constantine's sons, Constantius holding the Balkans after defeating Magnentius at Mursa (Osijek) in 351. For the next four years Constantius dealt with a series of invasions from Sarmatians and Quadis following these up with a punitive raid across the Danube in 357.

 Following a further period of civil war  Ermanaric sent a Visigothic army across the Danube to force the release of Gothic mercenaries imprisoned by Emperor Valens.

Between 367 and 369  the Goths and Romans fought both sides of the Danube until a treaty recognised  the status quo with the Danube forming the boundary between the Roman and Gothic Empires.

 With the Huns invading the Gothic Empire to the north the Goths lead by Fritigern were driven to seek Roman protection. Following a treacherous Roman attack the Goths rebelled defeating the Romans at Marianopolis (Shumla) 377. They escaped Emperor Valens army at Salices and joined with other Germanic tribes who erupted across the entire border.

 In 378 the Roman armies had some initial success in holding Thrace with the Roman General Sebastian defeating the Goths at the Maritsa River. Fritigern was pinned into his wagon laager at Adrianople with his infantry and the women and children totalling some 200,000 people. Valens arriving with a reinforcing army  rejected negotiations and attacked the Gothic camp. As the Romans engaged the Gothic cavalry returned from their foraging and crashed into the Roman flanks. 40,000 Roman troops perished including Valens in a decisive defeat for the legions.

 Alaric

 The Romans gradually recovered led by Theodosius and in a series of campaigns (379-383) drove the Goths across the Danube. Others settled peacefully within the Empire. Theodosius incorporated Goths lead by Alaric into his army (390). After his death in 395 there were further barbarian uprisings lead by Alaric. The Empire was just held together largely through the intervention from the West of their commander, the Vandal Stilicho. Over the next 15 years Alaric used the Balkans as his base to launch a series of invasions of Italy beaten back by Stilicho. When Stilicho was murdered in 408 Alaric and his Visigoths tried again. The Western Emperor Honorius held the impregnable Ravenna whilst Alaric sacked Rome in 410. After Alaric's death the Visigoths went on to create an empire in Southern France and Spain.

The Huns

 By the 5th Century a new Asiatic horde had swept over the tribes north of the Danube, the Huns. 90% of their early armies consisted of light horse archers with a core of heavy noble cavalry. Later they incorporated subdued tribes of Gepids, Goths and Sarmatians giving a better balance of heavy and light cavalry.  


 

The Later Roman Army

 The armies of Constantine bore little resemblance to the Imperial force described earlier.

The old infantry legions were based on the borders, on the Danube known as Ripenses. They provided a local defence backed up by mobile field legions called Palatini and Comitatenses.

The legions were much smaller with more cavalry, light infantry and a greater reliance on missile weapons.

In the 5th Century 'Roman' armies increasing consisted of Barbarian Foederati commanded by their own tribal chiefs.
 

Goths 350-376

 Ermanaric united the Ostrogoths and Visigoths in a kingdom which included all the Balkans North of the Danube. The Romans lurched into yet another round of civil wars with one of Constantine's sons, Constantius holding the Balkans after defeating Magnentius at Mursa (Osijek) in 351. For the next four years Constantius dealt with a series of invasions from Sarmatians and Quadis following these up with a punitive raid across the Danube in 357.

 Following a further period of civil war  Ermanaric sent a Visigothic army across the Danube to force the release of Gothic mercenaries imprisoned by Emperor Valens.

Between 367 and 369  the Goths and Romans fought both sides of the Danube until a treaty recognised  the status quo with the Danube forming the boundary between the Roman and Gothic Empires.

 With the Huns invading the Gothic Empire to the north the Goths lead by Fritigern were driven to seek Roman protection. Following a treacherous Roman attack the Goths rebelled defeating the Romans at Marianopolis (Shumla) 377. They escaped Emperor Valens army at Salices and joined with other Germanic tribes who erupted across the entire border.

 In 378 the Roman armies had some initial success in holding Thrace with the Roman General Sebastian defeating the Goths at the Maritsa River. Fritigern was pinned into his wagon laager at Adrianople with his infantry and the women and children totalling some 200,000 people. Valens arriving with a reinforcing army  rejected negotiations and attacked the Gothic camp. As the Romans engaged the Gothic cavalry returned from their foraging and crashed into the Roman flanks. 40,000 Roman troops perished including Valens in a decisive defeat for the legions.

 Alaric

 The Romans gradually recovered led by Theodosius and in a series of campaigns (379-383) drove the Goths across the Danube. Others settled peacefully within the Empire. Theodosius incorporated Goths lead by Alaric into his army (390). After his death in 395 there were further barbarian uprisings lead by Alaric. The Empire was just held together largely through the intervention from the West of their commander, the Vandal Stilicho. Over the next 15 years Alaric used the Balkans as his base to launch a series of invasions of Italy beaten back by Stilicho. When Stilicho was murdered in 408 Alaric and his Visigoths tried again. The Western Emperor Honorius held the impregnable Ravenna whilst Alaric sacked Rome in 410. After Alaric's death the Visigoths went on to create an empire in Southern France and Spain.

The Huns

 By the 5th Century a new Asiatic horde had swept over the tribes north of the Danube, the Huns. 90% of their early armies consisted of light horse archers with a core of heavy noble cavalry. Later they incorporated subdued tribes of Gepids, Goths and Sarmatians giving a better balance of heavy and light cavalry.  

 

 Jordanes

 

 

Settlement

Jordanes states that king Filimer led the Goths in a search for suitable lands and when they arrived in Oium, they were delighted with the richness of the land. They crossed a bridge to get there, but when half the army[11] had made it across, the bridge fell into ruin, and so no one else could pass into the area anymore. According to Jordanes, the Goths claimed the land for themselves and defeated the previous inhabitants, the Spali.[12]

The Goths left Oium in a second migration to Moesia, Dacia and Thrace, but eventually returned, settling north of the Black Sea. Upon their return, they were divided under two ruling dynasties. The Visigoths were ruled by the Balþi and the Ostrogoths by the Amali. This account fits the patterns of the Wielbark culture and the Chernyakhov culture, which show a Germanic migration from the Vistula Basin to Ukraine.[13]

 Merger with Scythian, Dacian and Thracian history from classic sources

Jordanes wrote that the Goths were descendents of Scythians and Thracians and thus had the same history. According to Jordanes, their royal line had originated near the sea of Azov, then moved northward toward Scandzia where they established a separate priest-king line on the island of Gotland.[citation needed]

According to him, this royal line of Goths fought Vesosis, the king of Egypt under their king Tanausis. After a battle at the river of Phasis, in Georgia, they pursued the Egyptians all the way back to Egypt.[14]

After Tanausis death, the Goths were said to have embarked on another expedition, and a neighbouring tribe tried to kidnap the Gothic women. However, the women defended themselves and defeated the attackers under the leaders Lampeto and Marpesia. The two leaders cast lots, and Marpesia pursued the enemy into Asia where she conquered many tribes and apparently formed the Amazons.[15]

The story continues with the Gothic king Antyrus being approached by Darius, the king of Persia, who wanted to marry his daughter. When Antyrus refused the marriage, he was attacked by Darius, and after Darius by his son Xerxes. None of the attacks are described as being successful.[16]

At another point in the narrative, Philip II allied with the Goths by marrying Medopa who was the daughter of king Gudila. However, Philip needed gold and wanted to pillage the town of Odessos, a town belonging to the Goths. The Goths sent out their Godis who were dressed in white and played harps, chanting to their gods to help them. This stunned the Macedonians so much that they returned.[17]

According to Jordanes, a king named Sitalces wanted revenge much later, and gathered 150 000 men to attack the Athenians. He fought Perdiccas II, whom Alexander I had left as a ruler, and the Goths laid Greece waste.[18]

When Burebista was king, he received a priestly reformer named Decaeneus, and this Decaeuneus advised the Goths to pillage Germania. He also gave the Goths laws, named bi-lageineis, taught them logic, philosophy and astrology. Then he selected a priestly elite who was taught theology and named them the Pilleati. The remainder of the Goths were called the Capillati.[19]

Julius Caesar tried to subdue the Goths without success, and the Goths also remained free during the reign of Tiberius.[19]

When Decaeneus was dead, Comosicus took his place, and after Comosicus, Scoryllus ruled the Goths in Dacia.[19]

A long time passed and the Romans were ruled by Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96). As the Goths (historically, the Dacians) feared his avarice, they broke the truce with the Romans and pillaged the banks of the Danube and killed the soldiers and the generals. At this time Diurpaneus (king Duras-Diurpaneus of Dacia 69–86 or Decebalus who ruled 87-106) was king of the Goths and Oppius Sabinus was the governor of Moesia (having succeeded Fontejus Agrippa (69–70). In 85, the Goths (Dacians) beheaded Oppius Sabinus and plundered many Roman cities and fortifications. Domitian arrived with the legions to Illyria and sent Fuscus with a selected force. Fuscus used boats to build a pontoon bridge and crossed the Danube upstream from the Goths. The Gothic army defeated the Romans, killed Fuscus and pillaged the Roman camp (86 AD).

 Goths' history

After this use of Dacian, Thracian and Scythian history, Jordanes returns to Gothic tradition by reciting the line of descent of the Gothic royal family from Gapt (Gaut or Odin).

This digression is followed by a statement that the Goths entered Moesia and Thrace in the late 2nd century where they stayed for some time. Based on Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, he writes that Emperor Maximinus Thrax (235 AD - 238 AD) was the son of a Goth who arrived at this time and an Alan woman.

Norse mythology

In the Hervarar saga, there is an account of Gothic legendary history and of battles with the Huns, and it may have been composed by Geats in southern Sweden, who have a prominent place in the poetry.[20] The saga conveys names of historical places in Ukraine during the period c. 150-450,[21] and they comprise for instance a form of the name for the Carpathians which most scholars agree is "a relic of extremely ancient tradition".[22] The Goths' capital is called Árheimar and is located on the Danpar (Dniepr). The place name Árheimar has been connected to the name Oium by both Heinzel and Schütte.[23]

In this legend, the Scandinavian Heidrek usurps the Gothic throne in Reidgotaland. Heidrek appears to establish a first contact with the Huns by kidnapping the Hun Princess Sifka, raping her and sending her back to the Huns pregnant with Hlod. When Heidrek dies in the Carpathians, his son Angantyr succeeds him. However, his second son Hlod, who had grown up with the Huns, claims his inheritance and attacks with a Hunnish horde comprising 187 200 mounted warriors.

The Goths are aided by the old Geatish king Gizur, and the war ends in an epic battle on the plains of the Danube, when Angantyr slays his brother Hlod.

References

  1. ^ Jordanes, Getica, chapter IV (25) (link to translation by Mierow, 1915)
  2. ^ a b LISTSERV 14.4
  3. ^ a b Green, Dennis Howard (1998). Language and History in the Early Germanic World. Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521794234, p.167.
  4. ^ Merrills, Andrew H. (2005). History and Geography in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University, ISBN 0521846013, p.120: "The term may, of course, have been a simple invention of Jordanes or Cassiodorus, intended to lend a witty verisimilitude to a knowingly derivative origin myth."
  5. ^ Merrills, Andrew H. (2005). History and Geography in Late Antiquity. Cambridge University, ISBN 0521846013, p.120: "The influence of oral tradition in this passage [the passage introducing Oium] is palpable. Classical and scriptural parallels for the over-population motif, the Arcadian description of the Scythian Canaan and the broken bridge image do suggest that Gothic migration stories had not survived uncontaminated by contact with the Mediterranean world, but they remain recognizably the tropes of oral tradition", and p. 121: "Jerome and Orosius had identified the relatively unfamiliar Goths with the Scythian Getae of ancient historiography. [...] In the wake of this authority, the identification of Oium could be made with little comment".
  6. ^ Wolfram, Herwig (2006). "Gothic history as historical ethnography" and Origo et religio: ethnic traditions and literature in early medieval texts". In From Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms. Ed. Thomas F. X. Noble, Routledge, ISBN 0415327415, pp. 43-90.
  7. ^ Amory, Patrick: People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489-554, pp. 36 & 292.
    Kulikowski, Michael: Rome's Gothic Wars, pp. 50-51.
  8. ^ Amory, Patrick: People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy 489-554, p. 295: "It is a mistake to think that any of the material in the Getica comes from oral tradition."
  9. ^ Kulikowski, Michael: Rome's Gothic Wars, p. 66.
  10. ^ On the identification of Oium with the Sintana de Mures/Chernyakhov culture-area:
    Green, D.H.: Language and history in the early Germanic world, pp. 167-168.
    On the extent of the Sintana de Mures/Chernyakhov culture and its identification with the Goths:
    Heather, Peter and Matthews, John: Goths in the Fourth Century, pp. 50-52 & 88-92
    Kulikowski, Michael: Rome's Gothic Wars, pp. 62-63.
    Note that Kulikowski has criticized the use of the Getica as a source for the period; Kulikowski, Michael: Rome's Gothic Wars, p. 66.
  11. ^ Translation per Merrills, p. 120: "he decided that the army of the Goths with their families should move from that region [...] and it is said that when half the army had been brought over, the bridge whereby they had crossed the river fell into utter ruin."
  12. ^ Jordanes, Mierow, ed., Getica IV (27), http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html#IV 
  13. ^ Heather, Peter J. (1999). The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century. Boydell & Brewer, ISBN 0851157629, p. 16.
  14. ^ Jordanes, Getica, chapter VI (47) (link to translation by Mierow, 1915)
  15. ^ Jordanes, Getica, chapter VII (49) (link to translation by Mierow, 1915)
  16. ^ Jordanes, Getica, chapter X (link to translation by Mierow, 1915)
  17. ^ Jordanes, Getica, chapter X (65) (link to translation by Mierow, 1915)
  18. ^ Jordanes, Getica, chapter X (66) (link to translation by Mierow, 1915)
  19. ^ a b c Jordanes, Getica, chapter XI (67) (link to translation by Mierow, 1915)
  20. ^ Pritsak, Omeljan. (1981). The origin of Rus'. Cambridge, Mass.: Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. ISBN 0-674-64465-4 p. 198
  21. ^ Pritsak, Omeljan. (1981). The origin of Rus'. Cambridge, Mass.: Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. ISBN 0-674-64465-4 p. 214
  22. ^ Pritsak, Omeljan. (1981). The origin of Rus'. Cambridge, Mass.: Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. ISBN 0-674-64465-4 p. 199
  23. ^ Pritsak, Omeljan. (1981). The origin of Rus'. Cambridge, Mass.: Distributed by Harvard University Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. ISBN 0-674-64465-4 p. 209

 External links

  ZAMOLXIS – FIRST LEGISLATOR OF
THE GETAE


UPSALA - 1687   

 

 Full text at: http://www.dacia.org/lundius/clundius-eng.html

CHAPTER I
Summary
§1. ZamolxiV, SAMOLSES in our scrolls. To him are related the beginnings of the paternal laws and the defence of that truth. Who is he and where comes from? He belongs to the Getae, who are the same with Goths and Scythians. §2. The ones being called Getae are also called SVEONES. §3. Some deny they are called Svions from Svidur: their argument can easily be overthrown. §4. Before ODIN, there is no reference of that word in the writings of the old ones. §5. Sueons’ power extended once all over. §6. Whether the country is called Svia from Svidia, a region apart from Goths’ land. Why Svidia? §7. Why the inhabitants are not called rather Gautae than Svions from Odin: SVIFDAGR was born to Odin The Svif. §8 It is quite ridiculous believing that the name of SUEONIA could be related to the place and forest (VEDEN?), idem from ZWEI REICHE (two empires / a double empire). §9. SVIPIOD has a different meaning, while the name of Svions, who are also called Ingueones or Ingevones (in both cases they are spelt correctly); it is the same name with Ingi, Ingve and Ingemundr. §10. Those who have been called Scythians, thereafter called Sueons (Sueones). Where does the name of Scythians come from? For they come from the Elysium Fields, hence their name. §11. Who are the Hyperboreans? So do the foreign writers call them. Where comes the name of Wgugih (Oghiughie). The earliest authors mean by t hat word the trajectory of terrestrial days.§12. Once in our homeland, heredity was considered by the number of bows and arrows. What is the meaning of ARS and ARSDOBOLKAR in the earliest legislation rules. §13. The number twelve, of arrows, was deemed by the ancient peoples to be ordained by the gods; the number of nine days also had the same interpretation. §14. The Gothic SKUTA matches the Latin verb sagittare (“to take very well aim with an arrow”).
§1. The waxed tablets together with the other manuscripts, where they talk about the origin of paternal (national) laws, they are referring to SAMOLSE. It is not known quite exactly about him whether he was a real man and when he was born. However, most authors assert, with greatest levity, that he was born somewhere in the Thracian Land. About that time, the Getae were living there, “Qreikwn andreiotatoi kai
dikaiotatoi ” (Hdt., IV, XCIII, to the end), that is “the most brave and pious of the Thracians”, in Herodotus’ words.
Among the praiseworthy virtues, no doubt by right, that of undefeated is added, with which Procopius (IV, Hist. Goth., 419) has adorned the Goths.
The ones who in Thrace were called Getae, later in Procopius’ (a Greek historian that died in 562 AD) time were called Goths and in older times they were called Scythians. Such authors we owe a due trust, since they are among the best ones; beside them, through his ancient dignity and authority, brilliant Messenius imposed, too (Foreword to a versified edition of the laws, signed Ragvaldus) who, in a few words, has shown with so much clarity and perspicacity that the first laws of the Svions and Goths (Getae) have been made up by Samolse. In order for such conclusion to necessarily be most correct, he clothed it with the word infallible. Subsidiary, if needed anymore, opinions have thereafter recorded, of certain brilliant scholars like BOXHORNIUS (Hist., VII, in the year 101), LOCCENIUS (Antiquit. Sveog., lib. I, chap.1), SCHERINGHAM (De orig. Angl., chap.IX, X. XI), HACHENBERGIUS (De orig. Sved., §XII, ff.), IACOB GISLON (in foreword and Chron. p.m.5 to the end) and in however other passages where the same opinion on the Getae, Goths and Scythians based on different proofs also in the mind of doctrine disciplines writers, such writers being among the most enlightened: that truth is perfectly confirmed by uncounted evidence. It is worthy retaining that unique truth, namely the Getae and the Goths were one and the same people and they were also called with the name of Scythians (Joh. Magn. Hist., S. 4, lib. I, chap.IV, f.f. Schol. Antiq. In Adam N. LXXXVII and authors next chapter)
§2. Therefore, they are called GETAE, GOTHONES, GOTHINI, GETAR, GETTAR, JETTAR, JOTTAR, GAUTAR2, GOTAR3, like with the natives, attrâ from GA, GE, which is the same thing with GAU, GO, JO, GIO, GOJA, i.e. TERRA from the verb GIETA, meaning to give birth, develop, spread open-handed (others have a quite different opinion, namely their names would come from GAUT or ATTYS, the son, loved by Cybele, of the Sangarius river). SVIONES, SVEVI, SVIDAND, SVAND, SVEAR, SVIANAR would come from Attys, more recently; who is also called ODIN, SVIDUR, SVIUR, SVIFR, FTOLSVIDUR, SVIDUDUR, SVIDRIR, SVIDI, from SVIDIA, meaning to devastate through fires. The following add, too: SIGFADUR, SIGTHYR, SIGMUNDUR, SIGTHER, SIGTHROOR, SIGI; and also GAUT, GAUTE, GAUTUR and WALGAUTUR, an assembly of administrative (business) names, which were en vogue at that time, designating both courage and wiseness and a charming finesse in every victorious people; a destruction of enemies’ fields, fires, sieges, has been also called havoc, ruin. Why not also Thràsàr (meaning more vulnerable to cruelty of cutting and burning, not rarely attacked to be publicly exposed). That is yet also name and cult object of the ancestor Attys through most useless games (caprices) and witchcraft; after that superstitions have invaded him, as we learn from the Eddic monuments (it is about two collections of mythological and legendary poems of ancient Scandinavian peoples, T.’s N.) at the location and with the inhabitants SVITHI-OD, SVI-THOD, it is transmitted to us that a new and perpetual name has been given from itself, that just mentioned.

  Chernyakhov culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Finds from the Budeşti Necropolis in Raionul Criuleni, Moldova, III/IV century.
Chernyakhiv culture is shown in orange, the third-century Wielbark Culture in red. Gotland is dark pink and the traditional extent of Götaland is in green. The Roman Empire is purple.

The Chernyakhiv culture (also known as Cherniakhov culture or Cherniakhovo culture) (second century to fifth century) was found in Ukraine, Moldova and parts of Belarus. The eponymous site is the village of Cherniakhov in Ukraine's Kiev Oblast (Chernyakhov in Russian). It existed in the 2nd-5th centuries AD. Around the year 300, the culture extended into Romania where it is called the Sîntana de Mureş culture. It is attested to in thousands of sites.

 Location

The Chernyakhov culture encompassed the territories of modern Ukraine, Moldavia, Wallachia and southern Poland[1].

 Origins

The culture developed in the second century AD[2]. Of varied origins, the culture quickly became remarkably homogeneous throughout the areas it occupied. Scholars debate whether this means that the disperate peoples "mingled inextricably"[3].

In the earlier half of the twentieth century, much energy had been spent by scholars debating the ethnic affinity of the people which inhabited the Chernyakov zone. Soviet scholars, such as Boris Rybakov saw it as the archaeological reflection of the proto-Slavs[4], whilst western, especially German, historians attributed it to the Goths. However, the remains of archaeologically visible material culture and their link with ethnic identity are not as clear as originally thought. The 'Culture-Historical' doctrine founded by German archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna, assumed that “sharply defined archaeological culture areas correspond unquestionably with the areas of particular peoples or tribes”[5]. Scholars today are more inclined to see material cultures as cultural-economic systems incorporating many different groups. "What created the boundaries of these cultural areas were not the political frontiers of a particular people, but the geographical limits within which the population groups interacted with sufficient intensity to make some or all of the remains of their physical culture – pottery, metal work, building styles, burial goods and so on- look very similar[6]. Essentially, scholars are tentative in ascribing an 'ethnic' identity to the material remains of past populations, although they recognise that certain objects may have been manipulated to represent some form of group identity, especially at times of inter-group conflict.

Today, the Chernyakov zone is recognized to represent a cultural interaction of a diversity of peoples, but predominantly from those which already existed in the region[7], whether it be the Sarmatians[8], or the Geto-Dacians[9].

Whilst acknowledging the mixed origins of the Chernyakov culture, Peter Heather suggests that the culture is ultimately a reflection of the Goths' domination of the Pontic area. He cites evidence from literary sources which attests that it was the Goths who were the centre of political attention at this time[10]. In particular, the culture's development corresponds well with Jordanes' tale of Gothic migration from Gothiscandza to Oium, under the leadership of Filimer. Moreoever, he highlights that crucial external influences which catalysed the development of the Chernyakhov culture were derived from the Wielbark culture. Originating in the mid first century, it spread from Pomerania down the Vistula in the second and third centuries. Wielbark elements are prominent in the Chernakhov zone, such as typical 'Germanic' pottery, brooch types and female costume, and, in particular, weaponless bi-ritual burials. Although cultures may spread without substantial population movements, Heather draws attention to a decrease in the number of settlements in the original Pomerian Wielbark heartland as evidence of a significant population movement. Combined with Jordanes' account, Heather concludes that a movement of Goths (and other east germanic groups such as Heruli and Gepids) "played a major role in the creation of the Cernjachove culture"[11]. He clarifies that this movement was not a single, royal-led, migration, but was rather accomplished by a series of small, sometimes mutually antagonistic groups[12].

However, Guy Halsall challenges some of Heather's conclusions. He sees no chronological development from the Wielbark to Chernyakhov culture, given that the latter stage of the Wielbark culture is synchronous with Chernyakhov, and the two regions have minimal territorial overlap. "Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark types"[13]. Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Cehrnyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (ie the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indegenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the third century. Kulikowsky states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble kernal, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. Rather, he suggests that the "Goths" formed in situ. Like the Allemani or the Franks, the Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier"[14].

Other influences, such as a minority of burials which did contain weapons, are seen from the Przeworsk and Zarubinec cultures. The latter has been connected with early Slavs[15].

The Chernyakov culture, ~ 3rd century AD

In linguistic terms, it is said that this is the time and place where Slavic and Iranian borrowed lexical items from each other, and where Slavic picked up many of its Germanic loanwords. (Gothic, however, has few Slavic loanwords).

 Settlements

Houses were arranged in parallel, and are of two predominant types. The most numerous are sunken huts, called Grubenhouser in German. They are generally small in size, measuring 5-16 square metres in area. The other predominant type is surface dwellings called Wohnstalhauser, which are of more variable size, tending to be larger. Some settlements have both types of dwellings, although Romanian finds have only sunken-floored houses. Although the variation in types may be attributable to the different ethnic groups in the zone, the differences are also a reflection of socio-economic factors. The Wohnstalhauser are typical of Germanic settlements in central Europe, and had not been found in early cultures of south-eastern Europe. Conversely, the sunken-floored huts have been found in earlier Dacian cultures in the Carpathians and the farmers of the forest-steppe, and continued well after the period (and became wide-spread throughout eastern Europe). Whatever their origins, these styles were readily adopted by all peoples of the culture.

 Funerary Rites

Both inhumation and cremation were practiced. The dead were buried with grave goods – pottery, iron implements, bone combs, personal ornaments, although in later periods grave goods decrease. Of the inhumation burials, the dead were usually buried in a north-south axis (with head to north), although a minority are in east-west orientation. Funerary gifts often include fibulae, belt buckles, bone combs, glass drinking vessels and other jewelry. Women's burials in particular shared very close similarities with Wielbark forms - buried with two fibulae, one on each shoulder. Like in the Wielbark culture, Chernyakhov burials usually lack weapons as funerary gifts, except in a few cremation burials reminiscent of Przeowrsk influences [17]. Although cremation burials are traditionally associated with Germanic and Slavic peoples, and inhumation is suggestive of nomadic practice, careful analysis suggests that the mixed burials were of an earlier period, whilst toward the end there was a trend toward inhumation burials without grave goods. This could be the result of the influences of Christianity, but could just as easily be explained in terms of an evolution on non-Christian views about the afterlife.

 Ceramic wares

Pottery was predominantly of local production, being both wheel and hand-made. Wheel made pottery predominated, and was made of finer clay. It was reminiscent of earlier Sarmatian types, refined by Roman and La Tene influences. Hand made pottery showed a greater variety in form, and was sometimes decorated with incised linear motifs. In addition, Roman amphorae are also found, suggesting trade contacts with the Roman world. There is also a small, but regular, presence of distinct hand–made pottery typical to that found in western Germanic groups, suggesting the presence of Germanic groups.

 Economy

The Chernyakhov people were primarily a settled population involved in cultivation of cereals – especially wheat, barley and millet. Finds of ploughshares, sickles and scythes have been frequent. Cattle breeding was the primary mode of animal husbandry, and the breeding of horses appears to have been restricted to the open steppe. Metalworking skills were widespread throughout the culture, and local smiths produced much of the implements, although there is some evidence of production specialization.

 Decline

The Chernyakhov culture ends in the fifth century A.D, attributed to the arrival of the Huns[18]. The collapse of the culture is no longer explained in terms of population displacement, although there was an outmigration of Goths. Rather, more recent theories explain the collapse of the Chernyakhov culture in terms of a disruption of the heirarchical political structure which maintained it. John Mathews suggests that, despite its cultural homogeneity, a sense of ethnic distinction was kept between the disparate peoples. Some of the autochthonous elements persist[19], and become even more widspread, after the demise of the Gothic elite - a phenomenon associated with the rise and expansion of the early Slavs.

Notes

  1. ^ Mallory (1997, p. 104)
  2. ^ Mallory (1997, p. 104)
  3. ^ Matthews (1991, p. 92)
  4. ^ Barford (2001, p. 40)
  5. ^ Curta (2001, p. 24). Citing Kossinna 1911:3
  6. ^ Heather (2006)
  7. ^ Halsall (2007, p. 132)The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences, but most come from existing cultures in the region
  8. ^ Mallory (1997, p. 106)
  9. ^ Matthews (, p. 90) argue that it shows that the local Daco-Getans played the leading role in the creation of the Culture
  10. ^ Matthews (1991)
  11. ^ Heather (1998, p. 22, 23)
  12. ^ Heather (1998, p. 43, 44)
  13. ^ Halsall (2007, p. 133)
  14. ^ Kulikowski (, p. 60-68)
  15. ^ Mallory (1997, p. 106)
  16. ^ Matthews (1991, p. 50-92)
  17. ^ Heather (1998, p. =47)
  18. ^ Mallory (1997, p. 106)
  19. ^ Matthews (, p. 91) settlement was continuous from the period of the Sintana de Mures/ Cernjachov Culture right through the Migration Period into the Middle Ages proper

 References

  • Heather, Peter (2006), The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195159543 
  • Eiddon, Iorwerth; Edwards, Stephen; Heather, Peter (1998), "Goths & Huns", The Cambridge Ancient History, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521302005 
  • Barford, Paul M (2001), The Early Slavs: Culture and Society in Early Medieval Eastern Europe, Cornell University Press, ISBN 0801439779 
  • Halsall, Guy (2007), Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521434912 
  • Curta, Florin (2001), The Making of the Slavs: History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region, C. 500-700, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521802024 
  • Matthews, John; Heather, Peter (1991), The Goths in the fourth century, Liverpool University Press, ISBN 0853234264 
  • Kulikowsky, Michael (2007), Rome's Gothic Wars: from the third century to Alaric, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521846331 

 ClaudiusIIGothicus.jpg image by c0ldfir3   Iordanes
De origine actibusque Getarum or Getica

Jordanes wrote his GETICA at the behest of a certain Vigilius. Although some scholars have identified this person with pope Vigilius, there is nothing else to support the identification besides the name. The form of address that Jordanes uses and his admonition that Vigilius "turn to God" would seem to rule out this identification [9][7].

  •  Marcus Aurelius Valerius Claudius II Gothicus-Roman Emperor of Illyrian Origin (photo)i25.photobucket.com/.../ClaudiusIIGothicus.jpg (photo)

     

  •  

  • Roman Gothic Wars Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanaric%27s_Wall

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Dacia.svg

     In the preface to his Getica, Jordanes writes that he is interrupting his work on the Romana at the behest of a brother Castalius, who apparently knew that Jordanes had had the twelve volumes of the History of the Goths by Cassiodorus at home. Castalius would like a short book about the subject, and Jordanes obliges with an excerpt based on memory, possibly supplemented with other material he had access to. The Getica sets off with a geography/ethnography of the North, especially of Scandza (16-24). He lets the history of the Goths commence with the emigration of Berig with three ships from Scandza to Gothiscandza (25, 94), in a distant past. In the pen of Jordanes, Herodotus' Getian demi-god Zalmoxis becomes a king of the Goths (39). Jordanes tells how the Goths sacked "Troy and Ilium" just after they had recovered somewhat from the war with Agamemnon (108). They are also said to have encountered the Egyptian pharaoh Vesosis (47).

  • The less fictional part of Jordanes' work begins when the Goths encounter Roman military forces in the third century AD. The work concludes with the defeat of the Goths by the Byzantine general Belisarius. Jordanes concludes the work by stating that he writes to honour those who were victorious over the Goths after a history of 2030 years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanes

     

    Athanaric's Wall  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Fortification line erected by the king of the Thervings Athanaric, between the banks of river Gerasius (modern Prut) and the Danube to the land of Taifali (modern Oltenia), most probable Athanaric's Wall has reused the old roman limes called: Limes Transalutanus[1]
     
     
     The Gepids occupied the area East of the Tiza (modern Hungary) where they remained within the Hun kingdom. After the fall of the Huns they briefly ruled much of modern Romania until they were forced out by the Ostrogoths. They were subsequently crushed by the Romans and disappeared from history. 

  • JORDANES-THE ORIGIN AND DEEDS OF THE GOTHS (Getae)

    Text at: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html

      We read that on their first migration the Goths dwelt in the land of Scythia near Lake Maeotis. On the second migration they went to Moesia, Thrace and Dacia, and after their third they dwelt again in Scythia, above the Sea of Pontus. Nor do we find anywhere in their written records legends which tell of their subjection to slavery in Britain or in some other island, or of their redemption by a certain man at the cost of a single horse. Of course if anyone in our city says that the Goths had an origin different from that I have related, let him object. For myself, I prefer to believe what I have read, rather than put trust in old wives' tales.

    (39) To return, then, to my subject. The aforesaid race of which I speak is known to have had Filimer as king while they remained in their first home in Scythia near Maeotis. In their second home, that is in the countries of Dacia, Thrace and Moesia, Zalmoxes reigned, whom many writers of annals mention as a man of remarkable learning in philosophy. Yet even before this they had a learned man Zeuta, and after him Dicineus; and the third was Zalmoxes of whom I have made mention above. Nor did they lack teachers of wisdom. (40) Wherefore the Goths have ever been wiser than other barbarians and were nearly like the Greeks, as Dio relates, who wrote their history and annals with a Greek pen. He says that those of noble birth among them, from whom their kings and priests were appointed, were called first Tarabostesei and then Pilleati. Moreover so highly were the Getae praised that Mars, whom the fables of poets call the god of war, was reputed to have been born among them. Hence Virgil says:

    "Father Gradivus rules the Getic fields."

    (41) Now Mars has always been worshipped by the Goths with cruel rites, and captives were slain as his victims. They thought that he who is the lord of war ought to be appeased by the shedding of human blood. To him they devoted the first share of the spoil, and in his honor arms stripped from the foe were suspended from trees. And they had more than all other races a deep spirit of religion, since the worship of this god seemed to be really bestowed upon their ancestor.

    (42) In their third dwelling place, which was above the Sea of Pontus, they had now become more civilized and, as I have said before, were more learned. Then the people were divided under ruling families. The Visigoths served the family of the Balthi and the Ostrogoths served the renowned Amali. (43) They were the first race of men to string the bow with cords, as Lucan, who is more of a historian than a poet, affirms:

    "They string Armenian bows with Getic cords."

    In earliest times they sang of the deeds of their ancestors in strains of song accompanied by the cithara; chanting of Eterpamara, Hanala, Fritigern, Vidigoia and others whose fame among them is great; such heroes as admiring antiquity scarce proclaims its own to be. (44) Then, as the story goes, Vesosis waged a war disastrous to himself against the Scythians, whom ancient tradition asserts to have been the husbands of the Amazons. Concerning these female warriors Orosius speaks in convincing language. Thus we can clearly prove that Vesosis then fought with the Goths, since we know surely that he waged war with the husbands of the Amazons. They dwelt at that time along a bend of Lake Maeotis, from the river Borysthenes, which the natives call the Danaper, to the stream of the Tanais. (45) By the Tanais I mean the river which flows down from the Rhipaeian mountains and rushes with so swift a current that when the neighboring streams or Lake Maeotis and the Bosphorus are frozen fast, it is the only river that is kept warm by the rugged mountains and is never solidified by the Scythian cold. It is also famous as the boundary of Asia and Europe. For the other Tanais is the one which rises in the mountains of the Chrinni and flows into the Caspian Sea. (46) The Danaper begins in a great marsh and issues from it as from its mother. It is sweet and fit to drink as far as half-way down its course. It also produces fish of a fine flavor and without bones, having only cartilage as the frame-work of their bodies. But as it approaches the Pontus it receives a little spring called Exampaeus, so very bitter that although the river is navigable for the length of a forty days' voyage, it is so altered by the water of this scanty stream as to become tainted and unlike itself, and flows thus tainted into the sea between the Greek towns of Callipidae and Hypanis. At its mouth there is an island named Achilles. Between these two rivers is a vast land filled with forests and treacherous swamps.

    VI (47) This was the region where the Goths dwelt when Vesosis, king of the Egyptians, made war upon them. Their king at that time was Tanausis. In a battle at the river Phasis (whence come the birds called pheasants, which are found in abundance at the banquets of the great all over the world) Tanausis, king of the Goths, met Vesosis, king of the Egyptians, and there inflicted a severe defeat upon him, pursuing him even to Egypt. Had he not been restrained by the waters of the impassable Nile and the fortifications which Vesosis had long ago ordered to be made against the raids of the Ethiopians, he would have slain him in his own land. But finding he had no power to injure him there, he returned and conquered almost all Asia and made it subject and tributary to Sornus, king of the Medes, who was then his dear friend. At that time some of his victorious army, seeing that the subdued provinces were rich and fruitful, deserted their companies and of their own accord remained in various parts of Asia.

    (48) From their name or race Pompeius Trogus says the stock of the Parthians had its origin. Hence even to-day in the Scythian tongue they are called Parthi, that is, Deserters. And in consequence of their descent they are archers--almost alone among all the nations of Asia--and are very valiant warriors. Now in regard to the name, though I have said they were called Parthi because they were deserters, some have traced the derivation of the word otherwise, saying that they were called Parthi because they fled from their kinsmen. Now when Tanausis, king of the Goths, was dead, his people worshipped him as one of their gods.

     

     

  • Aurelian
    Lucius Domitius Aurelianus


    -One of the Greatest Roman Emperors of Illyrian Origin-



    One of the greatest of the Roman soldier emperors, born at Sirmium in Pannonia between AD 212-14. He was of humble Illyrian origin, but nothing definite is known of his family. He had always shown great enthusiasm for a military career, and so distinguished himself in the campaigns in which he took part that on one occasion he received a public vote of thanks. At the same time he was proclaimed consul elect, and adopted by Ulpius Crinitus, military governor of Illyria and Thrace. On the death of the emperor Claudius II Gothicus (270), Aurelian was proclaimed his successor with the universal approval of the soldiers. His first task was to continue the war which had been begun by Claudius against the Goths. He drove them out of Moesia across the Danube, where he left them in possession of Dacia, which he did not think himself able to retain; the name was transferred to Moesia, which was then called Dacia Aureliani.
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  • Dacia ceded to the Goths  
  • The chronology, however, of Aurelian's reign is very confused, and the abandonment of Dacia is placed by some authorities towards its close. He next entered upon campaigns against the Juthungi, Alamanni, and other Germanic tribes, over whom, after a severe defeat which was said to have imperilled the very existence of the empire, he at length obtained a complete victory. Having thus secured the Rhine and Danube frontiers, he turned his energies towards the east, and in 271 set out on his expedition against Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. At the same time he crushed two pretenders to the throne -- Firmus and Tetricus. Firmus, a wealthy merchant of Seleucia, had proclaimed himself emperor of Egypt. Aurelian, who was at the time in Mesopotamia, hastened to Egypt, and ordered him to be seized and put to death. Tetricus, who had been proclaimed emperor in the west after the death of Gallienus, and left undisturbed by Claudius II, still ruled over Gaul, Spain and Britain. A decisive battle was fought near the modern Châlons, in which Tetricus was defeated. The restoration of the unity of the empire was thus complete. In 294 a brilliant triumph, adorned by the persons of Zenobia and Tetricus, was celebrated at Rome.

    Aurelian now turned his attention to the internal affairs of the empire. He introduced sumptuary laws; relieved the poor by distributions of bread and meat, proceeded with great severity against informers and embezzlers; began the construction of various public works and buildings; and proclaimed a general amnesty for political crimes. The restoration and enlargement of the walls of Rome, commenced by him, was not completed until the reign of Probus. An attempt to restore the standard of the coinage is said to have caused a revolt of the workmen and officials connected with the mint, which was only put down with the loss of 7000 soldiers. It has been suggested that this was really an attempt at revolution incited by the senate and praetorian guards, the opportunity being found in disturbances resulting from opposition to the attempted reform, which by themselves could hardly have assumed such serious proportions. Aurelian's restless spirit was not long able to endure a life of inaction in the city. Towards the end of 274, he started on an expedition against the Persians, halting in Thrace by the way. While on the march between Heracleia and Byzantium, at the beginning of the following year, he was assassinated through the treachery of his secretary Eros, who, in order to escape the discovery of his own irregularities, incited certain officers against the emperor by showing them a forged list, on which their names appeared as marked out for death.

    Aurelian well deserved the title of restorer of the empire, and it must be remembered that he lived in an age when severity was absolutely necessary. He was a great soldier and a rigid but just disciplinarian. In more favorable circumstances he would have been a great administrator. He displayed a fondness for pomp and show on public occasions; he was the first Roman emperor to wear the diadem, and assumed the title of Lord and God on medals.
  •  Getas Basileis

    Abstract.

  • http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/message/10106
    Near Cluj-Napoca, in a well known antic site, a seal with a cross was found in a gepidic tomb.The exhibition is very recent. This is related to the Getic logo on antic coins. Moreover the site corresponds to the description of old Dacian Sarmizegetusa. This supports the statement of Jordanes that Gots and Gets are the same kin (rulers). This also suggests that a better model for the incoming of
    Gepids in Transylvania is reconsidering the hypothesis by Gibbon on
    historical Odin: a better fit is given by the king Duras of Dacia
    which left the kingdom of Dacia to Decebalus in 87AD.

  • The need for the guess of an east germanic tribe to explain
    historical events is eliminated. Only rulers, feuds and wars, but
    no "migration" as incoming data. The direction is two-wards.

    The global interpretation of the data in the National Museum of
    History of Transylvania along with the pictures on the Trajan's
    column supports the interpretation that the religion of the Dacians (and threfore Gets) was Mithraic.

    1. Getas Basileis
    1a. Sarmizegetusa. More at http://download.academic.ro/Vlaha/index.html

  • We try to bring to life the significance of such words as "sighet" - engl. creek and sarmas-salted water which apparently enter in the name of Sarmizegetusa, the alleged capital of the last Dacian king Decebalus.
    These words remained through time in the language of the shepherds and remained intact as basic geographic notions, a matter of life and
    death for these people.
    Sarmis denotes the 4 Somes rivers in Transylvania: the Grand, Small,
    Warm and Cold. Moreover Särmas is a frequent village name. Sarmas means salted water. It is very frequent since Transylvania is the bottom of the sarmatic sea.

  • We have today: Saliste,Sarata, Saratura, Saratel, Sarateni, Sarile, Sarmas (5), Sarmasel, Sarmasag. We have not found (yet) Sargetel and Sarmagel or Sarmagata (look at
    Trajan's Sargetia). Sarmatau is impossible, since 'tau' denotes a source of flowing
    water. Therefore, Sarmis should be a small river, passing near a salt deposit; Sargetia (sargâtza-in today Romanian), a small river near the citadell (where the treasure was hidden) may be found, but not a creek of 2 salted rivers. Perhaps they meant the Somes but the combination Somesseged didn't sound enough triumphalistic.

    Let us continue with the sighet word. It denotes a confluence:

    Szeged in Hungary- confluence of Mures and Tisa
    Sighisoara (small confluence) Tarnava Mica and Shes
    Sighetu Marmatiei Tisa and Iza
    Sighetu Silvaniei (near Zalau) Crasna and Zalau
    Sighii (plural, called SIBIU on maps- an incompetent alteration of the original romanian name), many afluents of the Cibin River.

    We get the word SIGHET in dacian, suggesting that today romanian is actually the same old dacian. Therefore, we have 3 hypothesis for the confluence of then two
    Sarmis/Somes :
    - Near DEJ (confluence of Grand Somes/Sarmis with Small Somes/Sarmis).
    We know that Trajan destroyed the Dacian citadel and build a Roman Castrum. No convincing traces were found there however.

    - Confluence of Warm Somes with Cold Somes at Gilau.
    One also has a smaller river passing by, called today Sarata which may be the antic Sargetia where Decebal hided his treasure. It is well in the mountains.
    There is an old stone fortress there, called "Cetatea Fetei" - uninvestigated archeologically perhaps assigned to another Romanian hero, Voievod Gelou, beatten by hungarians in 895. However, there is a Roman castrum founded in 106 AD by Trajan there.
    The nearby village Vlaha suggests a matrix of old Transylvanian voyevodate.

    At Dabâca, at 30 km away of both Cluj-Napoca and Gilau another
    fortress, also assigned to Gelou may be found. We mention that in
    Transylvania (family) names are formed starting with the village of
    origin while surnames are given. Thus, Ioan Giloan is John from Gilau
    and Ioan Calborean is John from Calbor. Thus Gelou may be the family
    name of the IX-th century hero. BUT, for Dabâca, the name of the
    natives is formed as Däbalä. Thus we get the origin of the name of
    the last Dacian King and his village, which ressembles to Decebalus.

    I encountered such a contraction of sounds personally: Gordes from
    Gheorghies, because the special group Ghe (or Dece in our case) is
    negligently pronounced. This also explains the origin of the dacians
    people name.

    When Decebalus lost the fortress, he left, but was captured by Romans
    at 60 km away at Porolissum, i.e Moigrad today. This would'nt be
    possible with the Roman army at Hunedoara at 300 km away.
    Therefore we believe having indicated the proper location of
    Decebal's last fight.

    Dabâca always had an important administrative role, including in the
    middle ages, when it was center of a comitate (county). While the
    antic water pipe is still functioning today, there is no Somes-Sighet
    there and no salted water. It might be the village of origin of
    Decebalus. (i.e. both Decebalus and Gelou mastered both Gilau and
    Däbâca citadels, separated by 30km).

    Thus everything happened near Cluj-Napoca, which is a very populated
    area. Chances to find huge treasuries or artefacts are scarce.
    However, the History Museum there may supply lot of encouraging
    evidence.

    b. In previous posts I showed that Jordannes "Galtis on Aucha"
    (Aluta) corresponds to Galati, near Fagaras and that Flautasis
    (Raftsmen) corresponds to the Bistritza/Cogeanus south border of
    Moldavia before 1500. Galtis in the antic acception (e.g. in Sapain)
    should be taken as betten earth citadel.


    c. In sept 2006, a fabulous site was discovered in Floresti, near
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania. A few month before that I have published that
    the location (see 1a above) corresponds to the same site.
    The exhibition of the artefacts shows a seal with a cross which
    undoubtely means the seal of the Gets, according to poorly documented
    antic coins which bear the same logo and the label "Getas ...
    Basileis". These coins were also found in Babylon, also in agreement
    with Jordannes on the wars with Ramses (lost reference-volunteer
    needed):
    - seal:http://download.academic.ro/columna/polus/Sigiliu.gif
    - back of seal:http://download.academic.ro/columna/polus/Pistil.gif
    - coin: http://download.academic.ro/columna/polus/moneda.gif

  • Nearby, the largest gepid necropola (500 tombs), the antic Napoca,
    attested former gepid royal residences. See also Erdely Tortenete
    (http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/17.html - the english version is
    incomplete: Mihacs garden denotes the garden of the local landlord,
    10 km upstream).

    2.d. Orhodoxian christian canonic representation of "Christ as a
    judge" consists in Christ dressed with a robe painted with crosses in
    circles or squares. I suggest this is a canonic posture for a ruling
    Voievoda (Basileus)-not Zeus on coins.

    2.Historical Odin revisited

    2.a. Vlahii Sarmatae are a people appearing in north Transylvania on
    the Tabula Peutingeriana. Also the prince of Vlachs appears in
    Niebelungen Lied. A hill(stone) near Cluj Napoca bears the name of
    Feleak (closer to the sanskrit Valaka). The meaning of Vlaha/ ValaKa
    is a diminutive for valley and is not quite unique to the Cluj Napoca
    surroundins, but fits with Valaskialf of Woden who is supposed to be
    a king not a shepherd.
    In Romanian, Woda (see Wodan) comes from Voie-va-da(u)(I allow you
    to ...)- meaning judge or ruler. Not slavian warrior. The slavs
    (Carintia) had Voievoda as rulers/Judges not as warriors !

    2.b. Duru(yielding Duras), from "a durui" means thunder/make thunder
    noise in Romanian, e.g. Duruitoare=water fall, etc. This fits the
    war name of Wodan, Thor.

    2.c. Wodan appears in Denmark after 88AD whiled Duras leaves Dacia
    in 87 AD, after beating Fuscus, an event marked in Jordannes. Since a
    hiatus appears among the rulers, north and south Alutus (today Olt)
    it is normal to have a Jordannes ignoring the northen kingdom
    conquered by the Romans.

    2.d. Transylvania (Dacia), similarly to Denmark is the only kingdom
    where the people is called scithians (siculy >>>seklars today),
    dacians and gets altogether along with RUNES.

    2.e. The elder futark rune42. Järsberg Stone (1st half of the 6th
    century)

      

    http://histoiremesure.revues.org/index884.html 

    Auxentius on Wulfila

  • http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/texts/auxentius.html

  • Jim Marchand: I am teaching Gothic again, and I like to give the students some background. One of the most important documents is a letter written by Auxentius of Durostorum, foster-son of Wulfila, the man who translated the Gothic Bible. Auxentius was known for his rhetorical skill, as you can see, and he was praised for his oratory by none other than Ambrose. In fact, this letter is handed down in the margins of a manuscript of De fide. It seems quite likely that it was Auxentius who disputed with Ambrose in the "de basilicis tradendis" fight. At any rate, the letter is from about 400 or a little earlier, and it gives witness as to the Arian party and the politics of the Church at the time. I have ended with Wulfila's Creed, probably the most straightforward declaration of `orthodox' Arian belief. Translation (?, you can't translate something like this) also available:

  • Auxentius on Wulfila: Translation by Jim Marchand Now the letter (the Latin text is also available) declares that the aforementioned bishops, along with Bishop Wulfila had proceeded to the East to the court of Theodosius, the emperor ...

    Auxentius

    ... [Wulfila was] of great propriety, verily a confessor of Christ, a teacher of piety and a preacher of truth. He never hesitated to preach quite openly and very clearly to willing and unwilling alike the one true Cod, the Father of Christ, and the second rank of this same Christ, knowing this one true Cod to be alone unbegotten, without beginning, without end, eternal, exalted, sublime, excellent, most high creator, epitome of all excellence, better than all good, interminable, uncontainable, invisible, immense, immortal, incorruptible, incommunicable, of incorporeal essence, not compounded of parts, simple, immutable, undivided, immovable, lacking in nothing, inaccessible, undivided, unbounded, ungoverned, uncreated, unmade, existing perfectly in Onness, incomparably greater and better than all. Who being alone, not to the division or diminution of His divinity, but to the display of His goodness and power by His will and power alone, passionless passionlessly, incorruptible incorruptibly, immovable immovably, did create and beget, make and establish an only-begotten God.

    He never concealed that, according to the authority and tradition of the Holy scriptures, this second God and Author of all things existed by the Father, after the Father, for the Father, and for the glory of the Father; rather he always set forth according to the Blessed Gospels that He was both great God and great Lord and great King, and great Mystery, great Light and great Pontifex, providing and law-giving Lord, Redeemer, Savior, Pastor (?), born before all time, Creator of all creation, just Judge of the quick and the dead, having a greater God, His Father, for he (Wulfila) despised and trampled on the odious and abominable, depraved and perverse confession of the Homousians as a devilish invention and doctrine of demons. He himself knowing and handing down to us that, if the indefatigable virtue (power) of the only-begotten God is reliably said to be capable of having made all things celestial and terrestrial, invisible and visible, and is believed rightly and faithfully by us Christians, why is it not credited that the passionless power of God the Father might create His only-begotten Son? But he also deplored and shunned the error and impiety of the Homoiousians, being himself most carefully instructed out of the Holy Scriptures and confirmed earnestly therein in many councils of saintly bishops, as he spread abroad by his words and tractates, that the Father and Son were different in their divinity, unbegotten and only-begotten God, that the Father was creator of the Creator, that the Son was truly Creator of all creation; and the Father was the Cod of the Lord, that the Son was then God of all creation.

    Wherefore he scattered the sect of the Homousians, because he believed not in confuse and concrete persons, but in discrete and distinct ones. The Homoiousians, however, he put to flight, since they defended the assumption that they were not of comparable but different substance. And he did not preach the Son to be similar to his Father according to the fraudulent Macedonian depravities and perversities against the Scriptures, but according to the Divine Scriptures and Traditions.

    In his preaching and exposition he asserted that all heretics were not Christians, but Antichrists; not pious, but impious; not religious, but irreligious; not timid but bold; not in hope but without hope; not worshipers of God, but without God, not teachers, but seducers; not preachers, but liars; be they Manichaeans, Marcinonists, Montanists, Paulinians, Psabbelians, Antropians, Patripassians, Photinans (?), Novatians, Donatians, Homousians, Homoiousians, or Macedonians. Verily, as an imitator of the apostles and an imitator of the Martyrs, his work repelled the false doctrine of the heretics and edified the people of God, put to flight the hungry wolves and bad dogs and preserved the flock of Christ by His grace as a good shepherd with all prudence and diligence.

    He also subscribed to the concept that the Holy Ghost was neither Father nor Son, but created by the Father through the Son before all things, that he is not first nor second, but placed by the first through the second in third rank; that he is not unbegotten nor begotten, but created by the unbegotten through the begotten in the third rank, according to the evangelic preaching and apostolic tradition of St. John, who says: "All things were made by him and without him not any thing was made;" (John 1.1) and by blessed Paul who asserted: "[there is] but one God the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things are." (1 Cor. 8.6)

    For, an unbegotten God being in existence and one Lord only-begotten existing by God, the Holy Spirit Advocate can be said to be neither God nor Lord, but is fixed by God through the Lord to be: not the creator nor the author; but the illuminator and sanctifier, teacher and leader, helper and postulant, teacher (?) and informer, minister of Christ and dispenser of grace, the pledge of tradition in whose sign we shall be on the day of redemption, without whom no one can say that Jesus is the Lord, as the apostle says: "No one can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12.3) and as Christ says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14.6)

    Therefore, they are Christians who worship Christ in the spirit and the truth ... and through Christ with love offer thanks to God the Father.

    Following this and similar doctrines for 40 years flourishing splendidly in the bishopric through apostolic grace, he preached in the Greek, Latin, and Gothic tongues without ceasing in the one and only Church of Christ; because the Church of the Living God _is_ one, the pillar and column of Truth; and he affirmed and witnessed that the flock of Christ, our Lord and God, was one, one the worship and one the house; one the Virgin, one the Spouse, one the Queen; that there was only one vine, temple, congregation of the Christians; that all other places of congregation were not Churches of God, but Synagogues of Satan.

    And whoever reads this, let him know that he taught and expounded to us all this concerning the Sacred Scriptures. He also left behind in those very three languages several treatises and many interpretations, for the use and edification of the willing, for his own eternal memory and grace.

    Whom I am unable to praise sufficiently; yet I cannot be silent, who more than all others am in his debt, in that he worked more richly on me, taking me in early years from my parents as his student, he taught me the Holy Scriptures and made manifest to me the truth. And by the kindness of God and the grace of Christ he reared me bodily and spiritually as a son in the faith.

    According to God's providence and Christ's kindness he was ordained -- for the salvation of many -- bishop among the people of the Goths at the age of 30 from the position of lector, so that he might not only be heir of God and co-heir of Christ, but through the grace of Christ also an imitator of Christ and His Saints, in that the holy David was set as King and Prophet at the age of thirty in order to both lead and teach the people of God and the children of Israel, so also this blessed man was revealed as it were as a prophet and set as a priest of Christ, in order to lead and better the people of the Goths, to teach them and edify them, and according to the will of God and with the help of Christ this was fulfilled through his activity (ministry) in a remarkable manner. And just as Joseph was made manifest (as God's minister) in Egypt at the age of thirty ... and as the Son of God, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, was constituted at the age of thirty according to the flesh and baptized and began to preach the Gospel and to feed the souls of men, so did this Saint upon the command of Christ himself and His direction better and teach the people of the Goths, who were living in hunger and deprivation of preaching indifferently; he made manifest to them and taught them to live in accord with the rule of the Gospel, the Apostles and the Prophets, and as Christians to be truly Christians, and thus increased the number of Christians.

    At which point by the envy and the machinations of the Enemy (Satan) a persecution of the Christians in the countries of the barbarians (trans-Danubian Goths) was set in motion with tyrannic terror by the godless and blasphemous chief (iudex) of the Goths, so that Satan, who wanted to do evil, did good against his will; he wanted to make sinners and apostates of them; but with Christ's aid and help, they became martyrs and confessors, that the persecutor might be confounded and those who suffered persecution be crowned. He who sought to conquer, blushed as vanquished, and they who were tempted rejoiced as victors.

    Then after the glorious martyrdom of many servants and handmaidens of Christ, the most holy man, the blessed Ulfilas, having completed seven years in the office of bishop, was driven out by the vehemently threatening persecution from the country of the barbarians with a great host of confessors onto Roman soil and here honorably received by the Prince Constantius, of blessed memory. Just as God freed His people through Moses from the power and might of Pharaoh and the Egyptians and caused them to walk through the sea, and provided for his Own service, just so did God free the Goths through the often named confessor of his Holy Only-begotten Son out of the lands of the barbarians and cause them to cross the Danube and to serve Him in the mountains according to the example of the saints.

    Remaining with his people, not counting those 7 years, 33 years on Roman soil, he preached the truth -- just as he was also an imitator of certain ancient Saints in this matter too -- he completed a space of 40 years, so that he left this life at the age of 70 after the completion of many deeds.

    After 40 years had been completed, he departed at the imperial behest to Constantinople to a disputation against the ... and he insisted on going in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, so that they might not teach and infest the churches of Christ dedicated by him to Christ. ... Having entered into the above city, he immediately began to fall ill, since the impious ones had again reconsidered the situation of the council, so that the more to be pitied as miserable (the orthodox party) might not be shown to be condemned by their own judgement and be shown to be punishable by the eternal judgement (as heretics). In which sickness he was taken away in the manner of the Prophet Elisha.

    It is now fitting to consider the merit of the man, who went by the leadership of the Lord to Constantinople, nay Christianople, where the holy and unspotted priest of Christ might receive such wondrous and splendid honors from the saints and his fellow priests, the worthy one from worthy ones worthily in such a multitude of Christians. And he, moreover, at his leave-taking, at the very moment of his death, left through his testament a statement of his faith for the people committed to him, saying thus:

    I, Wulfila, Bishop and Confessor, have always believed thus and in this sole and true faith I make my journey to my Lord,

    I believe

    that there is only one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, our Lord and God, creator and maker of all things, not having any like unto Him. Therefore there is one God of all, who is also God of our God, And I believe in one Holy Spirit, an enlightening and sanctifying power. As Christ says after the resurrection to his Apostles: "Behold I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24.49) And again: "And ye shall receive power coming upon you by the Holy Spirit." (Acts 1.8) Neither God nor Lord, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

    Nam ed ad oriente perrexisse memoratos episcopos cum Ulfila episkopo ad comitatum Theodosi inperatoris, epistula declarat.... ... ualde decorus, uere confessor Cristi, doctor pietatis et predicator ueritatis. Unum solum uerum deum, patrem Cristi, secundum ipsius Cristi magisterium satis aperte et nimis euidenter uolentibus et nolentibus predicare numquam esitauit, sciens hunc solum uerum deum, solum esse ingenitum, sine incipio, sine fine, senpiternum; supernum, sublimem, superiorem; auctorem altissimum, omni excellentiae excelsiorem, omni bonitati meliorem; interminatum, incapauilem; inuisiuilem, immensum; inmortalem, incorruptiuilem; incommunicauilem, sub<s>tantia incorporalem; inconpositum, simplicem; inmutauilem, indiuisum, inmouilem; inindigentem; inaccessiuilem; inscissum; [interminatum] inregnatum; increatum, infectum; perfectum in singularitate extantem; inconparauiliter omnibus maiorem et meliorem. qui cum esset solus, non ad diuisionem uel dimminutionem diuinitatis suae, sed ad ostensionem bonitatis et uirtutis suae sola uoluntate et potestate, inpassiuilis inpassiuiliter, incorruptiuilis incorruptiuiliter et inmouilis inmouiliter unigenitum deum creauit et genuit, fecit et fundauit.

    Secundum traditionem et auctoritatem diuinarum scribturarum hunc secundum deum et auctorem omnium a patre et post patrem et propter patrem et ad gloriam patris esse numquam celauit; sed et magnum deum et magnum dominum et magnum regem et magnum mysterium, magnum lumen et magnum pontificem predicauit et dominum prouisorem et legislatorem, redemptorem, et salvatorem, pa ... genitum ante omnia saecula, totius creationis auctorem, uiuorum et mortuorum iustum iudicem, maiorem habentem deum et patrem suum secundum sanctum euangelium semper manifestauit, quia Omousianorum odiuilem et execrabilem, prabam et peruersam professionem ut diabolicam adinuentionem et demoniorum doctrinam spreuit et calcauit. Et ipse sciens et nobis tradens, quod si unigeniti dei infatigabilis uirtus caelestia et terrestria, inuisiuilia et uisiuilia omnia facile fecisse honeste predicatur et a nobis cristianis iure et fideliter creditum, quare dei patris inpassiuilis uirtus unum sibi filium proprium fecisse non credatur? sed et Omoeusianorum errorem et inpietatem fleuit et deuitauit et ipse de diuinis scribturis caute instructus et in multis conciliis sanctorum episcoporum diligenter confirmatus et per sermones et tractatus suos ostendit, differentiam esse divinitatis patris et fili, dei ingeniti et dei unigeniti, et patrem quidem creatorem esse creatoris, filium uero creatorem esse totius creationis; et patrem esse deum domini, filium autem deum esse uniuerse creature.

    Quapropter Homousianorum sectam destruebat, quia non confusas et concretas personas, sed discretas et distinctas credebat. Omoeusion autem dissipabat, quia non conparatas res, sed differentes adfectus defendebat, et filium similem esse patri suo non secundum Macedonianam fraudulentam prauitatem et peruersitatem contra scribturas dicebat, sed secundum diuinas scribturas et traditiones.

    Predicatione uel expositione sua omnes haereticos non cristianos sed antecristos non pios sed impios, non religiosos sed inreligiosos, non timoratos sed temerarios, non in spe sed sine spe, non cultores dei sed sine deo esse, non doctores sed seductores, non predicatores sed preuaricatores adserebat, sibe Manicheos, siue Marci[n]onistas, siue Montanistas, siue Paulinianos, siue Psabellianos siue Antropianos, siue Patripassianos, siue Fotinianos, siue Nouatianos, siue Donatianos, siue Omousianos, siue Omoeusianos, siue Macedonianos. uere, ut apostolorum aemulator et martyrum imitator; hostis effectus ereticorum prabam eorum doctrinam repellebat et populum dei aedificauat, lupos graues et canes malos operarios effugabat et gregem Cristi per gratiam ipsius ut pastor bonus cum omni prudentia et diligentia seruabat.

    Sed et spiritum sanctum non esse nec patrem nec filium, sed a patre per filium ante omnia factum; non esse primum nec secundum, sed a primo per secundum in tertio gradu substitutum; non esse ingenitum nec genitum, sed ab ingenito per unigenitum in tertio gradu craeatum secundum euangelicam predicationem et apostolicam traditionem sancto Johanne dicente: omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nec unum; et beato Paulo ad serente: unus deus pater ex quo omnia et unus dominus Jesus Cristus per quem omnia adprouabat.

    Uno enim deo ingenito exstante et uno domino unigenito deo subsistente spiritus sanctus aduocatus nec deus nec dominus potest dici, sed a deo per dominum ut esset accepit: non auctor neque craeator, sed inluminator et sanctificator, doctor et ducator, adiutor et postulator, pre .... or et informator, Cristi minister et gratiarum diuisor, pignus hereditatis in quo signati sumus in diem redemtionis, sine quo nemo potest dicere dominum Jesum, apostolo dicente: nemo potest dicere dominum Jesum nisi in spiritu sancto, et Cristo docente: ego sum uia et ueritas et uita, nemo uenit ad patrem nisi per me. Ergo hi sunt cristiani qui in spiritu et ueritate Cristum adorant ........ ante, et per Cristum cum dilectione deo patri gratias agunt.

    Haec et his similia exsequente quadraginta annis in episcopatu gloriose florens apostolica gratia grecam et latinam et goticam linguam sine intermissione in una et sola eclesia Cristi predicauit, quia et una est eclesia dei uiui, columna et firmamentum ueritatis; et unum esse gregem Cristi domini et dei nostri, unam culturom et unum aedificium; unam uirginem et unam sponsam, unam reginam; et unam uineam, unam domum, unum templum, unum conuentum esse cristianorum: cetera uero omnia conuenticula non esse eclesias dei, sed synagogas esse satanae adserebat et contestabatur.

    Et haec omnia de diuinis scribturis eum dixisse et nos describsisse, qui legit, intellegat; qui et ipsis tribus linguis plures tractatus et multae interpretationes uolentibus ad utilitatenn ed ad aedificationem, sibi ad aeternam memoriam et mercedem post se dereliquid.

    Quem condigne laudare non sufficio et penitus tacere non audeo, cui plus omnium ego sum debitor, quantum et amplius in me laborabit, qui me a prima aetate mea a parentibus meis discipulum suscepit et sacras litteras docuit et ueritatem manifestauit et per misericordiam dei et gratiam Cristi et carnaliter et spiritaliter ut filium suum in fide educauit.

    Hic dei prouidentia et Cristi misericordia propter multorum salutem in gente Gothorum de lectore triginta annorum episkopus est ordinatus, ut non solum esset heres dei et coheres Cristi, sed et in hoc per gratiam Cristi imitator Cristi et sanctorum eius, ut quemadmodum sanctus Dauid triginta annorum rex et profeta est constitutus, ut regeret et doceret populum dei et filios Hisdrael, ita et iste beatus tamquam profeta est manifestatus et sacerdos Cristi ordinatus, ut regeret et corrigeret, [et] doceret et aedificaret gentem Gothorum, quod et deo uolente et Cristo aucsiliante per ministerium ipsius admirabiliter est adinpletum. et sicuti Josef in Aegypto triginta annarum est manifestatus ... et quemadmodum dominus et deus noster Jesus Cristus, filius dei triginta annorum secundum carnem constitutus et baptizatus coepit euangelium predicare et animas hominum pascere, ita et iste sanctus ipsius Cristi dispositione et ordinatione [et] in fame et penuria predicationis indifferenter agentem ipsam gentem Gothorum secundum euangelicam et apostolicam et profeticam regulam emendauit et uibere docuit et cristianos uere cristianos esse manifestauit et multiplicauit.

    Ubi et ex inuidia et operatione inimici thunc ab inreligioso et sacrilego iudice Gothorum tyrannico terrore in uarbarico cristianorum persecutio est excitata, ut satanas, qui male facere cupiebat, nolens faceret bene, ut, quos desiderabat preuaricatores facere et desertores, Cristo opitulante et propugnante fierent martyres et confessores ut persecutor confunderetur et qui persecutionem patiebantur coronarentur, ut his qui temtabat uincere uictus erubesceret et qui temtabantur uictores gauderent.

    Ubi et post multorum seruorum et ancillarum Cristi gloriosum martyrum imminente uehementer ipsa persecutione conpletis septem annis tantummodo in episkopatu[m] [supradictus] sanctissimus uir beatus Ulfila cum grandi populo confessorum de uarbarico pulsus in solo Romanie, athuc beate memorie Constantio principe, honorifice est susceptus, ut sicuti deus per Moysem de potentia et uiolentia Faraonis et Egyptiorum populum suum liberauit et per mare transire fecit et sibi seruire prouidit, ita et per sepe dictum deus confessores sancti fili sui unigeniti de uarbarico liberauit et per Danubum transire fecit et in montibus secundum sanctorum imitationem sibi seruire.

    Degens cum suo populo in solo Romaniae absque illis septem annis triginta et tribus annis ueritatem predicauit [ut] et in hoc quorum sanctorum imitator erat, uit quadraginta annorum spatium et tempus ut multis ..re ............e uita.

    Qui cum precepto inperiali conpletis quadraginta annis ad Constantinopolitanam urbem ad disputationem quidem contra p ...tas perrexit et eundo in domini dei nostri nomine, ne Cristi eclesias sibi a Cristo deditas docerent et infestarent ..at et ingressus est supradictam ciuitatem recogitato ab impiis de statu concilii, ne arguerentur miseris miserabiliores proprio iudicio damnati et perpetuo supplicio plectendi, statim coepit infirmari. in qua infirmitate susceptus est ad similitudinem Elisei prophetae.

    Considerare modo oportet meritum uiri qui ad hoc duce domino obit Constantinopolim, immo uero Cristianopolim, ut sanctus et inmaculatus sacerdos Cristi a sanctis et consacerdotibus, a dignis dignus digne in tanta[m] multitudine[m] cristianorum pro meritis suis mire et gloriose honoraretur. qui et in exitu suo usque in ipso mortis mo[nu]mento per testamentum fidem suam describtam populo sibi credito dereliquid ita dicens:

    Ego Ulfila episkopus et confessor semper sic credidi et in hac fide sola et uera transitum facio ad dominum meum:

    Credo

    unum esse deum patrem solum ingenitum et inuisiuilem et in unigenitum filium eius dominum et deum nostrum, opificem et factorem uniuerse creature non habentem similem suum ideo unus est omnium deus pater, qui et dei nostri est deus et unum spiritum sanctum, uirtutem inluminantem et sanctificantem, ut ait Cristus post resurrectionem ad apostolos suos: ecce ego mitto promissum patris mei in uobis, uos autem sedete in ciuitate[m] Hierusalem, quoadusque induamini uirtute[m] ab alto; item et: accipietis uirtutem superueniente[m] in uos sancto spiritu-- nec deum nec dominum sed ministrum Cristi fidelem, nec equalem sed subditum et oboedientem in omnibus filio et filium subditum et oboedientem suo in omnibus deo patri.File:ThracianTribes.jpg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ThracianTribes.jpg

     Tezaurul "Closca cu puii de aur"

     http://www.primariapietroasele.ro/index.php?rewriteparam=prezentare_locala

     

        Legendele locului spun ca doi pitrari din Pietroasa, Ion Lemnaru si Stan Avram socru si ginere, au sapat pentru a incarca piatra necesara constructiei noii cladiri a Seminarului din Buzau. La un moment dat, dupa ce au scos mai multe lespezi, au zarit intr-o alveola de piatra, tezaurul. Conform declaratiilor si datelor adunate in timp, el ar fi numarat 22 piese ce cantareau cateva zeci de kilograme de aur. Timp de un an, din 1837 pana in 1838, tezaurul a fost ascuns de cei doi pietrari in podul casei lor. In anul respectiv, ploile au facut importante pagube in zona Buzaului. Apa Calnaului s-a umflat si a maturat inclusiv celebrul pod comstriut de Kiseleff.
        Atunci, Anastase Tarba Verusi, pe care cunoscutii il porecleau Arnautu era antrepenorul care se ocupa de reparatia podului de piatra de peste Calnau (pod considerat primul de acest gen si ridicat in 1831). Pentru piatra care-i trebuia la refacere, vine la Pietroasele. Era monentul in care cei doi, Ion Lemnaru si Stan Avram trebuiau sa-si mute casa ca urmare a efectului "Legii pentru alinierea satelor" si cand au decis mutarea tezaurului in podul casei unui nepot, George Baciu. Era primavara lui 1838 cand Verusi, sosit in Pietroasele, este abordat de cei sateni si reuseste dupa ceva discutii sa-i convinga pe Ion Lemnaru si pe Stan Avram sa-i dea una din piesele tezaurului spunandu-le ca o va prezenta unui giuvaergiu din Bucuresti pentru a stabilii cu exactitate metalul din care este confectionata si valoarea acesteia. Se pare ca piesa data era perechea colanului cu inscriptie (azi disparuta). Cei doi, Avram si Lemnaru au crezut ca piesele erau din arama. Se spune ca unul dintre ei chiar a dat unui caldarar tigan o bucata "ca sa-si carpeasca cu dansa o tingire", iar acesta neputand sa dea de capat lucrarii ar fi zvarlit cat colo bucata de metal, zicand ca nu e buna de nimic . Ei au incercat sa vanda mai multe piese, unele fiind chiar demontate sau deteriorate, spre a fi vandute.
        La scurt timp, aventurierul balcanic Verusi revine la Pietoasele la locuinta sateanului, George Baciu. Cu 4000 de piastri (bani ai satului pe care-i avea pentru executarea lucrarilor de reparatie a podului) ii convinge pe descoperitori sa-i vanda intrgul tezaur. Utilizarea banilor in acest scop a fost considerata de istorici drept primul mare caz de delapidare a banilor publici din zona noastra. Se pare ca taranii i-au oferit lui Verusi perechea colanului cu inscriptie (care a disparut). Fiindca tezaurul era prea voluminos, nevrand sa atraga in nici un fel atentia asupra sa, Verusi a incercat sa-l "marunteasca". Undeva, in curtea lui George Baciu, el a spart cu un topor tava mare si alte piese, multe dintre pietrele pretioase cu care erau impodobite sarind de la locurile lor. Dupa plecarea lui Verusi, pietrele au fost stranse cu matura de Baciu, multe din ele fiind imprastiate prin sat de copiii care se jucau in apropiere. Lumea deja incepuse sa discute despre o eventuala descoperire a unei comori.
        Dupa putin timp, despre existenta tezaurului afla, printr-un nepot, Ghita (Nae), arendas al mosiei Pietroasa (atunci proprietate a Episcopiei Buzaului). Se spune ca Verusi, ca sa-i cumpere tacerea, i-a dat acestuia un inel si o importanta suma de bani. Fiindu-i teama de consecintele distrugerii tezaurului, arendasul anunta Episcopia Buzaului despre descoperire si despre traseul pieselor. La randul sau, afland ca autoritatile au stiinta de existenta tezaurului si ca au declansat cercetarile, Anastase Tarba Verusi ingroapa comoara undeva in apropierea locului unde-si depozita materialele necesare reparatiei podului peste Calnau. Dupa o perioada mica de timp, autoritatile buzoiene au inceput investigatiile in forta. Ii aresteaza pe Verusi, pe cei doi sateni care au descoperit tezaurul, pe arendasul Ghita, si familia lui Nicolae Baciu, tatal si fiii acestuia. In timpul cercetarilor, descoperitorii mor in conditii misterioase. Acelasi lucru se intampla si cu batranul Nicolae Baciu, chiar la iesirea din inchisoare.
        Un an mai tarziu, in 1839, se incheie procesul celor implicati in distrugerea si deteriorarea Tezaurului "Closca cu puii de aur". Verusi a fost eliberat destul de rapid, considerandu-se ca s-a recuperat tezaurul (dar numai 12 piese din 22) fara sa i retina in sarcina si utilizarea banilor publici cu care cumparase tezaurul. De asemenea, ultimul arestat, arendasul Ghita iese din inchisoare dupa doi ani. Se banuieste ca acesta din urma a mai pastrat piese din tezaur fiindca la scurt timp dupa iesirea din inchisoare reuseste sa constriasca "un magnific hotel in orasul Buzau, cumpara mosii si vie la Badeni", cautand sa capete faima de negustor cinstit. In 1864, Ghita Frunza Verde se afla chiar pe listele electorale ale judetului Buzau, plasa Tohani.
        Patru mari personalitati s-au implicat in mod direct in salvarea si promovarea valorii tezaurului: Mihalache Ghica, Petrache Poenaru, Alexandru Odobescu, si Ion Nestor. Poenaru este cel care publica prima stire despre tezaur, la 13 august 1838, in "Romania", articol intitulat "Descoperirea Tezaurului de la Pitroasa". Tezaurul a fost predat lui Mihail Ghica, cel care il va pastra in casa de bani a Departamentului din Launtru. In 1842, "Closca cu puii de aur" este depusa la Muzeul care functiona in cladirea Colegiului "Sf. Sava" din Bucuresti. Este locul unde marele Alexandru Odobescu (pe atunci student al Colegiului) intra pentru prima data in contact cu Tezaurul de la Pietroasa, facand din acesta opera lui de capatai. In decursul mai multor vizite in zona Pitroasa, Alexandru Odobescu reuseste sa adune importante date despre tezaur.
        Realizand importanta acestei descoperiri, intre 1865 - 1867 Odobescu, pe atunci consilier de stat, se zbate si reuseste sa prezinte tezaurul la "Expozitia Universala de la Paris". Aici colectia este considerata una dintre cele mai frumoase piese ale expozitiei fiind apreciata de somitatile vremii. "Closca cu puii de aur" trecea drept cel mai valoros tezaur din lume (Tutankamon inca nu fusese descoperit). Pentru a fi prezentat asa cum se cuvine, tezaurul este restaurat de Paul Telge, bijutierul familiei regale de Habsburg. Tot el a executat si patru copii ale Tezaurului, una aflandu-se in Colectia Muzeului Judetean Buzau.
        Un an mai tarziu, Tezaurul este expus la "Senth Kensingthon Museum" din Londra, iar in 1872 la Expozitia Internationala de la Viena. In 1875, Tezaurul este furat din sala de expozitie amenajata in localul Academiei Romane. Autorul furtului este Dimitrie Pantazescu, fiul unui preot din Titu, care fusese dat afara de la Seminarul Teologic si care era impegat la Caile Ferate Romane. Atunci este taiat in patru Colanul cu inscriptia "Gutaniocvihailag", doua bucati disparand. Ulterior a fost recuperat, dar a suferit mai multe restaurari.
        Descoperirea a declansat in zona Pietroasele o adevarata febra a aurului. Noaptea pandeau "limbile de foc ce tasneau din pantecul Istritei", despre care localnicii spuneau ca arata locul unde se gasesc comori. Toti se fereau insa de "fulgerul din adancul pamantului", care il omoara la scurt timp pe descoperitor. Cert este ca piesele descoperite au fost mult mai multe. Alexandru Odobescu, cel care a facut din Tezaurul de la Pietroasa opera sa de capatai, consemna in lucrarea sa ca pe langa zece obiecte bine stabilite care disparusera, multe altele erau pierdute: "o cupa de aur rotunda, cu niste pietre de aur la gura in felurimi de fete, ca niste margele, iar intr-insa avea doua pietre verzi de smarald in marime ca doua nuci mici, si trei nasturi mici de aur si doua cerculete tot de aur", precum si un lant de aur.
        In prezent, tezaurul "Closca cu puii de aur" este expus in sala Tezaurelor de la Muzeul National de Istorie a Romaniei din Bucuresti. El numara numai 12 piese cu o greutate totala de 19,820 kg aur: o fibula mare in forma de vultur (ce poarta pe piept marele caboson oval, marginit simetric, in cruce, de patru cabosoana rotunde si mici), o fibula mica, doua fibule mijlocii, o tava, o cana - oenoche, o patera, doua cosulete poligonale, doua coloane (unul cu inscriptie) si un colan cu balama.

  • Photo above from the Gepidic treasure, Apahida


  •  
    Gepids

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gepids"

    The Roman empire under Hadrian (ruled 117-38), showing the location of the Gepidae East Germanic tribe, then inhabiting the region around the mouth of the Visula (Vistula) river, Poland
    Gepidia

    The Gepids (Latin: Gepida; Old English: Gifð; possibly Proto-Germanic: *Gibiðaz, "giver"[1] or gepanta, see below) were an East Germanic Gothic tribe most famous in history for defeating the Huns after the death of Attila. The state of the Gepids was commonly known as Gepidia[2] or Kingdom of the Gepids, whose territory is composed of parts of modern day Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia.

    History

    The Gepids were first mentioned around 260 CE, when they participated with the Goths in an invasion in Dacia, where they were settled in Jordanes' time, the mid 6th century. Their early origins are reported in Jordanes' Origins and Deeds of the Goths, where he claims that their name derives from their later and slower migration from Scandinavia:

    You surely remember that in the beginning I said the Goths went forth from the bosom of the island of Scandza with Berig, their king, sailing in only three ships toward the hither shore of Ocean, namely to Gothiscandza. One of these three ships proved to be slower than the others, as is usually the case, and thus is said to have given the tribe their name, for in their language gepanta means slow.. (xvii.94-95)[3]

    The Kingdom of the Gepids in its largest extent (539-551)

    The first settlement of the Gepids were at the mouth of the Vistula River, which runs south to north from the Polish Carpathian mountains.

    These Gepidae were then smitten by envy while they dwelt in the province of Spesis on an island surrounded by the shallow waters of the Vistula. This island they called, in the speech of their fathers, Gepedoios (perhaps Gibið-aujos, meaning "Gepid waterlands" [1]); but it is now inhabited by the race of the Vividarii, since the Gepidae themselves have moved to better lands.

    Their first named king, Fastida, stirred up his quiet people to enlarge their boundaries by war and overwhelmed the Burgundians, almost annihilating them in the 4th century, then fruitlessly demanded of the Goths a portion of their territory, a demand which the Goths successfully repulsed in battle. Like the Goths, the Gepids were converted to Arian Christianity.

    Then in 375 they had to submit to the Huns along with their Ostrogoth overlords, becoming the favored Hun vassals. Under their king, Ardaric, Gepid warriors joined Attila the Hun's forces in the Battle of Chalons (the "Catalaunian fields") in Gaul (451). On the eve of the main encounter between allied hordes, the Gepids and Franks met each other, the latter fighting for the Romans and the former for the Huns, and seem to have fought one another to a standstill, with 15,000 dead reported by Jordanes, the main source for the events.

    Such loyalties were personal bonds among kings, and after Attila's death in 453, the Gepids and other people allied to defeat Attila's horde of would-be successors, who were dividing up the subjugated peoples like cattle, and led by Ardaric, they broke the Hunnic power in the Battle at the River Nedao in 454:

    ...a most remarkable spectacle, where one might see the Goths fighting with pikes, the Gepidae raging with the sword, the Rugii breaking off the spears in their own wounds, the Suevi fighting on foot, the Huns with bows, the Alani drawing up a battle-line of heavy-armed and the Heruli of light-armed warriors. (Jordanes, l.259)

    After the victory they finally won a place to settle in the Carpathian Mountains.

    The Gepidae by their own might won for themselves the territory of the Huns and ruled as victors over the extent of all Dacia, demanding of the Roman Empire nothing more than peace and an annual gift as a pledge of their friendly alliance. This the Emperor freely granted at the time, and to this day that race receives its customary gifts from the Roman Emperor. (Jordanes, l.262)

    Not long after the battle at the Nedao the old rivalry between the Gepids and the Ostrogoths spurred up again and they were driven out of their homeland in 504 by Theodoric the Great.

    They reached the zenith of their power after 537, settling in the rich area around Belgrade. For a short time, the city of Sirmium was the center of the Gepid State and the king Cunimund minted golden coins in it.[4][dead link] In 546 the Byzantine Empire allied themselves with the Lombards to expel the Gepids from this region. In 552 the Gepids suffered a disastrous defeat from Alboin in the Battle of Asfeld and were finally conquered by the Lombards in 567.

    Alboin had a drinking-cup made from the skull of Cunimund, which occasioned his death later in Italy, at the hands of an assassin sent by Rosamund, Cunimond's daughter.[5]

    Many Gepids followed Alboin to Italy (see Paulus Diaconus), but many remained. In 630, Theophylact Simocatta reported that the Byzantine Army entered the territory of the Avars and attacked a Gepid feast, capturing 30,000 Gepids (they met no Avars). Recent excavation by the Tisza River at Szolnok brought up a Gepid nobleman from an Avar period grave who was also wearing Turkic-Avar pieces next to the traditional Germanic clothes in which he was buried.

     Archeological sites in Romania

    In Vlaha, Cluj County, Romania, a necropolis was discovered in August 2004 with 202 identified tombs dated to the 6th century AD. 85% of the discovered tombs were robbed in the same period. The remaining artifacts are ceramics, bronze articles and an armory. Also in Romania, at Miercurea Sibiului, there is another necropolis with rich artifacts. Other necropolis in Romania are:

     Handle for logging the sword shaft photo at:

  • http://www.cimec.ro/p/Clasate/ARH_7300100_247-7.jpg

  • Kings of the Gepids

     References

     Notes

    1. ^ a b Yeat, Theedrich (tr.). "Jordanes in Latin and English". http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/Goths/Goths1.htm. Retrieved 2008-03-03. 
    2. ^ Jordanes, Getica, XII.74: Haec Gotia, quam Daciam appellavere maiores, quae nunc ut diximus Gepidia dicitur ("This Gothia, which our ancestors called Dacia, we now call Gepidia.").
    3. ^ "Jordane's Origins and Deeds of the Goths". Northvegr. 2007. http://www.northvegr.org/lore/jgoth/009.php. Retrieved 2008-03-03. 
    4. ^ http://elchem.ihtm.bg.ac.yu/HtDocs/AD/Mitrovica/CivitasStDemetrii.htm
    5. ^ The episode is told in Procopius, in Paulus Diaconus and in Andreas Agnellus

     External links

    Rome's Enemies (1): Germanics and Dacians

    by Peter Wilcox, Gerry Embleton (Illustrator)

    These vigorous northern 'barbarians' were the destroyers of the Western Empire of Rome. It was they who delivered the coup de grace to the dying colossus in the south, subsequently creating medieval Europe, the feudal system and chivalry. Their direct descendants were the knights and men-at-arms. In every sense, they were the creators of the modern world; it is ironic that many people know virtually nothing about them. This book explores the history, weapons and dress of the Germanics and Dacians who fought Rome two thousand years before our time

    SITES:

  • http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0196/ http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/156516 http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/iordanes1.html http://www.hieronymus.us/Goths/Goths1.htm

    Theodosie and the Goths at the Lower Danube

    B: 346 or 347AD

    D: 392 or 395AD

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

    Theodosius I (379-395 A.D.)

    David Woods

    University College of Cork

    Origin and Early Career

    Flavius Theodosius was born at Cauca in Spain in about 346 to Thermantia and Theodosius the Elder (so-called to distinguish him from his son). 1 Theodosius the Elder was a senior military officer serving in the Western empire and rose to become the magister equitum praesentalis under the emperor Valentinian I from late 368 until his execution in early 375. 2 As the son of a soldier, Theodosius was legally obliged to enter upon a military career. He seems to have served under his father during his expedition to Britain in 367/8, and was the dux Moesiae Primae by late 374. 3 Unfortunately, great controversy surrounds the rest of his career until Gratian had him hailed as his imperial colleague in succession to the emperor Valens at Sirmium on 19 January 379. 4 It is clear that he was forced to retire home to Spain only to be recalled to active service shortly thereafter, but the circumstances of his forced retirement are shrouded in mystery. 5 His father was executed at roughly the same time, and much speculation has centred on the relationship between these events. A general consensus seems to have emerged, however, that the future emperor was forced into retirement shortly after the execution of his father at Carthage in Africa during the winter of 375/6. 6 The same court faction which had engineered the death of his father managed to persuade Valentinian to dismiss him also, or so the consensus goes. This interpretation of events is incorrect, however, not least because it places far too much trust in a number of unreliable sources. 7

    The answer to the mystery surrounding Theodosius' forced retirement lies in Ammianus' description of a severe defeat which Sarmatian raiders inflicted upon Roman forces in the province of Valeria in late 374 when they almost annihilated a legio Moesiaca , i.e. a legion from Moesia, and a legio Pannonica , i.e. a legion from Pannonia. 8 These legions had been sent to intercept a party of Sarmatians who had been pursuing a senior Roman officer named Aequitius deep into Roman territory, and would undoubtedly have triumphed had they acted together. But they failed to co-operate, and their quarrelling allowed the Sarmatians to catch them unprepared, defeating the legion from Moesia first, then the legion from Pannonia. Valentinian's reaction to this defeat can best be judged from his reaction to an earlier defeat which the Alamanni had managed to inflict on his forces in Gaul during the spring of 365. 9 He sought out those who had been the first to turn and run before the enemy and blamed them for the subsequent defeat. He ordered the unit in question - the Batavi - to be stripped of their weapons and sold into slavery, and it took the whole army to persuade him to relent. In this instance, the first of the two units to break and run had been the legion from Moesia. Hence Valentinian would have held their commanding officer responsible for the wider defeat, and, as the dux Moesiae Primae , Theodosius was the officer ultimately responsible for this unit. Hence Valentinian dismissed Theodosius and sent him home to Cauca in Spain in the same manner, and for the same reason, that the emperor Constantius II had dismissed Valentinian himself in 357, or the magister equitum per Gallias Marcellus in the same year. 10 He had found him guilty of cowardice.

    The best explanation for the death of Theodosius the Elder is that he had tried to intervene on behalf of his son, and Valentinian had had him executed as a result, most probably during the early new year of 375. 11 His son regained his commission within the army only following the death of Valentinian himself on 17 November 375. He seems to have obtained a position similar to that which he had originally held at his dismissal, that of dux Valeriae perhaps. He campaigned against the Sarmatians again in 376, during which he was promoted as the magister militum per Illyricum .12 He remained as magister militum per Illyricum from 376 until 19 January 379 when the western emperor Gratian appointed him to succeed his eastern colleague Valens who had been killed at the Battle of Adrianople on 9 August 378. The fact that Gratian chose him as his new colleague does not necessarily mean that he enjoyed a particularly good reputation as the best general of his day. Gratian had effectively been forced to choose him since he seems to have been the most senior officer of Roman birth available to him at the time. 13

    Foreign Policy

    The problem confronting Theodosius immediately upon his accession was how to check the Goths and their allies who were continuing to ravage the Balkans. 14 One difficulty was that they had spread beyond the diocese of Thrace into the dioceses of Macedonia and Dacia in the prefecture of Illyricum, which had traditionally belonged to the western empire. The result was that Gratian surrendered the three dioceses of the prefecture of Illyricum to the temporary control of Theodosius for the duration of the Gothic crisis, while he himself returned to Trier in Gaul. 15 The date of this transfer is disputed, but it seems to have come into formal effect at the beginning of the new tax year on 1 September 379 and may be presumed to have ended on 31 August 382. This left Theodosius in control of the entire theatre of operations. Theodosius left Sirmium, the site of his accession, for Thessalonica in Macedonia which remained his base for the campaign seasons of 379 and 380. Gratian had transferred some of his own officers and men to Theodosius in order to assist him in his efforts to rebuild the eastern field-armies, which had been shattered at the Battle of Adrianople . These transfers included his comes domesticorum Richomer, who became Theodosius' magister peditum praesentalis , a post which he retained until his death by illness in late 392. 16

    We are poorly informed about the exact sequence of events during the Gothic war, but Theodosius' "general" Modares appears to have inflicted an important defeat upon the Goths somewhere in Thrace in 379. 17 Theodosius proved himself willing to recruit one group of barbarians into his army to use against the other groups who remained hostile, but this was a risky strategy. In order to reduce the risk, Theodosius transferred some of these fresh barbarian recruits to Egypt in return for some of the experienced Roman troops stationed there, during late 379 apparently. 18 Nevertheless, a large number of his new recruits appeared to have defected to the other side during the course of his campaign in 380, so that he suffered at least one serious reverse. He left Thessalonica and entered Constantinople for the first time on 24 November 380. 19 He was to remain in Constantinople, or its immediate vicinity, until late 387. During the winter of 380/1 he wrote to Gratian for his help against the Goths in Illyricum, and Gratian replied first by sending his "generals" Bauto and Arbogast against them, then by taking to the field himself. 20 They appear to have succeeded in driving the Goths and their allies from Illyricum and back into Thrace during 381. Theodosius, however, did enjoy a propaganda coup when the Gothic chieftain Athanaric surrendered to him at Constantinople on 11 January 381, although he died only two weeks later. 21 Theodosius finally reached a settlement with the remainder of the Goths on 3 October 382. 22 The exact terms of this settlement have not been preserved, but it is clear that the Goths were granted the right to settle large amounts of land along the Danube frontier in the diocese of Thrace and enjoyed an unusual degree of autonomy. 23 Many came to serve in the Roman army, but the terms of their service remain unclear. Many volunteered to serve on a full-time professional basis, while more were obliged to serve only for the duration of a specific campaign. The results were that the Goths who settled within the empire remained a constant threat to its internal stability. A substantial number of Gothic troops defected to the side of Magnus Maximus when Theodosius joined his forces with those of the young Valentinian II at Thessalonica in 387 in preparation for their joint campaign westwards against Maximus .24 These hid in the rough country about Thessalonica until Theodosius managed to drive them back into Thrace during his return from the West in 391, where they remained a threat as late as 392 when they managed to kill the "general" Promotus. 25 One of their emerging leaders, Alaric, participated in Theodosius' campaign against Eugenius in 394, only to resume his rebellious behaviour against Theodosius' son and eastern successor, Arcadius , shortly thereafter. Nor did the external threat cease. The "general" Promotus won a notable victory for Theodosius in 386 when he defeated an attempt by Odotheus and his Greuthungian Goths to force their way across the Danube. 26

    The East remained relatively quiet under Theodosius. The Saracens rejected their previous treaty of 377 with the Romans and resumed their raids once more along the frontier from Arabia to Syria in 383 apparently. 27 We do not know the reason for this revolt, but the magister peditum praesentalis Richomer appears to have crushed it in but one campaign that year. As a result, the Salihids replaced the Tanukhids as the dominant group among Rome's Saracen foederati . As for the Persians, Theodosius maintained good relations with a rapid succession of Persian kings during his reign. Armenia remained a potential source of conflict between the two powers until they reached agreement upon the division of this country in 387 when Theodosius sent his magister militum per Orientem Stilicho on an embassy to the Persian court. 28 In accordance with this agreement, the pro-Roman king Arsak retained possession of the western part of the country, while the pro-Persian king Khosro retained possession of the eastern part.

    Civil Wars

    Theodosius fought two bloody civil wars in quick succession against the usurpers Magnus Maximus and Eugenius .Magnus Maximus was a fellow Spaniard who even claimed to be a relative of Theodosius himself. 29 Like Theodosius, he was also a pious Catholic. Hence there was no deep ideological differences between the two. Magnus Maximus had been the commander of a field army in Britain in 383 when he had led his troops back to Gaul in an attempt to seize power. 30 He forced Gratian to flee from an initial encounter near Paris, but was blamed for Gratian's assassination near Lyons as he made for northern Italy. This was the only charge which Theodosius could seriously have held against him in 383, that he had risen to power through the assassination of a legitimate emperor. War between the two had not been inevitable, and the orator Themistius undoubtedly exaggerates when he claims that Theodosius set out against him in 384 with the intention of avenging Gratian's death. 31 The young Valentinian II continued to rule the prefectures of Italy, Illyricum and Africa, which constituted a buffer-ground between the territories of his two more powerful colleagues. An uneasy peace prevailed until the late summer of 387 when Maximus sent his troops into northern Italy and forced Valentinian to retreat to Thessalonica at the eastern extreme of his territory. 32 Yet while Maximus may have struck the first formal blow in this renewed bout of civil war, one suspects that he felt compelled to act as he did much because of the growing influence of Theodosius over Valentinian and his ministers. One notes that Theodosius' magister peditum praesentalis Richomer was the uncle of Valentinian's magister equitum praesentalis Arbogast, who was effectively the sole commander of Valentinian's forces at this point. 33 More importantly, perhaps, Valentinian had appointed Gildo as his comes Africae ca. 386, and Theodosius had attempted to win Gildo over to his cause by marrying Nebridius, a nephew of the empress Flaccilla, to Gildo's daughter Salvina. 34 The fact that Maximus suffered some sort of serious defeat at Sicily during the initial stage of the civil war in 388, and that he committed a large number of men to naval operations off the southern Italian coast under the command of his magister praesentalis Andragathius, suggests that Theodosius was well rewarded for his efforts, that he did at least persuade Gildo to defect to his side and seize Sicily on his behalf. 35 Whatever the case, Theodosius joined with Valentinian at Thessalonica during the late summer of 387, at which time he also married Valentinian's sister Galla. They launched a joint expedition against Maximus during the summer of 388, defeating his forces in pitched battles at Siscia, then Poetovio. 36 They then forced their way across the Alps and captured Maximus himself at Aquileia. They had him executed three miles outside Aquileia on 28 August 388, and sent Arbogast to do the same to his son Victor in Trier. However, they spared his wife and two daughters.

    Theodosius spent about three years in Italy until he began his return trip to Constantinople in the summer of 391. Valentinian now ruled the whole of the western empire, but he was increasingly dominated by his magister peditum praesentalis Arbogast, whose own arrogance increased the further Theodosius moved from the scene. Matters came to a head in 392 when Valentinian tried to cashier Arbogast and Arbogast simply refused to accept his command. 37 Valentinian secretly wrote to Theodosius for his assistance, but was found dead on 15 May 392. An uneasy peace followed as Arbogast awaited the news of Theodosius' reaction to the death of his brother-in-law Valentinian ; Theodosius tried to determine whether Valentinian really had committed suicide as alleged. 38 Unfortunately for all concerned, Theodosius was still married to Galla, who refused to accept that her brother had committed suicide. Worse still, Arbogast's strongest advocate at Theodosius' court, his uncle Richomer, was mortally ill. As a hostile judgement seemed increasingly likely, Arbogast struck first. He hailed Valentinian's magister scrinii as emperor on 22 August 392 and quickly secured Italy for his cause. In contrast to his acceptance of Maximus for several years, Theodosius refused to recognise Eugenius as emperor right from the start. He publicly indicated this by his refusal to accept Eugenius' nominees for the consulship of 393 and by his coronation of his second son Honorius as Augustus on 23 January 393. The war did not begin until the summer of 394 when Theodosius finally began his march from Constantinople. The war was decided by one decisive battle on the banks of the river Frigidus in the foothills of the Alps on 6 September 394. 39 While Christian sources delight to recount how God assisted Theodosius by sending a wind to blow his enemies' weapons back into their faces, 40 the crucial factor was surely the decision by a key section of Maximus' army under the comes Arbitio to defect from his side to that of Theodosius. 41 So Theodosius triumphed and had Eugenius executed, while Arbogast committed suicide.

    Religious Policy

    Theodosius was Catholic and received baptism at the hands of bishop Acholius of Thessalonica during the autumn of 380 when serious illness threatened his life. 42 Two days after his first arrival in Constantinople on 24 November 380, Theodosius expelled the "Arian" bishop Demophilus of Constantinople from the churches of that city and surrendered them to Gregory of Naziaznus who happened to be the leader of the small Catholic or "Nicene" community there at the time. This was greatly resented and may even have resulted in an attempt to assassinate the emperor. 43 He also called a synod of 150 Catholic bishops who assembled at Constantinople in May 381. An early meeting of this synod, when all the bishops had not yet arrived, elected Gregory of Nazianzus as the new Bishop of Constantinople, but he was quickly forced to resign. The synod then elected the senator Nectarius, who obviously enjoyed the strong backing of the emperor himself, in his stead. Theodosius' early reign witnessed the gradual expulsion of all heretical bishops from the towns and cities of the East and the transfer of all church buildings and property to their Catholic rivals. The depth of resentment which such policies caused can best be judged by the fact that in 388 "Arian" mobs at Constantinople rioted and caused widespread damage in reponse to the false rumour that Magnus Maximus had inflicted a severe defeat upon Theodosius. 44

    Theodosius continued to tolerate the traditional pagan practices and rituals which had enjoyed toleration from successive Christian emperors throughout the fourth century, i.e., almost anything which did not include blood-sacrifice or did not smack of treason against the emperor, until 391 at least. He then issued a series of laws which seemed effectively to prohibit all pagan worship by forbidding visits to pagan sites of worship or even the adornment in any manner of the images of the gods. 45 This apparent change of policy on his part has often been credited to the increased influence of bishop Ambrose of Milan. 46 For in 390 Ambrose had excommunicated Theodosius because he had ordered the execution of several thousand of the inhabitants of Thessalonica in response to the murder there of his "general" Butherichus. Theodosius accepted his excommunication and even performed several months of public penance, so it is all too easy too imagine how he might have taken the time to review his other "failings" also, including his continued toleration of paganism. 47 However, the importance of these laws has been greatly exaggerated. 48 They were limited in scope, specific measures in response to various petitions and accusations and tell us less about Theodosius than the private agenda of many of the increasingly militant Christians who could be found throughout his administration. Although he had voiced his support earlier for the preservation of temples or pagan statues as useful public buildings or as works of art, in 391 he officially sanctioned the destruction of the most famous of the temples in the East, the Serapeum at Alexandria. 49 Bands of monks and Christian officials had long been accustomed to take the law into their own hands and destroy various centres of pagan worship, but the destruction of the Serapeum seemed to confirm that such actions had often enjoyed the emperor's tacit approval at least, and served to encourage such action in the future also. Again, however, Theodosius had been effectively manipulated into sanctioning the destruction of the Serapeum by local officials who had essentially engineered the crisis there for this very purpose.

    Family and Succession

    Theodosius married twice. His first wife was the Spanish Aelia Flavia Flaccilla. 50 She bore him Arcadius ca. 377, Honorius on 9 September 384, and Pulcheria ca . 385. Theodosius honoured her with the title of Augusta shortly after his accession, but she died in 386. In late 387 he married Galla, daughter of Valentinian I and full-sister of Valentinian II .51 She bore him Gratian ca . 388, Galla Placidia ca . 388/390, and died in childbirth in 394, together with her new-born son John. 52 Of his two sons who survived infancy, he appointed Arcadius as Augustus on 19 January 383 and Honorius as Augustus on 23 January 393. His promotion of Arcadius as a full Augustus at an unusually young age points to his determination right from the start that one of his own sons should succeed him. He sought to strengthen Arcadius' position in particular by means of a series of strategic marriages whose purpose was to tie his leading "generals" irrevocably to his dynasty. Hence he married his niece and adoptive daughter Serena to his magister militum per Orientem Stilicho in 387, her elder sister Thermantia to a "general" whose name has not been preserved, and ca. 387 his nephew-in-law Nebridius to Salvina, daughter of the comes Africae Gildo. 53 By the time of his death by illness on 17 January 395, Theodosius had promoted Stilicho from his position as one of the two comites domesticorum under his own eastern administration to that of magister peditum praesentalis in a western administration, in an entirely traditional manner, under his younger son Honorius . Although Stilicho managed to increase the power of the magister peditum praesentalis to the disadvantage of his colleague the magister equitum praesentalis and claimed that Theodosius had appointed him as guardian for both his sons, this tells us more about his cunning and ambition than it does about Theodosius' constitutional arrangements. 54

    Theodosius' importance rests on the fact that he founded a dynasty which continued in power until the death of his grandson Theodosius II in 450. This ensured a continuity of policy which saw the emergence of Nicene Christianity as the orthodox belief of the vast majority of Christians throughout the middle ages. It also ensured the essential destruction of paganism and the emergence of Christianity as the religion of the state, even if the individual steps in this process can be difficult to identify. On the negative side, however, he allowed his dynastic interests and ambitions to lead him into two unnecessary and bloody civil wars which severely weakened the empire's ability to defend itself in the face of continued barbarian pressure upon its frontiers. In this manner, he put the interests of his family before those of the wider Roman population and was responsible, in many ways, for the phenomenon to which we now refer as the fall of the western Roman empire.

    Secondary Sources

    Birley, A.R. The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981).

    Blockley, R.C. "The Division of Armenia between the Romans and Persians at the End of the Fourth Century AD." Historia 36 (1987), 222-34.

    Bratoz, R. (ed.). Westillyricum und Nordostitalien in der Spätromischen Zeit (Narodni muzej. 1996).

    Cameron, A. Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius. (Oxford, 1970).

    ________. "Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilicho." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 73 (1969), 247-80.

    Croke, B. "Arbogast and the Death of Valentinian." Historia 25 (1976), 235-44.

    Duval, Y.-M. "Les aurea fulmina des Alpes Juliennes: le role des statues divines dans les lieux strategiques." in Bratoz, R (1996), 95-108.

    Errington, R.M. "The Accession of Theodosius I." Klio 78 (1996a), 438-53.

    ________. "Theodosius and the Goths." Chiron 26 (1996b), 1-27.

    ________. "Church and State in the First Years of Theodosius I." Chiron 27 (1997a), 21-72.

    ________. "Christian Accounts of the Religious Legislation of Theodosius I." Klio 79 (1997b), 398-443.

    Friell, G. and Williams, S., Theodosius: The Empire at Bay. (London, 1994).

    Heather, P. Goths and Romans 332-489 (Oxford, 1991).

    Hoffmann, D. Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum .(Dusseldorf, 1969).

    Kovac, M. "Bora or Summer Storm: Meteorological Aspect of the Battle at Frigidus." in Bratoz, R. (1996), 109-19.

    Matthews, J.F., Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court AD 364-425. (Oxford, 1975)

    McLynn, N. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. (Berkeley, 1994).

    Nixon, C.E.V. and Rodgers, B.S. The Panegyrici Latini: Introduction, Translation and Historical Commentary (Berkeley, 1994).

    Rebenich, S. "Gratian, a Son of Theodosius, and the Birth of Galla Placidia." Historia 34 (1985), 372-85.

    Sivan, H. "Was Theodosius I a Usurper ?" Klio 78 (1996), 198-211.

    Shahid, I. Byzantium and the Arabs in the Fourth Century (Washington DC, 1984).

    Springer, M. "Die Schlacht am Frigidus als quellenkundliches und literaturgeschichtliches Problem." in Bratoz, R. (1996), 45-93.

    Vanderspoel, J. Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor, 1995).

    Woods, D. "Julian, Arbogastes, and the Signa of the Ioviani and the Herculiani ." Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 6 (1995), 61-68.

    Notes

    1On his origin at Cauca, see Zos. 4.24.4. His date of birth is calculated from his death in his fiftieth year in January 395, Epit. 48.19. The name of his mother is preserved only at Epit . 48.1.

    2 Pan. Lat . 2(12).5.2 preserves the fullest surviving account of the movements of Theodosius the Elder throughout his career, but fails to note his rank or position at any particular time. On this passage, see Nixon and Rodgers (1994), 517-19. Amm. Marc. 28.3.9 proves that he succeeded Jovinus as the magister equitum praesentalis following his return in late 368 from an expedition to Britain. He is normally identified as a comes rei militaris before this, with little effort to define what exactly is meant by this term. See Birley (1981), 333-39. I believe that he succeeded Charietto as the vicarius of the magister equitum praesentalis Jovinus in early 365 and retained this post until he succeeded Jovinus in 368.

    3On his service in Britain, see Zos. 4.24.4. On his position as dux Moesiae , see Amm. Marc. 29.6.15; Zos. 4.16.6. He had presumably served on his father's staff as a protector domesticus , a member of the imperial bodyguard seconded to his command. Note, for example, that the ten protectores domestici who had accompanied the magister militum per Gallias Ursicinus to Cologne in 355 had consisted of friends and relatives for the most part (Amm. Marc. 15.5.22).

    4 Epit . 48.1; Oros. 7.34.2; Cons. Constant. s.a. 379 (exact date).

    5 Pan. Lat . 2(12).9; Theod. HE 5.5.1-2. It has traditionally been accepted that the emperor Gratian recalled Theodosius to active service only sometime after the battle of Adrianopole on 9 August 378, i.e., that he remained in retirement in Spain for almost three years 376-78. See, e.g., Sivan (1996), 199. But Errington (1996a), 438-40, exposes Theodoret's account of Theodosius' recall to service for the fictitious nonsense it is and dates his recall as early as late 377.

    6See, e.g., Nixon and Rodgers (1994), 453; Williams and Friell (1994), 23-4. Differences sometimes emerge, as when Errington (1996a), 443-44, argues that their enemies forced the younger Theodosius into retirement first before they dared to move against his father, or when Matthews (1975), 93, claims that the younger Theodosius "withdrew to a judicious retirement" after his father's execution as if he did so entirely voluntarily. Nevertheless, all accept that Theodosius the Elder was executed at Carthage, and that his execution and his son's "retirement" should both to be dated to the winter of 375/76.

    7E.g., Oros. 7.33.7 is our only source to locate Theodosius' death at Carthage, and only because Carthage was the administrative centre for the region. He may also have been influenced by the fact that Arcadius had had the rebellious comes Africae Heraclianus executed at Carthage ca . 413. In contrast, Amm. Marc. 29.5.1-55 reveals not the slightest indication that Theodosius had visited Carthage even once during his stay in Africa ca. 373-4. Writing ca. 417, during the reign of Theodosius' grandson Arcadius, Orosius was principally concerned to fill in the flattering assumption that the father of such a pious dynasty had surely received baptism before his death. As for the date of Theodosius' execution, Jerome is our only source, and he dates it to 376 ( Chron. s.a . 376). Note, however, that he does not date the execution of Theodosius the Elder alone to 376 but associates it with the deaths of many other notables also. If he is not simply mistaken, as he is on other occasions, it is arguable that he refers to a series of executions, which culminated in 376, rather than that they all necessarily occurred in the same year.

    8Amm. Marc. 29.6.13-14. These legions have traditionally been identified with two palatine legions whose names are recorded together in the Notitia Dignitatum , the Pannoniciani seniores (ND Oc. 5.149) and the Moesiaci seniores (ND Oc . 5.150), e.g. by Hoffmann (1969), 433. There are several objections to this identification. The first must be that their titles do not actually match. Ammianus records the names of other palatine legions in the exact form that they have been preserved by the Notitia so that we cannot simply assume some literary licence on his part in this instance. He refers to the Primani (ND Or . 6.45) by their correct title (Amm. 16.12.49) and the Divitenses Iuniores and the Tuncgrecani Iuniores by theirs (Amm. 26.6.12), and to the Lanciarii and the Mattiarii (Amm. 21.13.16, 31.13.8), whether seniores or iuniores (ND Or . 5.42, 6.42; Or. 6.47, Oc. 7.30), as such rather than as, say, the legio lanciaria or the legio mattiaria . Next, a pair of palatine legions, a so-called "brigade" in the manner of the Pannoniciani seniores and the Moesiaci seniores should have been long used to operating together so it is difficult to understand why they should have quarrelled so badly here. Next, one notes that Ammianus does not say where exactly they came from, and the speed with which they arrived upon the scene inclines one to suspect that they had not had to come very far at all. Finally, it must strike one as a remarkable coincidence that the first two palatine legions to arrive in response to attacks upon the Pannonias and Moesia Prima should have been named after those very regions.

    9Zos. 4.9.3-4.

    10See Amm. Marc. 16.11.6-7 (dismissal of Valentinian) and Amm. Marc. 16.4.3, 7.1, 8.1 (dismissal of Marcellus).

    11 Cf . his earlier petition on behalf of the advocate Africanus who had merely wanted a second provincial governorship, Amm. Marc. 29.3.6. In response, Valentinian had ordered him to behead Africanus. It is beyond the scope of the present article to explore the evidence in full, but I believe that Theodosius the Elder reached the Pannonian provinces in order to lead their defence against the Sarmatians sometime during late 374, and that he then reported back to Valentinian himself at Trier. He is probably identifiable as one of the "missing" consuls for 375. Jerome is the only author to explain why there appear to have been no consuls for 375, claiming that the consuls remained the same as the previous year because of the Sarmatian devastation of the Pannonian provinces ( Chron. s.a. 375). This was true in a round about way, in so far as the Sarmatian attacks did set off a chain of events that resulted in the execution of Theodosius the Elder and the disgrace of his consular colleague, but not in the way that Jerome implies. The Sarmatian attack upon the Pannonias was an embarassment rather than a serious military crisis, as is best revealed by the fact that it did not provoke Valentinian I to leave his capital at Trier until the spring of 375, when the worst was over. If such an attack had prevented Valentinian from appointing new consuls for 375, then it is a wonder that there were any new consuls at all during the far more serious crises of the subsequent decades.

    12 Pan. Lat . 2(12).10.2-3; Themist. Or. 14.182c, 15.198a. This was the campaign which Valentinian himself had been planning when he died.

    13Of Gratian's command staff in early 379, the names of his magistri praesentales Merobaudes and Frigeridus betray their German origin, as do the names of his two western comites domesticorum Richomeres and Mallobaudes. Finally, of the the two vicarii of his two magistri praesentales , Sebastianus had been killed at Adrianople, while Nannienus' name betrays his non-Roman origin also.

    14For detailed analyses of our meagre sources for this war, see Heather (1991), 122-56; Errington (1996b).

    15Errington (1996b), 22-27.

    16Zos. 4.55.2-3. Strictly speaking, he was a magister militum (or utriusque militiae )praesentalis , probably prima (ND Or . 5.1), by the time of his death, since Theodosius had merged the infantry and cavalry branches of the army in the meantime, perhaps ca. 388.

    17Zos. 4.25.2. Modares was himself a Goth, a member of the royal family, and is normally identified as a magister militum of some type. No emperor would have appointed any barbarian defector to such a high rank without first having tested his ability and loyalty at a lower level of command. So one suspects that he is identifiable with the dux Arabiae to whom Ammianus refers as Munderichus (Amm. 31.3.5), and that Ammianus, or his source, have confused Modares' name with his Gothic title reiks "leader of men".

    18Zos. 4.30-32.

    19 Cons. Constant. s.a. 380.

    20Zos. 4.32-33.

    21 Cons. Constant. s.a. 381.

    22 Ibid . s.a. 382.

    23Heather (1991), 157-92.

    24Zos. 4.45.3.

    25Zos. 4.51; Claud. De Cons. Stil. . 1.94-6.

    26 Cons. Constant. s.a. 386; Zos. 4.35.1, 38-39.

    27 Pan. Lat. 2(12).22.3. See Shahid (1984), 203-21.

    28In general, see Blockley (1987).

    29 Pan. Lat . 2(12).24.1.

    30The nature of Maximus' command at the time of his revolt is a matter of great controversy. He is normally identified as one of the comes Britanniarum , the dux Britanniarum or the comes litoris Saxonici . See Birley (1981), 346-52. I suspect that he was the vicarius of the magister peditum praesentalis Merobaudes and that he commanded a small expedition to Britain ca . 382 similar to that which Theodosius had led there in 367/68.

    31Them. Or . 18. See Vanderspoel (1995), 187-216, esp. 210.

    32Zos. 4.42-43.

    33Joh. Ant. frag . 187 (Müller) = Eunap. frag . 58.2 (Blockley).

    34Claud. Gild. 154; Jer. Epp . 79.2, 123.17.

    35On Sicily, see Ambr. Ep . 73(40).22-23. Zos. 4.46.1 preserves a ridiculous story that Valentinian's mother Justina sailed across the Ionian Sea to Italy with some of her children, and that Maximus had initially assembled his fleet in order to capture her. He then kept the fleet in being because he feared that Theodosius was about to launch a naval expedition. It suffices to note that this would have left Valentinian's family stranded behind enemy lines in danger of being used as hostages against him. McLynn (1994), 293-4, assumes that Valentinian himself led a naval expedition which gained the victory at Sicily. But Valentinian had no military experience, and if he and Theodosius had really wanted to open a second front, then it would have been far less risky, and potentially far more beneficial, had they sent their forces to land on the eastern coast of peninsular Italy instead, as far north as possible. They would then have been able to strike Maximus' main lines of defence in northern Italy from behind.

    36Ambr. Ep . 73(40).23; Pan. Lat . 2(12).34-35.

    37Zos. 4.53. According to Zosimus, Arbogast claimed that Valentinian had not given him his command in the first place so he could not now take it away from him. This is often interpreted as evidence that Theodosius had somehow imposed him upon Valentinian and that he was the tool by which Theodosius had continued to control his western colleague. It refers, rather, to the fact that he had essentially "inherited" the post of magister peditum praesentalis from his father Bauto ca. 386. Neither emperor had been in a position to nominate an alternative candidate to succeed Bauto at the time.

    38The ancient sources disagree about the circumstances of Valentinian's death. See Soc. HE 5.25; Soz. HE 7.22; Philost. HE 11.1. In general, see Croke (1976) who concludes that Valentinian probably did commit suicide

    39See Springer (1996).

    40E.g. Soc. 5.25; Soz. 7.24; Theod. HE 5.24; Claud. III Cons. Hon . 89-98. For a modern, rational interpretation of this "miracle", see Kovac (1996).

    41Oros. 7.35.16 (for Arbitio's name); Ruf. HE 2.33; Soz. 7.24.5. The ecclesiastical historians have exaggerated the religious aspects of the conflict for ideological reasons, although many modern commentators have traditionaly accepted their propaganda at its face value. The claims, for example, that Eugenius' forces erected statues of Jupiter in the Alps (Aug. Civ. Dei 5.26), or that they bore an image of Hercules at their head as they marched (Theod. HE 5.24) are not to be taken literally. They have their origin in a deliberate misrepresentation of the significance of the fact that the two leading western military units, the Ioviani seniores and the Herculiani seniores , had probably restored their standards to what they imagined to be their traditional form. See Woods (1995). For a more traditional interpretation, see Duval (1996).

    42Soc. HE 5.6; Soz. HE 7.4. In general on this period, see Errington (1997a).

    43 Chron. Pasch. s.a . 380; Malal. Chron . 13.36. Both sources describe an attempt to assassinate an emperor, whom they identify as Gratian but the date, location, and general circumstances of the attempt suggest that the anecdote which lies at their heart had originally described a plot to assassinate Theodosius.

    44Soc. HE 5.13.

    45 C.Th. 16.10.10 (24 February 391), 16.10.11 (16 June 391), 16.10.12 (8 November 392).

    46E.g., Williams and Friell (1994), 68-71.

    47Soz. HE 7.25; Ruf. HE 2.18; Aug. Civ. Dei 5.26; Theod. HE 5.17-18. See McLynn (1994), 315-30.

    48McLynn (1994), 330-35; Errington (1997b), passim .

    49For Theodosius' protection of temples, see C.Th. 16.10.8 (30 November 382), Lib. Or . 30.49-51 (386). On the destruction of the Serapeum, see Soc. HE 5.16-17; Soz. HE 7.15; Ruf. HE 2.23.

    50Claud. Laus. Ser . 63-9.

    51Soc. HE 4.31; Philost. HE 10.7; Zos. 4.44.

    52Rebenich (1985), passim.

    53Many modern commentators follow Cameron (1970), 56, in dating the marriage of Serena and Stilicho to 384, although his conclusion, that it was Serena herself, not Theodosius, who chose Stilicho as her husband, that it was "one of those very rare events in a royal family, a love match", ought to have occasioned greater scepticism. Much depends on one's interpretation of Claud. De Cons. Stil. 1.51-68, which records that Stilicho negotiated an important treaty with the Persians shortly before his marriage to Serena. I interpret this to refer to the treaty of 387 by which the Romans and Persians agreed upon the division of Armenia between their empires. This means that Stilicho's daughter Maria can only have been about 10 years of age by the time of her marriage to Honorius in about February 398. But this explains the tradition preserved at Zos. 5.28.2, that Serena herself thought that Maria was too young for marriage, even if one cannot accept Zosimus' fanciful solution to this problem, that Serena managed to drug Honorius in order to prevent him from consummating the marriage, over a period of ten years apparently !

    54Relying principally on Zos. 4.59, Cameron (1969) argues that Theodosius had appointed Stilicho as magister militum per Occidentem with command of all the western troops and the power to administer the western empire in Honorius' name some three months before his death in January 395. At that point, Theodosius made a vague statement entrusting his sons to Stilicho which the latter interpreted in his own interest to mean that his earlier regency over Honorius had now been extended over Arcadius also. But the office of magister militum per Occidentem , or whatever other title one wishes to use to describe the appointment of a single supreme military commander, was entirely without precedent and an obvious threat to the independence of any emperor. One suspects, rather, that Theodosius had appointed Stilicho to an entirely regular command, i.e. as magister peditum praesentalis , at that point three months before his death, and that Stilicho asserted a regency which he had yet to enjoy over either son.

    Copyright (C) 1998, David Woods. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

    http://s_van_dorst.tripod.com/biblio.html 

    Gepidic or Goth Royal Tomb found in Polus Tumulus, near Cluj-Napoca

     

    Recently(2006) a royal tomb (assigned to Gepids: Polus tumulus near Cluj-Napoca)was unveiled; the "celtic cross" was found on the royal seal and on vessels. Please observe that kings' monograms are not necessarily symbols for the peasants (the people) but deserve a mystic or genealogic role. Please review my previous post on "historical Odin" for the Draco/Balaur issue.

    Moreover, in the Polus site, antlers were found along with the stag's head. The antlers are not conserved in museum but left on the site, so anybody can see them.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/2f7cbBIRZGsnroi4gAOv6w?feat=directlink

    The connection with Cernunos was not made yet, but I make it now:
     
    THIS IS THE FIRST ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF ANTLERS USED FOR BURIAL/FUNERAL OF KINGS

    The necessary connection to the Gundestrup cauldron (also thougt by some of Wallachian origin) may be made along with the representation of the afterworld on old (XIVth century) churches:
    1. Draco/devil/Baal is Nidhog, the worm of the underworld.
    2. Balaur/Cernunos is feeding Bal/Draco with bodies and therefore Balaur/Cernunos may not be eaten by Bal/Draco.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/3r8F7SmsRa-W6TcJXE5NFA?feat=directlink

    http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/PKCZmASnSboSzfWtThAXfw?feat=directlink
     
    Therefore, the antlers were thought to mask the deceased into the Balaur/Cernunos in the afterworld.

    In the museum of Cluj I got the following burrial ring with the sun/moon/Ishtar, like inn the Sumerian room at Louvre:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/yhlQZFlknK5OaDyBU82NRA?feat=directlink

    Elaborating further on the "wheels" on the Gundestrup cauldron, these are the two suns of the Apotheosis. Picture from the Louvre on the apotheosis:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/n0k8oPY2YDDH3tMSII3gVA?feat=directlink

    Religion, as learned from various finds, may NOT be assigned to a nation (e.g. celts) but to the gentry-which had not a mother tongue but a genealogy and a trans national cult of the afterworld.

    May I elaborate on the etymology of Wallachia, a duchy mentioned in Niebelungen Lied along with a Romanian leader ("Rumunc der Vlachen Hertzog mit acht hunndert Mannen") which is usually associated with Romania. My opinion is that this duchy which denotes a diminutive of valley (Val(e)>>Valeaca>>Valaca) was altered by German/Hungarian transcriptions and also by common confusion between consonants into Feleacu (phonetic F for V), i.e.  the hill near Cluj-Napoca. Later this duchy appears as Doboka-Szolnok in Hungarian and remained a county until 1918.
    The archeological traces we have, refer to the gentry not to the peasants and therefore we have no "great migration" but eventually wars and mostly change of dynasties.
    Therefore I got the religious connection between Celtic/Nordic(Odin's Valaskijalf==Wallachia) realm and the Gepid capital at Cluj. It appears that this is where historical Woden's successors came . Thus the story told by Jordanes on the Gepid's origin appears true.

    QED

     

    Getii, Gotii (in Romanian only)


     
    DESPRE CONTACTCITATE NICOLAE DENSUŞIANU, LUCIAN IOSIF CUEŞDEAN ALEXANDRU BUSUIOCEANU aprilie, 2010


     Studiu asupra geţilor sau goţilor de Gabriel Gheorghe – Partea a doua 

     
    Înainte de Leibnitz sau după el, o pleiadă de străluciţi cărturari saşi, fiecare cu argumente proprii, susţineu că teutonii sînt urmaşii dacilor, idee combătută formal, în principiu de unii oameni de cultură români. Şi Universitatea din Cambridge susţine această idee, atunci cînd arată că din Spaţiul Carpatic au roit (după părerea noastră aceste părăsiri ale Spaţiului Carpatic, de după mileniul III î.e.n., nu pot fi catalogate migraţii, cum sunt numite de autorii acestei lucrări) : indo-persanii, grecii, tracii, albanezii, italioţii, celţii, germanii şi slavii.
    Dacă ţinem seama de condiţiile geologice ale Europei ca şi de condiţia fiziologică a omului nu se poate evita constatarea că după retragerea gheţarilor din nordul actualei Germanii şi din actuala Polonie populaţia a expandat (a roit) din sud, din Spaţiul Carpatic, care n-a fost afectat de glaciaţiuni, era suprapopulat şi mai ales, asigura minimul de condiţii de viaţă.
    Am mai spus-o, german înseamnă frate bun, din aceiaşi părinţi, dar în antichitate nu apăruse această grupare vagă, artificială de aşa-zise familii de popoare: germanice, romanice, slave. Nu se ştie pînă astăzi ce criterii determină calificarea de romanic, germanic, slav. Un început de criteriu ar fi limba. Dar în antichitate şi evul mediu nu existau diferenţe mari de limbă.
    Vorbitorul de latină vulgară – latină veche sau Protolatină – se putea înţelege cu vorbitorul de teutonică sau theodiscă. Ei au plecat toţi dintr-o vatră în care au vorbit o limbă comună. De acea s-a şi numit indo-europeana comună. Diferenţierile s-au produs cu trecerea timpului şi, mai ales, dupa apariţia oamenilor şcoliţi, a cărturarilor, a lingviştilor, a gramaticilor.
    Din sec. IX, limba theodisca nu pare să aibă altă semnificaţie decît cea de limbă vulgară. Limba germană actuală este o operă de cabinet, târzie, impusă de sus în jos abia către sfîrşitul secolului XVIII şi mai ales in sec. XIX. Deci, admiţînd limba drept criteriu, aşa-zişii goţi nu pot fi ataşaţi unui sistem neconstituit, inexistent la momentul apariţiei şi desfăşurăriirii goţilor, pentru că, neexistînd o limbă germană înainte de secolul XVIII, pe baza acestui criteriu nu putea fiinţa o familie de limbi germanice.
    Chiar dacă Luther, traducînd, în sec XVI, biblia în teutonică, preia masiv cuvinte din latină şi, două secole mai târziu, Adelung imaginează o limbă germană pe baza dialectelor germane de sus (haut-allemand), aceste realităţi nu existau în secolele II – VI ca să poată motiva o aşa-zisă apartenenţă germanică. În termeni reali, nu se vede cum calitatea de frate bun ar putea defini o etnie.
    În cazul limbii, universalitatea înţelegerii este naturală şi nedependentă de vreo formă de învăţămînt şcolar. Înainte de apariţia oricărei forme de învăţămînt şcolar vorbitorii de limbă română din Bucovina se înţelegeau perfect cu cei din Banat, cu cei din Ardeal, din Oltenia sau chiar din dreapta Dunării, pînă în munţii Pindului. Aşa ceva în Franţa, Anglia, Italia, Germania etc. este de neconceput.
    Iordanes foloseşte de 23 ori cuvîntul german(-ă) în paragrafele: 60, 67, 93, 120, 129, 159, 164, 180, 191, 199, 223, 229, 253, 257, 263, 265, 266, 268, 270, 274, 283, 299 şi 306, de 19 ori cu sensul propriu, de frate sau soră.
    Belizariu, vestitul general al lui Iustinian, învingîndu-i pe aşa-zişii goţi în Italia, îşi ia titlul triumfal de GETICUS MAXIMUS. Or titlul triumfal nu se putea lua decât după numele poporului pe care l-ai învins. Ar fi fost o formă de paranoie să-i înfrîngi pe goţi şi să-ţi iei titlul triumfal de Gepidicus Maximus, deşi cele două nume aparţin de fapt la două ramuri ale aceleiaşi populaţii. Aşa ceva nu se cunoaşte în istorie. Dacă n-ar fi fost vorba de două nume frecvent interschimbabile ale aceleiaşi populaţii de bază, geţii fiind numele vechi cu o istorie glorioasă în spate, de o largă răspîndire, nu s-ar fi putut ca Belizariu să-şi ia titlul triumfal de GETICUS MAXIMUS.
    După istoriografia occidentală, vizigoţii au stat în sudul Franţei peste 400 de ani. În realitate ei se găsesc şi azi acolo. Istoricii apuseni considerîndu-i germanici, iau ca model germana lui Luther şi a lui Adelung, din sec XVIII, şi se miră că nu găsesc nici o urmă de germanism în secolele IV-VIII cînd acesta nu se născuse încă.
    Pătura conducătoare a Spaniei, chiar tîrziu cînd goţii dispăruseră, trebuia, pentru a-şi întemeia nobleţea să dovedească sau măcar să afirme descendenţa din geţi (nu goţi!).
    Dacă goţi erau acei care au cucerit  Spania şi Italia, unde sunt cuvintele aşa zise germanice din graiurile acestor popoare?  De ce nu îi aflăm pe Odin, pe Thor sau pe Freya în legendele spaniole?Alexandru Busoiceanu  nu a aflat mai nimic referitor la cucerirea Daciei la cărturarii spanioli, antici şi medievali, în schimb i-a aflat la aceştia şi în legendele spaniole pe Zamolxen, pe Boruista, pe Diceneo, şi pe Diurppaneus(Decebal).
    Este interesant că în timp ce diverşi istorici şi lingvişti, pe baza dogmei unui germanism al aşa-zişilor goţi, caută nebuloase urme aşa-zise germanice în Midi-ul Franţei, la sud de Loara, noi am găsit peste 1300 de cuvinte româneşti, mai ales în cele trei volume de câte cca 800 p. ale Dicţionarului “des idiomes romans du Midi de la France” de Gabriel Azaïs, ca şi în alte texte din aceeaşi regiune. De exemplu: ades, cocă, cloşcă, a muşca, sigur, a băga, a adăsta, jos, sus, berc etc. Dar o asemenea influenţă “germanică” se regăseşte peste tot în Europa, inclusiv în frisiana veche şi saxona veche, ceea ce arată superficialitatea cercetărilor care au avut ca obiect acest aspect.
    Puteau aşa-zişii goţi să apară şi să umple pagini de hîrtie fără străvechea anterioritate a geţilor, unica realitate etnică în străfunduri de istorie euro-indo-iranică?Excelentul istoric care a fost Ion Budai Deleanu, mai ales în ce priveşte Getica lui Iordanes, constată:  “Dacă lăsăm la o parte lucrurile pe care Iordanes le povesteşte despre migraţia goţilor din Scandinavia şi înaintarea lor pînă în Sciţia, celelalte povestiri ale sale îi privesc în întregime pe geţi.”
    Că Scandinavia a fost populată dinspre sud, că nimic n-a putut veni din ea, rezultă şi din textul lui Procopius din Caesarea (32, C II, 15): “Herulii îşi căutară sălaşuri în locurile cele mai îndepărtate ale lumii locuite pe atunci … se îndreptară spre insula Thule şi au rămas acolo. ” Procopius este contemporan cu Iordanes astfel că există dovada că Herulii, pe care Iordanes îi citează ca locuitori ai insulei Scandza, sînt veniţi acolo dinspre sud. Procopius continuă: “În această insulă pămîntul este în cea mai mare parte pustiu.”
    Iordanes scrie că în Britania, care se găseşte mai la sud faţă de Scandza, se găseşte “hrană mai degrabă pentru vite decît pentru oameni”, de unde fecunditate mai la nord ca să apară o “officina gentium”?Datorită incapacităţii solului, chiar din sudul Scandinaviei, de a-şi hrăni populaţia, oricât de dragi le-ar fi fost copiii, numai unul, prin tragere la sorţi, putea rămîne în familie, ceilalţi trebuind să plece, nu interesa unde. Nimeni nu le purta de grijă,(Cronica ducilor de Normandia).
    Iordanes îşi începe povestea aşa-zişilor goţi astfel: “Se spune că din această insulă Scandza, ca dintr-o fabrică de naţiuni sau ca dintr-un pîntece de neamuri, au răsărit odinioară goţii cu regele lor pe nume Berig. “Începutul este ca în toate poveştile : Se spune că … Nu există nici un document , nici o formă de probă ci doar un fel de lumea spune. Dar ce dovadă poate constitui gura lumii în istorie?
    În § 29 autorii – Cassiodor şi Iordanes -  se arată surprinşi că Josephus Flavius (37-100 e.n.) nu-i menţionează pe goţi. Cum ar fi putut să-i menţioneze dacă pe vremea sa nu existau? Joseph Flavius nu-i menţionează pînă la 100, cît a trăit el, dar nu-i menţionează nici Dion Chrisostomul +120, nici Clement din Alexandria (150-215 e.n.) nu ştie de goţi, nici Dio Cassius  236 e.n. etc.
    Ce fel de popor ar putea fi acela care obţine victorii de răsunet se bate cu armatele imperiului roman şi nu este măcar amintit de principalii cronicari ai timpului? De ce nu sunt menţionaţi concomitent, în Spaţiul Carpatic sau în alt spaţiu geţi şi goţi ca două popoare diferite, vecine? De ce nu se menţionează nici o luptă între ele. Cele mai frecvente certuri se produc între vecini. Sunt amintite lupte între goţi şi gepizi (deşi îs acelaş popor) între avari şi gepizi, între toţi aceştia şi romani, dar niciodată între geţi şi goţi.
    Numărul cronicilor în care se scrie că goţii nu sînt decît un nume pentru geţi este foarte mare. Chiar numărul cronicilor publicate care fac această menţiune este considerabil. Desigur şi din acestea, ca din toate cronicile antichităţii şi Evului Mediu, o mare parte s-a pierdut.
    În cele de mai jos vom spicui o parte din acestea, fără o ordine cronologică. Claudius Claudianus (“Panegiric”, 395, “Împotriva lui Rufinus”, 396 şi “De bello Gothico”, 402) scrie de peste 50 de ori getic, dac, cetele getice, cetele blonde (ale geţilor) şi o singură dată gotic, în titlu, pe care l-a considerat un alt nume, dar fără semnificaţie proprie. Prudentius (348 – către 405) în “Divinitatea lui Christos”,  nu-i ascultă pe istoricii moderni şi scrie geţi unde aceştia ar fi aşteptat goţi, iar pe Alaric îl numeşte “tiranul get”.
    Hieronymus (345 – 420) scrie că există autoritate (îndreptăţire) pentru a-i numi pe goţi geţi. Carol Lundius, în “Zamolsis, primus Getarum legislator”, Uppsala, 1687 scrie: p. 3 “Nempè unam eandemque Gentem Getas et Gothas fuisse” / “Fără îndoială Geţii şi Goţii au fost una şi aceeaş naţiune”.
    Acelaşi autor ne avertizează: “Să fie clar pentru toţi, cei pe care antichitatea i-a numit cu o veneraţie aleasă Geţi, scriitorii i-au numit după aceea, printr-o înţelegere unanimă, Goţi. .  . grecii şi alte popoare au luat literele de la Geţi. La Herodot şi Diodor găsim opinii directe despre răspîndirea acestor litere”.
    Johann Filstich, în “Încercare de istorie românească”, 1979, p. 33, scrie: “Istoricii se ceartă straşnic pentru a hotărî dacă geţii, dacii şi goţii sunt un singur popor cu mai multe nume, au ba. Dintre cei noi arată aceasta Lorenz Toppeltinus, Martin Schmeitzel, cel din urmă încercând să lămurească acest lucru îndoielnic în istoria sa scrisă de mînă prin următoarele temeiuri:
    (1) Mărturia celor mai vechi scriitori
    (2) Întâmplările cele petrecute la fel
    (3) Potrivirea felului de trai, a obiceiurilor, a limbii şi a locuitorilor ţării.
    André Thévet (1502 – 1590), călugăr franciscan, în “Cosmographie Universelle”, cap. “De la Valachie, Transylvanie, Bulgarie et Servie” scrie: “Originea poporului acestei ţări în întregime, aşa cum susţin cei mai mulţi, vine de la geţi, numiţi astfel de romani, pe care noi de atunci i-am numit goţi”. Procopius, în “Despre războaie III” 2, 2 scrie: “Neamurile gotice erau şi sînt şi astăzi multe la număr … dar, dintre toate, cele mai mari şi mai vrednice de luat în seamă sunt goţii, vandalii, vizigoţii şi gepizii. Altădată li se spunea sarmaţi şi melanhleni, iar unii îi numeau neamuri getice”.
    Carlo Troya scrie: “Il mio scopo principalissimo … si divideva in due punti”…“De a arăta că Geţii lui Zamolxe şi ai lui Decebal au fost strămoşii goţilor lui Theodoric şi ai Amalilor”…“De a pune în lumină că acea rasă getică sau gotică fu diferită de cea germanică.”
    În § 61, 62 scrie despre luptele dintre Tomiris, regina geţilor, şi Cirus, în sec VI î.e.n., cînd în nici un caz nu ar fi putut fi vorba de o naţiune gotă. Totuşi, deşi în lupta cu parţii lui Cirus nu apar, normal, decît geţii şi regina lor Tomiris, pentru colorarea stilului, Iordanes scrie: “Acolo şi atunci a văzut neamul goţilor pentru prima dată corturi de mătase”, goţi care faptic nu fuseseră menţionati ca participanţi la luptă, pentru că, mai ales atunci, nu puteau să existe. Fraza ni se pare similară stilistic cu una ca aceasta: “La Termopile grecii au luptat pe viaţă şi pe moarte cu perşii lui Xerxes. Acolo au văzut elenii pentru prima oară steagul persan cu cap de lup şi coadă de şarpe”. Rezultă de aici că elenii erau alt popor? Nicidecum. Se va spune poate că alternanţa greci/eleni este cunoscută. Dar alternanţa get/got, dacă nu-i cunoscută poate deveni.
    Că la Iordanes figurează o clară identitate goţi=geţi, găsim destule exemple, dar trebuie răbdare pentru a citi cu atenţie opera, să nu ne încredem în istorici care falsifică din interes.
    Rezultă cu toată claritatea că:
    a. Iordanes este get de neam
    b. A scris o istorie a geţilor, aşa cum arată titlul, atît la Cassiodor cît şi la Iordanes.
    El s-a ocupat de istoria geţilor, aşa cum l-a rugat fratele Castalius – să rezume într-o cronică scurtă opera senatorului Cassiodor “Despre originea şi faptele geţilor”. Aşa-zişii goţi, dacă ar fi existat, ar fi avut şi ei, probabil, o istorie. Normal, n-o au. Ei apar din loc în loc pentru culoarea stilului, dar istoria nu este a lor, ci a geţilor, iar regii şi sacerdoţii geto-daci apar la locul lor, ca personaje istorice. Deoarece pentru aşa-zişii goţi n-am găsit elemente definitorii pentru etnie, pentru orice etnie, trebuie să convenim că, după cunoştinţele disponibile în prezent, ei nu au avut şi nu au o existenţă reală, fiind un simplu nume al altei realităţi etnice, nume folosit uneori pentru variaţia stilului, cum aflăm la toate popoarele europene. Astfel că cei care caută cuvinte gote în limba română o pot face în pace şi linişte pînă la capăt. Astfel de cuvinte neexistînd, nu există nici riscul vreunei găselniţi, a celei mai mărunte tulburări în ritmul căutărilor.
    Gabriel Gheorghe  – “Studiu Introductiv” asupra “De origine  actibusque Getarum”  – “Despre originea şi faptele Geţilor” a lui Jordanes
    Articolul întreg pe site-ul Fundaţiei Gândirea
     
    Această tendinţă spre potrivire a lucrurilor pentru a deveni convenabile şi acoperitoare pentru idei preconcepute ale istoriografilor medievali, mai ales francezi şi germani, care în dorinţa de a-şi afla o identitate, pe care felul în care s-a scris istoria românilor nu le-a permis să o descopere, nici azi, în mod real, au inventat un popor al goţilor, fără origine cunoscută care, cum se va vedea, nu a existat independent de geţi şi nici nu putea să existe.
    Nu-şi cunosc provenienţa, începuturile alemano-deutscho-germano-nemetzko-tedesco-teutonii, nici francezo-celto-galii, nici italienii, nici polonii, nici hungaro-maghiarii, nici bulgarii etc., pentru că nu-şi cunosc istoria. Omul devine el însuşi când îşi cunoaşte istoria (12, p.142), de unde rezultă că cine nu-şi cunoaşte istoria nu ajunge la existenţă, ci rămâne în indistincţiune, în non existenţă.
    Oricine a parcurs un număr mare de lucrări nu a putut să nu observe numărul foarte mare de falsuri şi erori “ştiinţifice”, încît eşti tentat să te întrebi: există oare ceva real, coerent, pur şi simplu, atîta vreme cît senzaţia că trăim într-o lume a falsurilor, unele intenţionate, din interes, din tendinţa spre mărire, altele din ignoranţă etc., nu te mai părăseşte. Probabil, astfel de constatări l-au făcut pe La Bruyère să afirme că “omul se naşte mincinos”. Anton Dumitriu: “Occidentul a răsturnat problema…actul premerge principiului…”
    “În logica obişnuită se dau premisele şi se caută apoi concluzia. În logica sentimentelor, se dă mai întâi concluzia şi se caută premisele care i se potrivesc. Concluzia este dorită, căutată şi se impune prin premise artificiale sau particulare.” “Această logică morbidă guvernează activitatea Occidentului: unui act care este dorit i se caută premise justificatoare. Dar acest act este orb.” “Oarbe or fi astfel de acte, dar pe baza lor, în Apus, s-au scris istoria, lingvistica şi alte ştiinţe umaniste, care domină gândirea europeană. Astfel că, după aceste ştiinţe am ajuns să ne mişcăm asimptotic la realitate. Vom ajunge oare să o cunoaştem vreodată?”
    Cel mai mare istoric al francezei Ferdinand Brunot (11, p.X, XI) scrie: “Ţara noastră a fost romanizată. Dar când şi cum? Nimeni nu poate răspunde cu certitudine, deoarece aceasta este istoria cea mai delicată, şi o sută douăzeci de texte nu sunt suficiente pentru a o elucida, pentru că în astfel de chestiuni nu este decât foarte rar permis să se generalizeze şi statutul unei regiuni, chiar şi atestată, nu semnifică nimic pentru o altă regiune, nici chiar pentru un sat din apropiere.
    Textele lipsesc, deci totul este aproape necunoscut în această problemă. Nu ştim exact nici cine au fost locuitorii romanizaţi , nici cine  au fost agenţii de romanizare.”
    În textul de mai sus, romanizarea apare ca un dat de la Domnul. Nu avem nici o dovadă de realizare a faptului, dar îl acceptăm ca atare.După o astfel de prezentare a imposibilităţii vreunei romanizări a popoarelor supuse de armatele Romei, a cărei realitate este susţinută de faptul că legiunile nu erau compuse din italioţi (v. “Historia Augusta” p.448: armeni, arabi, saraceni etc., p.468: lembari, riparensi, castriani şi daci), că nu există nici un text al unui autor serios care să menţioneze o astfel de intenţie din partea senatului sau a vreunui împărat te-ai fi aşteptat ca Fustel de Coulanges să fie consecvent cu el înşuşi, să părăsească această idee falsă şi să caute altundeva explicaţia realităţii lingvistice din Franţa, nu într-un fenomen de circumstanţă fără consecinţe posibile asupra idiomurilor vorbite în antichitate pe teritoriul Franţei. N-o face, ci dimpotrivă alterează grav realitatea pentru a ajunge la o presupusă “autoromanizare” a galilor nesusţinută de nici un argument serios. Pentru a-şi atinge scopul îi prezintă pe strămoşii lui gali lipsiţi de demnitate, acceptând cu voioşie condiţia de supuşi ai romanilor. Scrie chiar că nu s-au revoltat niciodată contra stăpânirii romane.
    Este un fals, o enormitate. Niciodată în istoria societăţii umane, nici un popor nu şi-a schimbat limba cu una străină, pur şi simplu pentru că nu este posibil, admiţînd că ar fi existat mai multe limbi, ceea ce nu este dovedit şi nici probabil. Cea mai evidentă probă împotrivă este încercarea guvernelor Greciei moderne, după obţinerea independenţei, la 1829, de a schimba limba vorbită de populaţia actuală (dimotiki) cu o limbă savantă, artificială (katarevoussa), menită să semene oarecum cu elina. Scopul acestei acţiuni era acela de a se invoca o continuitate lingivistică între populaţia elenă din Grecia antică (blonzi, cu ochi albaştri, ten deschis) şi cea a Greciei moderne (bruni, cu ochi şi ten închise).
    S-a pus în funcţiune tot arsenalul modern de stat , Katarevoussa s-a predat în şcoli, s-a folosit şi difuzat prin presă, radio şi televiziune, cu mijloace moderne, studiate, de învăţare a limbilor străine. După peste 170 de ani de eforturi ale administraţiei de stat, rezultatul a fost nul, populaţia a continuat să vorbească dimotiki , ignorând katarevoussa, care – li se spunea – ar fi fost limba strămoşilor lor.
    Niciodată în istoria societăţii umane nu s-a făcut un experiment (atenţie! fără posibilitatea de experimentare nu poate exista o ştiinţă) mai cuprinzător (pe un popor întreg!), de durată mai lungă (peste 170 de ani), cu mijloace mai moderne şi costisitoare ca cel întreprins de către guvernele Greciei moderne, din care să rezulte mai limpede imposibilitatea schimbării limbii unui popor.
    Astfel că toate intuiţiile sau falsificările datorate unor profesori fără spirit critic cu care am fost dopaţi în timpul studiilor generale, că un popor a adoptat o altă limbă de dragul prestigiului unui alt popor, de o logică precară, nu constituie decît glume nesărate, nişte droguri cu care se încearcă deghizarea ignoranţei profesorale, a doctei neştiinţe. Oricum, răspîndirea conceptului de romanizare în zonele din centrul Europei se datoreşte romaniştilor francezi şi, nu în ultimul rând, lui Fustel de Coulanges. Sperăm să nu fie o concluzie pripită, dar, după cît se pare, la originea multor falsuri ştiinţifice care circulă în Europa stau părerile unor savanţi apuseni.
    În ce priveşte istoria populaţiilor europene, se citează zeci de nume, despre care nu avem nici cea mai vagă informaţie care să permită identificarea acestora. Este pur si simplu o “Horă a numelor”.  Nimeni n-ar putea spune nici măcar dacă aceste nume sînt transcrise corect, cu atît mai puţin ce sens au din punct de vedere etnic. Numai la Iordanes, într-un ţinut unde pământul este inospitalier pentru oameni şi vitreg pentru animalele sălbatice, lupii îşi pierd vederea din cauza frigului (§18), se găsesc multe şi felurite neamuri (§19) printre care numai în §21-24 se citează vreo 32 de “popoare“: screrefenii, suehansii, theustii, vagothii, bergioţii, hallinii, liothizii, ahelmilii, finaiţii, fervirii, gautigoţii, mixii, evagrii, otingii, raumarcii, aeragnarcii, finnii, scandzii, vinoviloţii, suetizii, granii, augandzii, eunixii, taetelii, rugii, arochii, ranii etc. Ce fel de popoare or fi acestea, despre care în afară de un nume, şi acela neverificabil, nu se ştie nimic, iar nimeni, după el, nu le mai menţionează niciodată.
    Nici Iordanes, nici autorul iniţial, Cassiodor, n-au fost în Scandinavia (“insula Scandza”) să fi văzut ei înşişi aceste multe “popoare”, şi nici n-au avut, după cîte ştim astăzi, nişte documente anterioare din care să fi scos date despre aceste numeroase “popoare”. Istoria se scria în acele timpuri din auzite şi din imaginaţie. O crustă groasă de presupuneri şi imaginaţie constituia materia ştiinţei istorice a secolelor anterioare.
    Pe baza imagisticii cassiodoriene şi iordaniene, care au făcut din ţinutul inospitalier al Scandinaviei, împotriva naturii, o fabrică de popoare,”officina gentium ” , unii savanţi apuseni, Penka (1886), Wilsce, Lindenschmit ş.a. au formulat ipoteza unui leagăn de formare a arienilor (indo-europenilor) în Peninsula Scandinavă, zonă care pînă la începutul Holocenului (etapa geologică actuală, începută cu cca 12000 ani în urmă) s-a găsit sub un strat gros de sute sau chiar mii de metri de gheaţă (v. Istoria Suediei).
    Jordanes a inventat termenul, referitor la Scandinavia, de “Pîntec al naţiunilor”. Din cîtă biologie ştiu, dezvoltarea unei fiinţe în pîntecul mamei nu este posibilă fără existenţa anumitor substanţe; la fel, Scandinavia nu putea fi o “fabrică de popoare” fără existenţa unor minime rezerve de sare în aceea regiune, sare, atît de necesară  vieţii oamenilor şi animalelor.  Dar un alt spaţiu îndeplinea toate condiţiile pentru a fi un “Pîntec al naţiunilor”, acel cuprins între Munţii Carpaţi, Dunăre şi Marea Neagră. Marija Gimbutas spunea: “România este vatra a ceea ce am numit Vechea Europă, o entitate culturală cuprinsă între anii 6.500- 3.500 i.Hr., axată pe o societate matriarhală, teocratică, paşnică, iubitoare şi creatoare de artă, care a precedat societăţile indo-europene, patriarhale, de luptători din epocile bronzului şi fierului” Este acel spaţiu în care sunt descoperite cele mai vechi elemente de civilizaţie din lume, printre care şi primele case, bordeie din lut, în judeţul Botoşani, de acum 20.000 de ani…este acelaşi în care a fost descoperit primul mesaj scris al umanităţii şi prima agricultură din Europa, pe Dunăre, la Porţile de Fier.
    Nici nu poate fi vorba ca Scandinavia să fi fost vreodată în istoria societăţii omeneşti “officina gentium”. Ca urmare, în Scandinavia au ajuns populaţii dinspre sud, din spaţii favorizate de natură, în nici un caz aceasta n-a putut constitui factor primar pentru dezvoltarea demografică şi popularea unor zone situate la sud de Scandinavia. Iar numerosul contingent de nume de popoare menţionat de Cassiodor – Iordanes nu reprezintă decît o formă de mitologie tardivă. Scandinavia (Scandza cum scriu autorii medievali) era necunoscută, părea un dat fabulos.
    În antichitate, şi mai târziu, “Omne ignotum pro magnifico”, tot ce e necunoscut pare grandios, mai ales că nimeni nu putea verifica adevărul unor astfel de poveşti. Nimeni n-a mai pomenit vreodata de multele neamuri citate (ca nume) de Cassiodor-Iordanes. Realităţile demografice sînt neiertătoare: populaţiile puţin numeroase dispar. Aşa s-a întâmplat cu năvălitorii mongoloizi (huni, avari, pecenegi, cumani, bulgari etc.) care au dispărut fără urmă ca etnii în zona în care au ajuns în Europa. La unele din acestea au rămas numele, dar aplicate altor realităţi etnice şi ceea ce e mai important, au dispărut ca limbă.
    Astfel că pînă în prezent nu cunoaştem nici o limbă a numelor de popoare citate de Iordanes sau a fostelor populaţii migratoare care au ajuns în Europa. Bunăoară, din graiul populaţiei bulgare sosite din Asia în Europa şi stabilită în 679 în sudul Dunării, populaţie dispărută între 1014 – 1018, se arată că nu au rămas decît 7-8 cuvinte.
    Atunci când getul Theodoric cel Mare îi cere lui Cassiodor, demnitar la curtea sa, să scrie o istorie a geţilor, acesta începe cu un ţinut fabulos, necunoscut, un început care nu putea fi verificat în acel timp, dar putea să pară verosimil, pentru că, se ştie, oamenii nu au nevoie de adevăr, ci de verosimil, un substitut al adevărului. Este după părerea noastră, motivul pentru care “geţilor” li se pune începutul în “insula” Scandza.
    “Roma fusese rasă după obiceiul lăcustelor, dacă mai rămăsese ceva din ea după prima incursiune (cea a lui Alaric, în 410) jefuind Italia nu numai de averile particulare, dar şi de cele publice, fără ca împăratul Honoriu să se poată împotrivi în vreun fel, iar pe sora acestuia, Placidia, a luat-o din oraş ca roabă”.  Ne surprinde că n-a fost observată similitudinea de situaţii: în 102 Traian ia ca roabă pe sora lui Decebal,  în 106 jefuieşte Dacia de bogăţii imense. Trei sute de ani mai târziu Atavulf jefuieşte bogăţiile Romei şi Italiei şi o ia ca roabă pe sora lui Honoriu.
    La Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo din Ravenna, în imensul mozaic al acesteia apar cei trei magi, dar nu în costumaţia orientală, tradiţională, ci îmbrăcaţi ca tarabostes daci, având pe cap pileus, cuşma getică specifică. În urma celor trei magi, fără legătură cu aceştia, apar sfintele mucenice care poartă îmbrăcăminte ţărănească românească: cămăşi albe cu poale lungi, catrinţe decorate cu motive variate, marame albe de borangic cu franjuri către glezne.
    O abatere de o asemenea anvergură de la canoanele tradiţionale ale Bisericii nu se putea concepe decît din ordinul lui Theodoric, şi nu se poate explica decît prin aceea că împăratul, ajuns stăpânul Romei, a voit şi a avut puterea să impună celebrarea strămoşilor săi geţi.
    Nădejdea lui Decebal se împlinise: Imperiul fusese dărâmat prin loviturile oamenilor de la Dunăre, “Roma însăşi, învingătoarea tuturor popoarelor a trebuit să slujească supusă” – famula = cel ce serveşte, rob, sclav – ” şi să primească jugul triumfului getic” (sfîntul Isidor de Sevilla).
    În sec XVII, Johannes Troster, în “Vechea si Noua Dacie germană”, reia aceeaşi idee sub forma: “Grele îndatoriri a trebuit să suporte Dacia aproape 60 de ani, sub 20 de împăraţi romani, pînă când sub Galienus dacii s-au deşteptat din nou, i-au bătut pe romani, le-au adus mari pagube şi, în sfîrşit, au prădat imperiul roman şi au ocupat Roma, ca să se răzbune şi s-o ruşineze, de unde ai ieşit proverbul:  “Nullum violentum diuturnum” (“Nimic din ceea ce este impus prin violenţă nu durează”). Un ciclu se încheiase! Hotărîrea distrugerii Romei, luată de Decebal în 106, s-a împlinit prin Theodoric cel Mare înainte de 500 e.n., după aproape 400 de ani. Nu s-a scris încă adevărata istorie a geţilor; ideea getică e unul din miturile cele mai obsedante şi mai puternice din imaginiaţia anticilor. 
    Cercetări fără reproş ale unor Universităţi apusene celebre şi a unor universitari nu mai puţin celebri au statuat că în ce priveşte familia primordială de popoare, cea zisă indo-europeană, nu există decît un spaţiu originar, anume cel Carpatic, că Scandinavia este unul din spaţiile unde populaţiile indo-europene au ajuns târziu, în nici un caz spaţiu de formare şi de pornire. A se vedea în acest sens Anexa 2 , un scurt extras dintr-o cercetare amplă “The Cambridge History of India”, 8 volume a cîte cca. 800 pagini, realizată de către Universitatea din Cambridge (Marea Britanie). Această cercetare a fost întocmită în anii premergători primului război mondial, dar din cauza începerii acestuia, în 1914, tipărirea s-a făcut în 1922, după terminarea războiului.
    Cercetarea a luat ca bază vechea literatură vedică, cele mai vechi monumente literare ale umanităţii şi, cum se poate vedea din rezumatul prezentat, ajunge la concluzia că faza primară a “Culturii Vedice” s-a desfăşurat în Carpaţi, cel mai probabil, iniţial, în Ardeal unde se găseşte, după Universitatea din Cambridge, “Ancient India” (India Veche). Nu se vede ce s-ar putea opune concluziilor acestei cercetări. Ea beneficiază de mai multe cercetări posterioare care o confirmă.
    Una din cele mai probante este cercetarea întocmită sub auspiciile Universităţii Californiei din Los Angelles (UCLA) de către Marija Gimbutas, profesoară de arheologie la această universitate. Criteriul avut în vedere în această cercetare este concludent şi grăitor, fără posibilitate de replică: resturile din neolitic descoperite de arheologi. Din harta prezentată, referitor la Neolitic (mileniul V î.e.n.) reiese foarte clar că în acel moment numai Spaţiul Carpatic şi unele zone pericarpatice prezintă urme de locuire de către om. Restul Europei, inclusiv şi mai ales Peninsula Scandinavă, este o imensă pată albă. “Ex nihilo nihil fit” (din nimic nu se naşte nimic), deci nici din Peninsula Scandinavă nu a putut veni nimic, decît în viziune mitologică.
    Să sperăm că studii ulterioare vor aduce mai multă lumină în acest colţ întunecat de istorie, în care daco-geţii sînt consideraţi fondatori ai spaniolilor (25, p. 179), ai popoarelor nordice (v. “Gesta Normanorum”, Cronica ducilor de Normandia, Carolus Lundius etc.) ai teutonilor (v. Leibniz, “Collectanea Etymologica”) şi, prin saxoni şi frizieni, ai olandezilor al căror nume naţional este şi azi Daci (Dutch) şi ai Anglilor.
    De la get la got s-a schimat o vocală, dar prin această schimbare nu s-a născut o nouă etnie, operaţie cu desăvîrşire imposibilă chiar pentru un “prestigitator mundi”. De la rumân la român, de la francez la franţuz s-a schimbat o vocală, dar s-a schimbat şi consoana vecină, sîrb/serb etc. se schimbă vocale, chiar şi consoane, dar prin această operaţie de rutină nu se nasc alte naţii.
    Nicăieri, nici la Cassiodor-Iordanes nu se indică nici o dată la care ar fi apărut aceşti aşa-zis goţi. Fiind vorba de un arbore genealogic fabulos nu se puteau marca măcar naşterile protagoniştilor selectaţi şi bătăliile date, prin ani calendaristici. Toţi, dar absolut toţi istoricii din sec. XIX recunosc şi scriu că latinii, celţii, germanii etc. vin din aşa-zisul orient al Europei. Printre aceştia se găseşte şi vestitul istoric german Mommsen: “Răsăriţi din aceeaşi tulpină din care s-au născut şi popoarele elene, italice şi germanice, celţii au imigrat fără îndoială, ca şi acestea, dinspre partea orientală a Europei” (Istoria Romană, vol. I, p. 195).
    Dacă “goţii” ar avea o existenţă de sine stătătoare şi ar fi “germanici”, deşi în acest sens nu este nimic dovedit şi, în afară de declaraţii, nu se găseşte nicăieri în ultimii aproape 2000 de ani nici cea mai insignifiantă probă, ei n-ar putea fi decît tot geto-daci, la originile Europei altă populaţie neexistînd.
    La 1717, în “Collectanea Etymologica” a ilustrului Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, (1646-1716) găsim, spus direct: “Tocmai din această pricină, cred eu, romanii le-au dat acest nume, ca şi cum ar vrea să spună că ei au o origine comună (cu celţii); într-adevăr “germani” în limba romanilor înseamnă “fraţi gemeni”.” Numele germani nu li l-au putut da romanii decît dacă ei i-au considerat fraţi ai lor. Nu poţi numi pe cineva frate pentru că e frate cu un terţ. Toţi oamenii aveau fraţi naturali.  Teutonii nu şi-au spus niciodată germani. Ar fi fost un nonsens să te numeşti pe tine însuţi frate.
    De aceea nu s-a auzit pînă astăzi decît Ich bin Deutsch = Dac. Olandezii se numesc şi astăzi Daci (Dutch). “The earlier name (of the german) were Alemain and Dutch” (“The Oxford Dictionary of English etymology”, by C.T.Onions, 1966 – numele cele mai timpurii ale germanilor au fost Aleman şi Dac. De altfel, Cezar în “De bello gallico” (Cartea VI, Cap. 25) scrie că Germanii se învecinau cu Dacii, ceea ce găsim şi la Strabon (VII, 3, 12).
    Gabriel Gheorghe  - “Studiu Introductiv” asupra “De origine  actibusque Getarum”  – “Despre originea şi faptele Geţilor” a lui Jordanes
    va urmaComentarii
     
     
    Prea strălucitului bărbat, eruditului Domn Carolus Lundius,
    profesor de ştiinţe juridice şi judecător municipal, vechiul meu amic,
    Sănătate de la Dumnezeu !
    Văd bine că te ocupi de Zamolxe nu fără o mare voluptate a sufletului; prietene sincer, Zamolse al nostru, ţinut atât amar de vreme în întuneric, ba chiar şi înmormântat, iată-l acum scos la lumină de Tine şi oarecum din Infern. Felicit patria pentru acest fruct smuls întunericului şi te felicit pe Tine pentru strădaniile strălucite depuse, la care mie nu mi-a rămas decât să spun: excepţional şi peste măsură de fertil. Te felicit din toată inima pentru strădania pe care ţi-ai dat-o spre a lămuri acest fenomen şi care nici nu poate fi răsplătită cu toate bunurile şi nici să-ţi ridic în slavă cinstitul tău nume îndeajuns. O soartă norocoasă te-a însoţit, ca să fi putut trata un asemenea subiect demn de toată lauda şi de a-l fi putut comunica în lumea literată, într-un chip atât de fericit. Nevinovăţia să te însoţească tot restul vieţii; să te împodobească grija sfântă a dreptăţii şi echităţii; să te însoţească sentinţele date de tine cu înţelepciune judecătorească, în procesele cele mai dificile, ale căror ratificări mereu să rămână valide. Rămâi sănătos, bărbatule foarte precaut. Mă dăruiesc bătrânei cetăţi Upsala cu suflet şi cu scrisul. Calendele lui Ianuarie A.D.  MDCLXXXVII ( 1687).
    Joannes Axehielmus


    Scrisoare adresată de suedezul Joannes Axehielmius contaţionalului şi prietenului său Carolus Lundius, spre a-l felicita pentru studiul întreprins de dumnealui asupra istoriei goţilor şi asupra Legilor Belagine, studiu numit “Zamolxis primus Getarum legislator”. Probabil vă veţi întreba, ce legătură există între goţi şi Zamolxe!
    Există o legătură: “De reţinut acest adevăr unic şi anume că Geţii şi Goţii au fost unul şi acelaşi neam şi că aceştia s-au mai chemat şi cu numele de Sciţi” – Carolus Lundius
    Mai multe despre acest subiect în articolele următoare.

     

     

     

     

    The Hungarian Point of  View

     

    The Visigoths and the Marosszentanna Culture

     http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/24.html

    The Gothic burial site of Marosszentanna is of crucial significance in the archaeology of the period of Great Migrations. It was the first burial ground to be discovered that was identified with a people who played an important role in late-Roman and early medieval history, and the first to benefit from fully professional assessment in archaeological publications (1903–1912). It is not surprising, then, that for some fifty years, Marosszentanna/Maros-Szentanna/Maros-Szent-Anna was synonymous with Gothic culture in the eyes of archaeologists and historians who studied the Visigoths.

    It is difficult to trace the advance of the Tervingi Goths into Transylvania, for their burial grounds and dwellings indicate their settlements, not the path of their conquest. In light of the wars that prevailed initially, one can scarcely expect to find significant archaeological traces of permanent settlement dating from before the last decade of the 3rd century. Contemporary Roman coins are seldom found in Gothic graves of the 3rd and 4th centuries (an absence that is linked to the Goths' religious beliefs and not to their economic conditions), and thus it is difficult to date these graves. On the basis of their vast Moldavian burial grounds and the early burial grounds in Muntenia, it can be established that at the time of the conquest their religious beliefs underwent a certain change under the influence of 'Mediterranean' ideas. This influence probably resulted from interaction with their subjects, the ancient rural and urban population on the northern coast of the Black Sea, and with the thousands of captives that they had brought back from the empire. At the beginning of the 3rd century, the Goths were still cremating their dead, but by the second half of the century the practice of entombment was increasingly common. The practice of cremation, which, at the time of the conquest, accounted for at least half of burials, declined steadily during the 4th century, and in some {1-149.} places it disappeared. At the same time, the Goths began to adopt the custom of burial on an east-west axis, which in the circumstances reflected a Christian influence.

    The material culture observable in all the burial grounds and settlements shows greater uniformity than the funeral rites. The original Gothic heritage survived in elements of costume (the combs and fibulae worn by women, the buckled belt, with purse attached, worn by men) and some forms of pottery. Some elements of their material culture (fibulae, beads) had been modified under the influence of the Pontic Greco-Sarmatian culture; after they had settled in Gutthiuda, their material culture was moulded by Roman merchandise and influences originating from south of the Danube. For instance, a common type of Visigothic pottery replicates contemporary Roman earthenware from the Danubian provinces. Visigothic graves — especially those in Muntenia — were found replete with glasses and glassware cups, jugs, and glazed or unglazed amphoras originating in the Lower Danubian provinces. The 'masterpieces' of Visigothic pottery are mostly clay copies of Roman bronze and glassware jugs or drinking vessels, and the bone combs with half-moon shaped or rounded backs so typical of Visigothic women's costume are mere replicas of the combs fashionable with the Romans in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Roman influence manifests itself in the ongoing adoption of the empire's late-antique provincial culture. The incidence of Roman products in burial grounds and settlements wanes as one progresses from the lower Danube toward the Carpathians. In Transylvania, most of these imports were found at the north end of the major mountain passes, in the Háromszék Basin, while in the interior of the former Dacia they are exceedingly scarce.

    Gothic settlement was concentrated in two regions of Transylvania. The largest, or at any rate the better-known, lay at the center of the erstwhile province of Dacia, within the former limes; it covered an area with a radius of about fifty kilometres, between {1-150.} the Kis-Szamos River, the middle reaches of the Maros valley, and the branches of the Küküllő rivers. It might be expected that the earliest cremation graves would be found here, among the urn graves of Maroslaka/Péterlaka-Csortos, Maroscsapó, Marosgezse, Sóvárad, Maroslekence, Medgyes, and Sepsiszentgyörgy-Eprestető. In fact, such is not the case; the sole possible exception is Maroslaka. At Maroscsapó, for instance, coins minted under Constantius I and Constantius II date the urn graves at the first half of the 4th century. The silver fibula with a half-moon shaped end, found in a cremation grave at Maroslekence, is a typical Gothic ornament that seldom occurs before the middle third of the 4th century. The 'urn' in that 4th century Gothic grave, a pot of the Mithras cult with handles bearing serpentine decoration, was made in the 2nd or 3rd century, and thus it must have been a 'found' vessel; Roman vessels, bronze objects, and fibulae, dating from the 2nd to 4th centuries, were similarly recycled and found in Langobard and Avar graves of the 6th–7th century in Pannonia. At Sóvárad, 4th-century cremation graves of the {1-151.} Marosszentanna type were found inserted amidst the ruins of a Roman castellum. Only a few Gothic cremation graves have been unearthed so far in Transylvania, but this does not prove that no others existed. At Marosszentanna, for instance, the burial site had suffered so much from erosion that the urn graves must have been destroyed by the time of the excavation. Their earlier presence is attested by the burned bronze ornaments found with the displaced 56th skeleton.

    The burial site at Magyarpalatka is as significant as the graves at Sóvárad with regard to the links between the Goths and former Dacia. The deep Gothic graves in the field at (Magyar-)Palatka-Tag were dug by cutting through the very foundation walls of a ruined Roman building (a former villa rustica). The rich grave objects (silver fibulae with half-moon shaped ends, Gothic and 4th-century Roman vessels, combs with curved backs) and the funeral rite are consistent with the second period of the burial site at Marosszentanna. One find, a large bronze pendant with hammered ornamentation, is considered unique in the Gothic area; significantly, a similar, Roman pendant, dating from the 4th century, was unearthed in the 1723rd grave at Intercisa. In these circumstances, the pendant can hardly be attributed to the craftsmanship of 'Roman Christians' in Dacia.

    Gothic Settlements and Cemeteries in Transylvania

    http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/26.html 

    The fragment of a burial site discovered along the former Mikszáth Kálmán Street in Marosvásárhely bears archaeological importance because it allowed archaeologists for the first time to distinguish within one cemetery 4th century Gothic finds and 6th-century Gepidic finds. Most of the graves are contemporary with the middle period (first half of the 4th century) of the burial site of Marosszentanna; a set of six vessels was found only in one grave, while the rest contained one or two. The analysis of the graves is complicated by the fact that they were despoiled by Gepids(?), who subsequently also used the site for burials. A tomb made of bricks indicates local(?) Roman cultural influences. More recently, similar graveyards of varying size have been discovered at Újős-Rét (16 graves, including one of a woman wearing fibulae with a half-moon shaped end); Mező(Szász)erked (15 graves); Medgyes (9 graves on either east-west or north-south axes, and therefore belonging to different periods); Mezőakna-Faluvég (3 graves, including one, that of a wealthy woman, that held a fibula with a half-moon shaped plate, diverse Gothic vessels, and a Roman jug of Moesian origin with a pinched spout).

    Objects that evoke the Marosszentanna culture — fibulae distinguished by the downward curve of the pin, bone combs with rounded backs, oval bronze and iron buckles, distinctive beads, plates and pots — have been discovered in graveyards at Kolozsvár (December 30 Street), Erdőszentgyörgy, Csombord, Mezőakna-Farkasvölgy, Vermes, Marosújvár, Betlenszentmiklós, and (Magyar)szovát. Various typical ornaments belonging to women are found in other Germanic graves from the Gothic period: silver {1-154.} or bronze fibulae with half-moon shaped plates, worn in pairs (at Kolozsvár [1870], around Marosvásárhely, between Baráthely and Ecel, and at Vajdakamarás, where the finds included a bronze clasp and earrings); ordinary fibulae from the 4th century (Apahida, Nagyernye, Szászsebes); an ornamented bone comb (Medgyes); beads and a comb with rounded back (Vajdaszentivány); and intact vessels and combs (Sövényfalva, Kissolymos, Bátos, Szászsebes). A superb set of late-Roman ornamental military belts (from the second half or the end of the 4th century), unique in the Gothic world, was discovered on the banks of the Szamos at Szamosújvár (Németi); presumably it came as booty, or was a rare souvenir brought back by a Germanic mercenary discharged from the Roman army. At the heart of the Transylvanian Basin, in the 'central' settlement area of the Goths, archaeological finds — mainly fragments of pottery, identifiable by period, and bone combs with a rounded back — testify to Gothic settlements (Marosszentanna- Cherniakhov) at Cege, Csákó, Bálványosváralja, Mezőerked, Dedrádszéplak, Szászfenes-Tarisznyapart, Vajdaszentivány (where graves were found as well), the castle at Marosvásárhely, Marosnagylak, Gernyeszeg, and Vermes. The westernmost site of the Marosszentanna type in the Maros valley, at Déva, indicates the approximate boundary of Gothic settlement. As early as 1911, a settlement was partially excavated at Kolozsmonostor — István Kovács dug up a pottery kiln — but its dating is problematical, partly because Germanic people settled there in later times as well.

    In the Gyergyó Basin, near the headwaters of the Maros River, the only relevant find is of a thinly-populated settlement of the Marosszentanna type, on the grounds of the Lázár castle at Gyergyószárhegy; however, an important Gothic silver hoard (to be assessed more fully below) was found not too far away, at Gyergyó-Tekerőpatak.

    There must have been significant Gothic settlements in the valley of the Küküllő rivers, west of the Gyergyó and Hargita mountains. Huts, partly sunken, and equipped with stone fireplaces, have {1-155.} been discovered at Bözöd-Lóc, in the Kis-Küküllő valley. They yielded ornamented bone combs with rounded backs, spindle whorls, plates, pots, and Roman amphoras; it appears that the residents had left in a hurry. This settlement is contemporary with that at Székelyszállás. Huts similar to those at Bözöd were uncovered in the valley of the Nagy-Küküllő at Segesvár-Szőlők (where the finds included bone combs, buckles, and vessels), not far from site of graves, holding skeletons, at Fehéregyháza; at Kisekemező; and at Székelykeresztúr-Lok. Traces of dwellings and settlements were also found at Székelyudvarhely (Szabadság Square) and at Kisgalambfalva-Galath-tető. At Rugonfalva, in the valley of the Nyikó, two elaborate graves were found, indicating the proximity of a Gothic homestead or village. Oriented on a north-south axis, these graves were originally covered with stone slabs, but they were subsequently despoiled; they yielded bone combs with rounded backs, numerous vessels, spindle whorls, fibulae, and beads. Their former richness is reflected in what the grave robbers left behind: fragments of late-Roman glasses and a metallic mirror. Another Gothic site along the Nagy-Küküllő, at Bögöz-Vízlok, yielded a pottery kiln and fragments of fine, smooth pottery with channelled decoration; huts dating from the Marosszentanna culture have also been found at Baráthely (site 1) and at Siménfalva, in the Nyikó valley.

    The Háromszék Basin and the Barcaság/Burzenland comprise the third, and perhaps the richest and most important area of settlement of the Tervingi Goths in Transylvania. The largest Visigothic site to date was unearthed at Sepsiszentgyörgy-Eprestető; it includes semi-sunken dwellings that measure 2.5 by 3 metres at the base, as well as a pottery kiln. The houses and kiln yielded not only the usual pottery and bone combs with rounded backs of the Marosszentanna type, but also rich late-Roman imports: an ornamental, amphora-like vessel resembling an amphora as well as pinched-spout Moesian jugs and their replicas. The settlement's burial ground was also discovered: among the burial objects found {1-156.} in the east-west oriented graves were fibulae with half-moon plates. A cremation grave remains from an earlier period. A dwelling from the same period was discovered at Réty-Telek, along with a grave holding a skeleton; the house had a fireplace and contained a bone comb with curved back as well as coins minted in 345, under Constantine II. The sixteen skeletons unearthed more recently at Réty are probably connected with the settlement. Houses of the Marosszentanna culture, found at Gidófalva and Brassó, have yielded bone combs with rounded backs as well as other objects. Traces of Gothic settlements have been found westward along the Olt valley, at Alsókomána and as far as Sárkány; the 4th-century Roman cruciform fibula with bulb-shaped end found at Halmágy may indicate a settlement there as well.

    A semi-sunken floor dwelling was discovered at Szászhermány-Pénzesgödör. At its narrower ends, the roof was supported by pairs of posts. This site yielded ornamented fibulae with half-moon shaped plates and bone pendants, as well as bone combs with curved backs, ordinary fibulae, and fragments of vessels; since such objects were normally found in graves, their presence confirmed the organic links between settlements and burial sites. At Felsőcsernáton, traces of a settlement were found by the Kereszt, and 4th-century graves with skeletons in the Mihács park. The six intact vessels — including a splendid earthenware jug with channelled decoration that resembles a Roman bronze jug — discovered near Kézdivásárhely probably came from graves. Other finds in the settlement zone of southeastern Transylvania include vessels at Dálnok-Kisvölgy, Kézdiszentlélek, and Hévízugra, and turned plates of the Marosszentanna type at Sepsiszentgyörgy-Bedeháza and Köpec.

    One of the few settlements of the Marosszentanna culture that were located on the site of an abandoned or destroyed Roman castellum is found at Komolló. The finest Visigothic vessel known, an ornamented plate, was found near the castellum of Bereck, {1-157.} which once defended the Ojtoz Pass; plates of a similar type have been unearthed near Kiev, the area of this culture's Cherniakhov branch.

    Outside Transylvania, the largest number — around 30 — of Gothic burial sites are found in Muntenia, where over half of them lie within a 20–30 kilometre-wide strip of land on the left bank of the Danube. It is evident that some of the Gothic settlements were purposely located close to river crossing-points and Roman trading posts.

     

    The Visigoths' Peasant Economy

    http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/27.html 

    The areas bearing archaeological traces of the Tervingi Goths' settlement do not fully justify the appellation 'forest dwellers' — thus the Mezőség, Udvarhelyszék, the Barcaság, the Háromszék Basin, Wallachia, and the undulating plains in the valleys of the Szeret, Prut, and Dniester rivers. Over the century of Gothic rule, forests spread freely in the center of Gutthiuda, and in fact the population 'settled around' the forests. To the north and the west, the forests provided the Goths with a protective barrier. The settlements that have been discovered confirm the assertion in contemporary written sources that the Visigoths — unlike their ethnic cousins, the Ostrogoths — were predominantly farmers. In this regard, Vulfila's translation of the Bible into 4th century Visigothic is of immense value, for it reflects the contemporary Visigothic culture. This unique document reveals in detail the life of a people who would soon come to play a historic role in the Great Migrations.

    Various types of fields (akrs, thaurp) were ploughed (arjan) with ploughs (hoha) drawn by oxen (auhsa) who were linked with a yoke (jukuzi). The Visigoths sowed grain (kaurn) — wheat (hwaiteis), barley (barizein), rye (kaurno) — as well as flax (saian) to make linen (lein). The result of this work were the green crops (atisk). The harvest (asans) began in the summer, reaping was done {1-158.} with sickles (giltha), crops were transported on carts (gajut) to the threshing yard (gathrask) where they were threshed (thriskan), and the grain was stored in barns (bansts). They ground (malan) the grain with a circular hand mill (quairnus), then baked raised dough (daigs) and a flat bread (hlaifs). However, Visigothic agriculture was inefficient, and yields were low. According to a declaration addressed to Emperor Valens in 366[3]3. Themistios, Oratio X, 135 D, p. 161,21. the Tervingi Goths were driven to rely on Roman grain. Judging from the sparse data on horticulture (aurtigard), the Goths possessed little skill at gardening (aurtja).

    Food remnants in graves confirm the Gothic Bible's reference to the animals raised by the Visigoths: cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats, as well as horses and donkeys for draught. The commonly found traces of poultry bones (hens, roosters) and eggs in graves indicate the intensive character of this ancillary animal husbandry. Indeed, only a few traces remain of ruminants and mammals in Transylvanian Gothic graves: a whole lamb, a pig's head, and a ham at Marosszentanna, cattle bones at Palatka, a lamb at Csombord, and a pig's shoulder blade at Rugonfalva. It is unlikely that the Visigoths had large herds or flocks, for otherwise they would have left traces of settlement in the area of fine pastures on mountainsides and in the narrower valleys. Indeed, Vulfila's Bible alludes to an intensive form of animal husbandry.

    The herds (hairda) and flocks (wrethus) driven in from the pasture (winja) were kept near the village in cow-sheds (garda) and sheep-pens (awistr) enclosed by a wattle fence (fatha). To feed the cattle and horses tethered in the manger (uzeta), the Visigoths reaped (sneitharn) grass to make hay (hawi). It is recorded that the poor people's daily drink was milk (miluks), and that their clothes were made from the wool (wulla) of their sheep.

    According to the Gothic Bible, villages had blacksmiths (smitha/aizasmitha) who forged (gasmithon) weapons and tools from iron (eisarn), carpenters (timrja) who worked with hand-axes {1-159.} (aqizi), butchers (skilja), fullers and clothiers (wullareis) who processed wool, fishermen (nuta, fiskja) who used various methods and devices, physicians-healers (lekeis), and potters (kasja) — thus all trades that are essential to a peasant society.

    The Gothic potters were as skilled at fashioning (digan) smaller vessels (kas) and larger pots (katils) as they were at making the native lamps (skeimam) that replicated or substituted for Roman lamps (lucarn). However, the Latin origin (lucerna) of the latter word and archaeological finds of late-Roman earthenware and bronze lamps (several of which are decorated, according to the fashion of the time, with Old Christian patterns) indicate that the Goths preferred to use lamps of varying price mass-produced in the Roman provinces. The making of adobe (thaho) was a common skill, but bricks and tiles (skalja) required an expertise similar to that of potters. With regard to pottery, an even cursory comparison of Marosszentanna products and the remarkably similar pottery discovered at Cherniakhov, near Kiev, will confirm the Gothic Bible's account of the high-level craftsmanship of the Gothic artisans. There is no indication that the vessels found in Gothic graves in Transylvania owed in any way to the legacy of Dacia's earlier inhabitants. The Gothic pottery kilns discovered in Transylvania (Sepsiszentgyörgy-Eprestető, Bögöz-Vízlok) undoubtedly date from the 4th century; they belong to the Late Iron Age ('La Tène') type, which was prevalent throughout the area of Marosszentanna-Cherniakhov culture as well in the proximate Barbaricum.

    Judging from the archaeological finds, comb production was a flourishing craft. Some of the blacksmiths must have been able to work more precious metals, and they employed well-proven techniques to mass-produce iron and bronze fibulae for fastening clothes as well as buckles. The raw material for silver objects most probably came from Roman silver coins (silubreins), for the Goths were most aggrieved whenever Rome suspended a treaty with the foederati and withheld the promised money (gild). The gold (gulth) {1-160.} received from Rome (in the form of officially-authenticated bars) was reserved for the king and others of high rank.

    When peace treaties were negotiated, the Goths' most important demand was always for free trade relations with Rome. Wine (wein) and cooking-oil (alewja), imported in amphoras, were regarded as necessities by the wealthier Goths. The grave goods testify that glass goblets, cups and tumblers, metallic vessels, and ornamental earthenware were part and parcel of the Goths' everyday life; and so were feminine adornments such as silver and bronze jewellery and beads of all sorts. The Goths also imported valued commodities, such as cotton fabric and other luxury cloths, of which no trace remains in the graves. By the 360s, their economy had come to depend so heavily on the empire that in times of war, the interruption of trade caused severe shortages of essential goods ('quod conmerciis vetitis ultima necessariorum inopia barbari stringebantur'[4]4. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum, 27,5.). The one means of repayment about which information has survived were slaves. People for whom the Goths had no use in Gutthiuda were sooner or later sold on the Danubian slave markets. To preserve Dacia's population from this awful fate, Aurelianus evacuated the province.

     

    Visigothic Society

    For a hundred years, the great gold find at Pietroasa was held to be 'Athanaric's treasure' and dated from the 4th century, and this despite a Gothic necklace (torque) bearing runic characters. When researchers began to question this conclusion, and when it was established that the treasure of Szilágysomlyó, buried far beyond the borders of Gutthiuda, could not have been hidden by Visigoths planning to leave their country, the treasures of the Tervingi kings and their badges of authority mysteriously 'disappeared'.

    There is evidence that after the conquest of Dacia, and until 376, the Visigoths had a dual — partly parallel, partly entwined — {1-161.} social structure. According to a still prevailing conception, until the autumn of 376 the Tervingi lived in a 'tribal confederation' and had settled down grouped into 'tribes'. In reality, the notion of 'tribe' (thiuda) had always signified political unity, even if initially it also implied a certain consciousness of a common descent; and by the 3rd–4th centuries, it had come to denote the entire Tervingi community, i.e., the Visigothic people and their country. Instead of 'tribes' and 'chieftains', there was a central source of power (thiudanassus) headed by a single thiudans. In Vulfila's translation, the equivalent of the Greek 'basileos' is the thiudans, and certainly not in the sense of a 'head of the tribal confederation'.

    In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Visigoths were divided into 'kindreds' and clans (kunja = phylapagi) and settled in accordance with this division, each clan occupying an independent territory (garvi). By this time, the several clans (as is shown by their Latin designation) had at best a rather illusory sense of their distinctive origin; this is reflected in the fact that the clan (kuni) was led not by a 'kuning' — a term that denoted the leader of a consanguine community and which no longer appeared in Vulfila's Gothic — but by the kindins (meaning dux, archon, and applied by the Goths to Roman proconsuls), which denoted a relative of high rank. By the 3rd century, military campaigns were led by kindins. The 'clans', which actually denoted territorial units (garvi), consisted of associated great families (sibja). A century later, few of the latter represented consanguine communities or armed groups (siponjos); in the main, the term designated village communities with a stratified social structure. However, it was impossible to live outside the sibja; unsibja, a word obtained by adding a privative prefix, means 'outcast' or 'godless'. Thus the sibi was a solid political, economic and cultic unit, and one which imposed membership even on those who were not related to it by blood. Generally, each village (haims) was occupied by a single sibi. Its members, the inhabitants of the village, belonged to patriarchal families (fadreins); large and {1-162.} wealthy families exercised joint ownership over the land surrounding the villages (haimothlis). The status of outsiders or 'guests' (gasteis) is not clear.

    The village communities preserved (or rather tried to preserve) the old clan institutions. Occasionally, the council (gamainths), in which 'the elders' (sinistans) played a leading role, and the other villagers would convene in the village's meeting ground or market place (garuns). However, as revealed in the Passio S. Sabae, in the 4th century the most that sinistans could aspire to was to 'outwit' the real authorities; in other word, they exercised only nominal authority.

    The hoary institutions of the original tribal-clan society were doomed to disappear. After the conquest of Dacia, the traditional people's assembly (mathl, fauramathleins), which drew together the freemen (frijai) of the major territorial units, gradually became inoperative. After 376, the institution suffered a speedy and terminal decline, and within a few years its place was taken by the 'great council' (gafaurds).

    From the 2nd–3rd centuries onwards, actual power was in the hands of the Visigoths' warlords and their military retinue. Reiks, the term designating a military commander (Greek: 'basilikos', Latin: 'regulus') frequently appears in compound names (Aoric, Ariaric, Geberic, Munderic) as early as the 3rd century; it also appears, somewhat vaguely, in contemporary Roman sources in the sense of rex. Initially, the term probably denoted the military rank of great and powerful clan leaders; in this sense, the reiks could also be a kindins, and vice versa. This military title figures in the name of Athanaric/Athanarik, the Visigoths' most powerful king in the 4th century. He was the only one to be distinguished by the Romans of his time with the title of iudex (judge), although, in 4th century Latin, the latter term had come to signify governor or viceroy as well (Historia Augusta!); and in one instance, he was identified as 'iudex potentissimus', meaning the thiudans who stood above all the other reiks. Athanaric was evidently the thiudans; in 369, he {1-163.} was the only Tervingi to parlay on equal terms with Emperor Valens. Winguric, one of the church-burners in the anti-Christian campaign ordered by Athanaric, was only a lieutenant of the thiudans, as was Munderic, the commander of Athanaric's vanguard.

    The title of reiks survived in the names of some of Athanaric's successors, who after 376 held together the Visigothic warrior groups (Alaric I and II, Theoderic I and II, Amalaric), but it disappeared completely in the second half of the 6th century. By the 4th century, however, the presence of reiks in compound names did not necessarily mean a king or a warlord; Frithareikeis (= Fridarik), martyred in Athanaric's anti-Christian campaign, was at best the descendant of a noble family.

    The reiks (or several reiks together) drew his support from the class of the optimates or megistanes, and was himself a member of this class. The Greek term megistanes (= 'great, powerful men') corresponds perfectly with the Gothic mahteigs (= 'powerful, mighty', and also 'aggressive'; cf. mahts = 'power', 'might') and maistans (= 'great people'). Members of this class were already landowners in the 3rd–4th centuries. A member's domain consisted of a manor house (gards, which also indicated the surrounding land) as well as landed property (aihts) and livestock (faihu; those who owned livestock were called faihu habands, meaning 'the rich'). The landowner was master (frauja = despotes) of those attached to the manor house and imposed his rule with the aid of his private armed retinue (andbahts = 'steward'). The armed detachments of the Visigothic landed gentry and those of the one or several reiks made up the Visigothic army (harjis) and its smaller detachments (hansa); by the 4th century, this army consisted mostly of 'professional' soldiers (gadrauhts = miles; drunhtinonds = warrior). Their principal weapons were swords (meki) and shields (skildus), but they also used armor (brunjo) and helmets (hilms).

    In the 4th century the territorial clan organizations, on the one hand, and the military power structure, on the other, were still joined by many links; the kindins, the reiks and the thiudans could {1-164.} be one and the same person (e.g. Athanaric), although this was more the exception than the rule. But the reality was far from harmonious. In the story of the martyr Saba, the background is one of the conflicts between the 'central' armed authority and the clans' 'local' autonomy.

    By the 4th century the 'free' (freis) Visigothic society had become markedly stratified. The larger social classes were those of the free peasants (waurstwja) and of the paupers (unleths); they were probably joined by the liberated slaves (fralets). The wage labourers (asneins = 'hired harvesters') on the aigin (domanial) lands presumably came from these classes.

    The servants' class was complex. Prisoners of war (bandja) became either 'trading goods' or enslaved servants (skalks) and farm labourers (thewisa). The manservants (thius) and maids (thivi) who worked in households may have enjoyed slightly better living conditions.

    So far, it has proven virtually impossible to establish links between archaeological finds and the complicated social structure in which the old clan traditions mingle with incipient forms of centralized authority and military power. The 4th century gold torque found between Szászbuda and Szászfehéregyháza must have been a badge worn by one of the dignitaries known as megistanes/optimates. The splendid, jewelled gold fibula dating from the 4th century — a unique masterpiece from the world of the Visigoths that was found in Transylvania and became part of the Jankovich Collection — must have been worn by an aristocratic Gothic woman. A Gothic noblewoman's small fibula of pure gold, unearthed at Felsőpián (formerly Oláh-Pián), is of somewhat older vintage; it remains the sole Transylvanian example of the craftsmanship that flourished around 300 on the East Germanic 'grave horizon' (Osztrópataka, Céke, etc.). The silver jewellery found at Tekerőpatak-Kápolnaoldal surpasses the richest trove in the burial grounds that have been uncovered so far, and must have belonged {1-165.} to a woman socially superior to the common people found in most graves. The jewels — a fibula with semi-disc shaped plate, buckles, bracelets, rings, and crescent-shaped pendants that are replicas of a Roman original — are of the same shape and type as those found in graves of the richest women, and thus confirm that the owner had been a notable of the clan. The difference is that her jewels are heavy castings of fine silver, and that she also possessed 'wealth in coin'. An apparently similar hoard of gold and silver jewellery was reported to have been found at Borszék-Hollóvölgy, but it has disappeared.

    The social stratification of the burial grounds is analogous to that of the village of the Gothic martyr, Saba. In a community of 50 to 100 people, there were four or five wealthy couples, an elite that probably played a leading role in the village council. The majority of villagers consisted of the families of common peasants, roughly equal in rank and wealth. The paupers (of whom Saba was one) were distinguished from slaves only by their legal status; their graves differ from those of the slaves in that their inhumation was accompanied by funeral rites. Although the slaves were buried in the village graveyard — which undoubtedly indicates a degree of patriarchalism — their inhumation lacked any ceremony. Deceased slaves were summarily interred by their surviving fellows.

     

    For a hundred years, the great gold find at Pietroasa was held to be 'Athanaric's treasure' and dated from the 4th century, and this despite a Gothic necklace (torque) bearing runic characters. When researchers began to question this conclusion, and when it was established that the treasure of Szilágysomlyó, buried far beyond the borders of Gutthiuda, could not have been hidden by Visigoths planning to leave their country, the treasures of the Tervingi kings and their badges of authority mysteriously 'disappeared'.

    There is evidence that after the conquest of Dacia, and until 376, the Visigoths had a dual — partly parallel, partly entwined — {1-161.} social structure. According to a still prevailing conception, until the autumn of 376 the Tervingi lived in a 'tribal confederation' and had settled down grouped into 'tribes'. In reality, the notion of 'tribe' (thiuda) had always signified political unity, even if initially it also implied a certain consciousness of a common descent; and by the 3rd–4th centuries, it had come to denote the entire Tervingi community, i.e., the Visigothic people and their country. Instead of 'tribes' and 'chieftains', there was a central source of power (thiudanassus) headed by a single thiudans. In Vulfila's translation, the equivalent of the Greek 'basileos' is the thiudans, and certainly not in the sense of a 'head of the tribal confederation'.

    In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Visigoths were divided into 'kindreds' and clans (kunja = phylapagi) and settled in accordance with this division, each clan occupying an independent territory (garvi). By this time, the several clans (as is shown by their Latin designation) had at best a rather illusory sense of their distinctive origin; this is reflected in the fact that the clan (kuni) was led not by a 'kuning' — a term that denoted the leader of a consanguine community and which no longer appeared in Vulfila's Gothic — but by the kindins (meaning dux, archon, and applied by the Goths to Roman proconsuls), which denoted a relative of high rank. By the 3rd century, military campaigns were led by kindins. The 'clans', which actually denoted territorial units (garvi), consisted of associated great families (sibja). A century later, few of the latter represented consanguine communities or armed groups (siponjos); in the main, the term designated village communities with a stratified social structure. However, it was impossible to live outside the sibja; unsibja, a word obtained by adding a privative prefix, means 'outcast' or 'godless'. Thus the sibi was a solid political, economic and cultic unit, and one which imposed membership even on those who were not related to it by blood. Generally, each village (haims) was occupied by a single sibi. Its members, the inhabitants of the village, belonged to patriarchal families (fadreins); large and {1-162.} wealthy families exercised joint ownership over the land surrounding the villages (haimothlis). The status of outsiders or 'guests' (gasteis) is not clear.

    The village communities preserved (or rather tried to preserve) the old clan institutions. Occasionally, the council (gamainths), in which 'the elders' (sinistans) played a leading role, and the other villagers would convene in the village's meeting ground or market place (garuns). However, as revealed in the Passio S. Sabae, in the 4th century the most that sinistans could aspire to was to 'outwit' the real authorities; in other word, they exercised only nominal authority.

    The hoary institutions of the original tribal-clan society were doomed to disappear. After the conquest of Dacia, the traditional people's assembly (mathl, fauramathleins), which drew together the freemen (frijai) of the major territorial units, gradually became inoperative. After 376, the institution suffered a speedy and terminal decline, and within a few years its place was taken by the 'great council' (gafaurds).

    From the 2nd–3rd centuries onwards, actual power was in the hands of the Visigoths' warlords and their military retinue. Reiks, the term designating a military commander (Greek: 'basilikos', Latin: 'regulus') frequently appears in compound names (Aoric, Ariaric, Geberic, Munderic) as early as the 3rd century; it also appears, somewhat vaguely, in contemporary Roman sources in the sense of rex. Initially, the term probably denoted the military rank of great and powerful clan leaders; in this sense, the reiks could also be a kindins, and vice versa. This military title figures in the name of Athanaric/Athanarik, the Visigoths' most powerful king in the 4th century. He was the only one to be distinguished by the Romans of his time with the title of iudex (judge), although, in 4th century Latin, the latter term had come to signify governor or viceroy as well (Historia Augusta!); and in one instance, he was identified as 'iudex potentissimus', meaning the thiudans who stood above all the other reiks. Athanaric was evidently the thiudans; in 369, he {1-163.} was the only Tervingi to parlay on equal terms with Emperor Valens. Winguric, one of the church-burners in the anti-Christian campaign ordered by Athanaric, was only a lieutenant of the thiudans, as was Munderic, the commander of Athanaric's vanguard.

    The title of reiks survived in the names of some of Athanaric's successors, who after 376 held together the Visigothic warrior groups (Alaric I and II, Theoderic I and II, Amalaric), but it disappeared completely in the second half of the 6th century. By the 4th century, however, the presence of reiks in compound names did not necessarily mean a king or a warlord; Frithareikeis (= Fridarik), martyred in Athanaric's anti-Christian campaign, was at best the descendant of a noble family.

    The reiks (or several reiks together) drew his support from the class of the optimates or megistanes, and was himself a member of this class. The Greek term megistanes (= 'great, powerful men') corresponds perfectly with the Gothic mahteigs (= 'powerful, mighty', and also 'aggressive'; cf. mahts = 'power', 'might') and maistans (= 'great people'). Members of this class were already landowners in the 3rd–4th centuries. A member's domain consisted of a manor house (gards, which also indicated the surrounding land) as well as landed property (aihts) and livestock (faihu; those who owned livestock were called faihu habands, meaning 'the rich'). The landowner was master (frauja = despotes) of those attached to the manor house and imposed his rule with the aid of his private armed retinue (andbahts = 'steward'). The armed detachments of the Visigothic landed gentry and those of the one or several reiks made up the Visigothic army (harjis) and its smaller detachments (hansa); by the 4th century, this army consisted mostly of 'professional' soldiers (gadrauhts = miles; drunhtinonds = warrior). Their principal weapons were swords (meki) and shields (skildus), but they also used armor (brunjo) and helmets (hilms).

    In the 4th century the territorial clan organizations, on the one hand, and the military power structure, on the other, were still joined by many links; the kindins, the reiks and the thiudans could {1-164.} be one and the same person (e.g. Athanaric), although this was more the exception than the rule. But the reality was far from harmonious. In the story of the martyr Saba, the background is one of the conflicts between the 'central' armed authority and the clans' 'local' autonomy.

    By the 4th century the 'free' (freis) Visigothic society had become markedly stratified. The larger social classes were those of the free peasants (waurstwja) and of the paupers (unleths); they were probably joined by the liberated slaves (fralets). The wage labourers (asneins = 'hired harvesters') on the aigin (domanial) lands presumably came from these classes.

    The servants' class was complex. Prisoners of war (bandja) became either 'trading goods' or enslaved servants (skalks) and farm labourers (thewisa). The manservants (thius) and maids (thivi) who worked in households may have enjoyed slightly better living conditions.

    So far, it has proven virtually impossible to establish links between archaeological finds and the complicated social structure in which the old clan traditions mingle with incipient forms of centralized authority and military power. The 4th century gold torque found between Szászbuda and Szászfehéregyháza must have been a badge worn by one of the dignitaries known as megistanes/optimates. The splendid, jewelled gold fibula dating from the 4th century — a unique masterpiece from the world of the Visigoths that was found in Transylvania and became part of the Jankovich Collection — must have been worn by an aristocratic Gothic woman. A Gothic noblewoman's small fibula of pure gold, unearthed at Felsőpián (formerly Oláh-Pián), is of somewhat older vintage; it remains the sole Transylvanian example of the craftsmanship that flourished around 300 on the East Germanic 'grave horizon' (Osztrópataka, Céke, etc.). The silver jewellery found at Tekerőpatak-Kápolnaoldal surpasses the richest trove in the burial grounds that have been uncovered so far, and must have belonged {1-165.} to a woman socially superior to the common people found in most graves. The jewels — a fibula with semi-disc shaped plate, buckles, bracelets, rings, and crescent-shaped pendants that are replicas of a Roman original — are of the same shape and type as those found in graves of the richest women, and thus confirm that the owner had been a notable of the clan. The difference is that her jewels are heavy castings of fine silver, and that she also possessed 'wealth in coin'. An apparently similar hoard of gold and silver jewellery was reported to have been found at Borszék-Hollóvölgy, but it has disappeared.

    The social stratification of the burial grounds is analogous to that of the village of the Gothic martyr, Saba. In a community of 50 to 100 people, there were four or five wealthy couples, an elite that probably played a leading role in the village council. The majority of villagers consisted of the families of common peasants, roughly equal in rank and wealth. The paupers (of whom Saba was one) were distinguished from slaves only by their legal status; their graves differ from those of the slaves in that their inhumation was accompanied by funeral rites. Although the slaves were buried in the village graveyard — which undoubtedly indicates a degree of patriarchalism — their inhumation lacked any ceremony. Deceased slaves were summarily interred by their surviving fellows.

     

    Visigothic Society

    http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/28.html 

    For a hundred years, the great gold find at Pietroasa was held to be 'Athanaric's treasure' and dated from the 4th century, and this despite a Gothic necklace (torque) bearing runic characters. When researchers began to question this conclusion, and when it was established that the treasure of Szilágysomlyó, buried far beyond the borders of Gutthiuda, could not have been hidden by Visigoths planning to leave their country, the treasures of the Tervingi kings and their badges of authority mysteriously 'disappeared'.

    There is evidence that after the conquest of Dacia, and until 376, the Visigoths had a dual — partly parallel, partly entwined — {1-161.} social structure. According to a still prevailing conception, until the autumn of 376 the Tervingi lived in a 'tribal confederation' and had settled down grouped into 'tribes'. In reality, the notion of 'tribe' (thiuda) had always signified political unity, even if initially it also implied a certain consciousness of a common descent; and by the 3rd–4th centuries, it had come to denote the entire Tervingi community, i.e., the Visigothic people and their country. Instead of 'tribes' and 'chieftains', there was a central source of power (thiudanassus) headed by a single thiudans. In Vulfila's translation, the equivalent of the Greek 'basileos' is the thiudans, and certainly not in the sense of a 'head of the tribal confederation'.

    In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Visigoths were divided into 'kindreds' and clans (kunja = phylapagi) and settled in accordance with this division, each clan occupying an independent territory (garvi). By this time, the several clans (as is shown by their Latin designation) had at best a rather illusory sense of their distinctive origin; this is reflected in the fact that the clan (kuni) was led not by a 'kuning' — a term that denoted the leader of a consanguine community and which no longer appeared in Vulfila's Gothic — but by the kindins (meaning dux, archon, and applied by the Goths to Roman proconsuls), which denoted a relative of high rank. By the 3rd century, military campaigns were led by kindins. The 'clans', which actually denoted territorial units (garvi), consisted of associated great families (sibja). A century later, few of the latter represented consanguine communities or armed groups (siponjos); in the main, the term designated village communities with a stratified social structure. However, it was impossible to live outside the sibja; unsibja, a word obtained by adding a privative prefix, means 'outcast' or 'godless'. Thus the sibi was a solid political, economic and cultic unit, and one which imposed membership even on those who were not related to it by blood. Generally, each village (haims) was occupied by a single sibi. Its members, the inhabitants of the village, belonged to patriarchal families (fadreins); large and {1-162.} wealthy families exercised joint ownership over the land surrounding the villages (haimothlis). The status of outsiders or 'guests' (gasteis) is not clear.

    The village communities preserved (or rather tried to preserve) the old clan institutions. Occasionally, the council (gamainths), in which 'the elders' (sinistans) played a leading role, and the other villagers would convene in the village's meeting ground or market place (garuns). However, as revealed in the Passio S. Sabae, in the 4th century the most that sinistans could aspire to was to 'outwit' the real authorities; in other word, they exercised only nominal authority.

    The hoary institutions of the original tribal-clan society were doomed to disappear. After the conquest of Dacia, the traditional people's assembly (mathl, fauramathleins), which drew together the freemen (frijai) of the major territorial units, gradually became inoperative. After 376, the institution suffered a speedy and terminal decline, and within a few years its place was taken by the 'great council' (gafaurds).

    From the 2nd–3rd centuries onwards, actual power was in the hands of the Visigoths' warlords and their military retinue. Reiks, the term designating a military commander (Greek: 'basilikos', Latin: 'regulus') frequently appears in compound names (Aoric, Ariaric, Geberic, Munderic) as early as the 3rd century; it also appears, somewhat vaguely, in contemporary Roman sources in the sense of rex. Initially, the term probably denoted the military rank of great and powerful clan leaders; in this sense, the reiks could also be a kindins, and vice versa. This military title figures in the name of Athanaric/Athanarik, the Visigoths' most powerful king in the 4th century. He was the only one to be distinguished by the Romans of his time with the title of iudex (judge), although, in 4th century Latin, the latter term had come to signify governor or viceroy as well (Historia Augusta!); and in one instance, he was identified as 'iudex potentissimus', meaning the thiudans who stood above all the other reiks. Athanaric was evidently the thiudans; in 369, he {1-163.} was the only Tervingi to parlay on equal terms with Emperor Valens. Winguric, one of the church-burners in the anti-Christian campaign ordered by Athanaric, was only a lieutenant of the thiudans, as was Munderic, the commander of Athanaric's vanguard.

    The title of reiks survived in the names of some of Athanaric's successors, who after 376 held together the Visigothic warrior groups (Alaric I and II, Theoderic I and II, Amalaric), but it disappeared completely in the second half of the 6th century. By the 4th century, however, the presence of reiks in compound names did not necessarily mean a king or a warlord; Frithareikeis (= Fridarik), martyred in Athanaric's anti-Christian campaign, was at best the descendant of a noble family.

    The reiks (or several reiks together) drew his support from the class of the optimates or megistanes, and was himself a member of this class. The Greek term megistanes (= 'great, powerful men') corresponds perfectly with the Gothic mahteigs (= 'powerful, mighty', and also 'aggressive'; cf. mahts = 'power', 'might') and maistans (= 'great people'). Members of this class were already landowners in the 3rd–4th centuries. A member's domain consisted of a manor house (gards, which also indicated the surrounding land) as well as landed property (aihts) and livestock (faihu; those who owned livestock were called faihu habands, meaning 'the rich'). The landowner was master (frauja = despotes) of those attached to the manor house and imposed his rule with the aid of his private armed retinue (andbahts = 'steward'). The armed detachments of the Visigothic landed gentry and those of the one or several reiks made up the Visigothic army (harjis) and its smaller detachments (hansa); by the 4th century, this army consisted mostly of 'professional' soldiers (gadrauhts = miles; drunhtinonds = warrior). Their principal weapons were swords (meki) and shields (skildus), but they also used armor (brunjo) and helmets (hilms).

    In the 4th century the territorial clan organizations, on the one hand, and the military power structure, on the other, were still joined by many links; the kindins, the reiks and the thiudans could {1-164.} be one and the same person (e.g. Athanaric), although this was more the exception than the rule. But the reality was far from harmonious. In the story of the martyr Saba, the background is one of the conflicts between the 'central' armed authority and the clans' 'local' autonomy.

    By the 4th century the 'free' (freis) Visigothic society had become markedly stratified. The larger social classes were those of the free peasants (waurstwja) and of the paupers (unleths); they were probably joined by the liberated slaves (fralets). The wage labourers (asneins = 'hired harvesters') on the aigin (domanial) lands presumably came from these classes.

    The servants' class was complex. Prisoners of war (bandja) became either 'trading goods' or enslaved servants (skalks) and farm labourers (thewisa). The manservants (thius) and maids (thivi) who worked in households may have enjoyed slightly better living conditions.

    So far, it has proven virtually impossible to establish links between archaeological finds and the complicated social structure in which the old clan traditions mingle with incipient forms of centralized authority and military power. The 4th century gold torque found between Szászbuda and Szászfehéregyháza must have been a badge worn by one of the dignitaries known as megistanes/optimates. The splendid, jewelled gold fibula dating from the 4th century — a unique masterpiece from the world of the Visigoths that was found in Transylvania and became part of the Jankovich Collection — must have been worn by an aristocratic Gothic woman. A Gothic noblewoman's small fibula of pure gold, unearthed at Felsőpián (formerly Oláh-Pián), is of somewhat older vintage; it remains the sole Transylvanian example of the craftsmanship that flourished around 300 on the East Germanic 'grave horizon' (Osztrópataka, Céke, etc.). The silver jewellery found at Tekerőpatak-Kápolnaoldal surpasses the richest trove in the burial grounds that have been uncovered so far, and must have belonged {1-165.} to a woman socially superior to the common people found in most graves. The jewels — a fibula with semi-disc shaped plate, buckles, bracelets, rings, and crescent-shaped pendants that are replicas of a Roman original — are of the same shape and type as those found in graves of the richest women, and thus confirm that the owner had been a notable of the clan. The difference is that her jewels are heavy castings of fine silver, and that she also possessed 'wealth in coin'. An apparently similar hoard of gold and silver jewellery was reported to have been found at Borszék-Hollóvölgy, but it has disappeared.

    The social stratification of the burial grounds is analogous to that of the village of the Gothic martyr, Saba. In a community of 50 to 100 people, there were four or five wealthy couples, an elite that probably played a leading role in the village council. The majority of villagers consisted of the families of common peasants, roughly equal in rank and wealth. The paupers (of whom Saba was one) were distinguished from slaves only by their legal status; their graves differ from those of the slaves in that their inhumation was accompanied by funeral rites. Although the slaves were buried in the village graveyard — which undoubtedly indicates a degree of patriarchalism — their inhumation lacked any ceremony. Deceased slaves were summarily interred by their surviving fellows.

     

    Christianity and Germanic Religious Beliefs

    In recent historiography, Gothic Christianity before 376 is treated as harshly as it was by contemporary Romans, who focused on the bizarre garb of the Goths' pagan priests and priestesses, on the images of barbarian cults that adorned the clan shrines, on the coarse idols borne by carts, and on the stag-drawn holy chariot. The attempts at conversion are considered to have been isolated initiatives that may have had some temporary success only among captured Romans, the oppressed remnants of the local Roman population, {1-166.} and Goths from the lowest social strata. Archaeology is even more demanding, for it seeks in Gothic graves the kind of material evidence that before 376 is exceedingly rare even in the border provinces of the empire.

    However, certain aspects of the burial sites at Marosszentanna, Tîrgşor, Spanţov, Izvorul, Mogoşani, and Bîrlad cannot be explained by the Goths' increasingly complex social stratification. In the course of the 4th century, pagan food and drink offerings become smaller and, in many graves, are notable by their absence; concurrently, more and more graves are aligned along a west-east axis and contain only clothing articles. The hands of some of the deceased are clasped on their chest — a custom that began be adopted in the same period in late-Roman burial grounds along the Danube. These phenomena seem to bear the imprint of Eastern Christian funeral rituals; they may also reflect Arian rituals, but the nature of the latter is unknown.

    Having suffering defeats at the hands of the Romans in 367 and 369, Athanaric tried divert attention from the responsibility of the 'mighty' for these military disasters by launching a general campaign of persecution against Christians in his domain. Between 369 and 372, his warriors, joined by those of allied commanders, hunted down, tortured, and murdered Christians, burned their churches, and confiscated their possessions. A few Christian groups consisting of prisoners of war and destitute Goths would hardly have warranted such a vast and protracted campaign, one that gave both the Catholic and the Gothic Arian church a host of martyrs bearing Gothic names. As elsewhere, the martyrs (martwre) came mostly from the ranks of priests and other Christian notables, people who accounted for only a tiny proportion of early Christian communities.

    After 332, in consequence of the crushing defeat inflicted by Constantine the Great and the dictated peace that ensued, a succession of religious missions had come to Gothia. They included {1-167.} Catholics (Eytikes), Sectarians (Audius), and Arians (Vulfila). Obviously, the Arian mission, which proselytized in Gothic, exerted the greatest influence; its historic contribution was Vulfila's translation of the Bible into Visigothic. Bishops (aipiskaupus) made their appearance: Vulfila, Silvanus, Godda (whose name, from gudja, means 'priest'), along with others whose name has not survived. The sermons (gahanseins) of the missionary-preachers (merjands) brought fruit. Monastic communities and church fellowships (aikklesjo) were founded, and 'houses of God' (gudhus: guth = 'god', hus = 'house') were erected; in the latter, the burning of incense (thoimiama) was a part of the ritual. The congregation was led by the deacon (diakanus) and the presbyter (praizbwtairei). Several Gothic terms were applied to the Christian clergy (gudjinassus). Papa(n) may have designated a presbyter, or an elderly — or senior — priest; ordinary priests were called 'holy men' (weiha) or 'men of God' (gudja). All sorts of churches must have been erected. It is known that at first, religious services were held in tents, and that during Athanaric's anti-Christian campaign, priests were immolated in one particular church, and laymen in another.

    Clearly, the missions were by no means ineffectual. In the course of an earlier wave of persecution, in 347–48, many Christians, men as well as women, suffered a glorious martyrdom ('multorum servorum et ancillarum Cristi gloriosum martirium,'[5]5. Auxentius 75, 27.) and Vulfila himself was forced to flee, together with a large group of believers ('cum grandi populi confessorum,'[6]6. Auxentius 75, 29.). As late as the 6th century, their descendants constituted a Christian community in Moesia.

    Athanaric's campaign was sharpened by domestic political tensions, but it did not reach all parts of Gothia. Thus, in the summer of 378, the Arian Fritigern could dispatch a Christian presbyter ('Christiani ritus presbyter,'[7]7. Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum gestarum, 31: 12, 8.) as ambassador to Emperor Valens.

    In light of all this, it is difficult to understand why, until recently, researchers stubbornly ruled out the possibility that by the 4th {1-168.} century there lived in Guthiuda a sizeable number of Gothic Christians belonging to various denominations. Even more extraordinary is the thesis according to which Goths became Christians (Arian Christians!) only on the territory of the Roman empire, in consequence of the foederati treaty of 382. To be sure, it was in the 390s that the Roman Church regretfully realized that the Goths were Arians. But the roots of Gothic Christianity, nourished by the blood of martyrs, reached back to the first half of the 4th century. This fact is confirmed in the most recent scholarly synthesis, according to which the overwhelming majority of the Goths who invaded the empire in 376 were Arian Christians.

    The devotional articles — a bronze wash-bowl, a bronze jug, and a bronze monogram of Christ with a votive inscription — discovered in 1775 in a remote valley at Berethalom (Biertan, Birthälm), south of Medgyes, must have come from a nearby church. Judging from the shape of the donarium, they had been hidden during Athanaric's anti-Christian campaign, and thus the latter must have extended to Transylvania as well. The epigraph on the tabula ansata, EGO ZENOVIVS VOTVM POSVI, was made in Sirmium or Aquileia, in the same place as the Chrismon (Christ's monogram), for the original Illyrian customer. Neither this object nor the bronze vessels that were buried alongside owe anything to Dacia. The symbol of Christ and the ritual vessels were essential requisites of Christian religious service and kept in the churches — in this case, probably in the small chapel of a missionary who had brought with him these devotional objects. In any case, the Christian message was always inherently universal; in the 4th century, like today, it could not be regarded as the privilege of a particular linguistic or ethnic group.

    The important role played in the ancient Gothic religion by meat dishes (mammo) or sacrificial meat (hunsl) — a practice that Gothic Christians considered 'unholy' (usweihs) — is evident not only from the graves but also from the Passio S. Sabae. The ritual {1-169.} consumption of the blessed meat dishes (tibr) obtained after the blood sacrifice (blotan) was a special feast (dulths); that feast evidently had its unwritten rules and a sacral significance that united the community. It follows that the absence in graves of food from the heathen (haithna) burial feast (gabaur) must signify a fundamental change in attitude. Pagan funeral chants were banned only in the 6th century, by the Council of Toledo, but it is likely that Christian psalms (psalmon) were heard more and more often at Gothic burials (usfilh, gafilh). In the pagan shrines, holy gardens (alhs), and temples (galiuge stada), the idol (Greek: xoanon) was the counterpart of the sacred symbols venerated in Christian churches. This pagan idol (galiug, galiogaguth) was from time to time paraded on a sacred chariot. The heathens (haithnano) had not only sacrificial places (hunslastaths) but also priests and high priests (ufargudja). For pagan Goths, the day of Thor-Donar (Thursday) was a day of rest; the veneration of this deity is attested by bronze, silver, and bone amulets shaped like axes and maces. The runic inscription on the gold torque found at Pietroasa indicates worship of the Gothic 'God' (Gutan-Wotan); the writing itself (gameleins) was the secret (runa = 'secret') sacred science of the Gothic pagan priests. Archaeological digs have yielded no other relics of the ancient Visigothic religion.

    The belief in bodily resurrection (for which there are even two Gothic terms: urrists and usstass) spread with the eastern religions and Christianity, and from the 3rd or 4th century onwards, the interment of corpses became a 'compulsory' corollary of this tenet. The practice of cremating the body (purification) was inspired by the ancient beliefs in a nether world populated by shadows. Cremation graveyards, Gothic as well as Roman (such as the first burial site at Baráthely), attest to the survival of adherents of the ancient faith.

     

    The Goths Depart

    http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/30.html 

    Archaeological traces of the end of Gothic rule have been found in Transylvania, most of them in the region's southeastern part. In 1887, some 15–16 gold bars, with a total weight of 6 kilograms, were found in the Carpathians at Krászna (= Krasznaüveg-huta), on the Bodza River. Produced in the mint at Sirmium, they bear a series of state hallmarks. Two of the bars bear the likeness of three emperors — one child and two adults — as well as the letters DDD NNN, signifying their joint reign, evidence that dates the bars between 367 and 375 (Valentinian I, Valens, Gratian); the treasure is therefore coincidental with the Goths' great 'collapse' of 376–380, which began with their migration across the Danube and ended with Athanaric's flight. It also offers evidence of the collapse, for the Krászna trove had been most probably 'salvaged' from the Gothic treasury by someone fleeing through the Bodza pass; the refugee had hurriedly buried the gold and never found the opportunity to reclaim it. Minted in Sirmium, Thessaloniki, and Naissus, the five gold bars discovered in 1880 at Szászföldvár are part of a similar treasure; the one bar that remains also bears the image of three emperors, supposedly Valentinian II, Gratian, and Theodosius I; even if that identification is correct, the gold bars cannot date from later than 379 or 380.

    The treasure unearthed at Gyergyó-Tekerőpatak-Kápolnaoldal (which was noted earlier) included not only silver jewellery but also forty silver coins and a gold solidus, the most recent coin, dating from the reign of Gratian (367–383). The latter coin also coincides with the period of the collapse; it thus offers a useful guide to dating the jewels and ornaments in this trove, which were noted earlier in the analysis of Visigothic society. At Maroscsapó, a commoner buried his tiny fortune of 15 coins, the latest of which are four pieces minted under Valerian I (364–375). Another, somewhat wealthier, commoner buried his life savings of 75 coins near {1-171.} Zernyest, in Törcsvár Pass (yet another case of a treasure concealed in the course of flight through a mountain pass!); the latest mintages are those of Valentinian I, Gratian, and, allegedly, Valentinian II, and all fit into the period 376–380. The 83 bronze coins buried at Szamosújvár probably constitute a fortune that a family had amassed over a long period; 56 of them are the mintage of Valerian I, Valens, and Gratian, extending up to 375, which gives an accurate indication that the catastrophe struck the Goths of northern Transylvania in the same way and at the same time as elsewhere. In southern Transylvania, a purse full of coins, minted under Valentinian I and Valens, was found buried in the Roman amphitheatre at Várhely.

    The most important trove is that of Tekerőpatak, for none of the other Visigothic burial sites — some sixty in all — yielded fibulae, clasps, and pendants of a later type than those in this treasure. A sign of the generalized catastrophe is that between 376 and 381, Visigothic burial grounds fell into disuse; how many of the people who had used these cemeteries fled and scattered in the lands north of the Danube is not known. The region of the lower Danube entered a new period: that of Hun rule.

    *

    The Visigoths had destroyed the fortresses, towns, and villages of Roman Dacia. Worse still, during their century-long rule, whatever survived the wars was allowed to go to ruin, including, notably the gold mines; the gold-mining districts were known as an uninhabited wilderness throughout the early Middle Ages. The Goths made as little of the Roman way of life as the Alamanni, who had occupied the Agri Decumates (lying between the Rhine, Neckar, and Danube rivers) and Western Raetia at the very same time that the Goths took over Dacia. The land seized by the Alamanni projected into the rich Rhine and Danubian provinces and was no {1-172.} smaller than the Transylvanian part of Dacia occupied by the Romans. It had been conquered by the Romans a quarter of a century earlier, during the reign of the Flavii. Its border, the Raetian limes, was protected from Germanic attacks by the Roman empire's 'Great Wall'; within the province, the Romans erected a chain of fortresses almost unequalled in the whole empire. After the Alamanic invasion, the abandoned fortresses and inner settlements were overgrown by forests, and their names were not preserved by the Germans, who sought only ploughland and pasture. The tiny remnant of the 'Roman' population was assimilated by the conquerors. This contemporaneous episode may well bear similarities to the fate of Roman Dacia.

     

     

    Recent Videos

    1157 views - 0 comments
    1297 views - 0 comments
    1508 views - 0 comments
    1197 views - 0 comments

    Webs Counter