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 

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

 
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 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.