108 Anna C. F. Collar
that the tribes were historically contingent groupings, which, although they changed
and reformed, had a core of tradition—Traditionskern—that maintained the group’s
identity and ensured the continuity of customs (Wenskus 1961).
However, Wenskus’ notion of Traditionskern has been discredited by some as
nationalistic, and a generation of scholars argues that tribal groupings did not possess
core-cultures, and that groups reinvented their own pasts to meet the needs of their
present (see papers presented in Gillett 2002). Mythology of common descent, migra-
tions, and historical legends are all considered to be too late or too untrustworthy;
linguistic evidence cannot be used to distinguish ethnicities; Roman historical writings
are too distorted; and archaeology cannot reconstruct peoples and their movements.
Germanic customs can only be understood in the context of their contact with the
Roman world.
Liebeschuetz disagrees. He argues that these criticisms “deprive the ancient Germans
and their constituent tribes of any continuous identity” (2007: 346). He defendsTra-
ditionskern: although it is unclear from the evidence whether the tribes had myths of
common origin or a traditional religion, this does not mean they didnot. The same may
be said of historical legends. Although they are too late to be used to reconstruct details
of earlier Germanic culture, we should be wary of assuming that third–fifth-century
legends did not exist. The Roman histories of the Germans are considered by Goffart
(2002) to require such deconstruction that they appear tantamount to fiction; however,
although Liebeschuetz agrees they contain elements of propaganda, since the German
tribes were neighbors of the Romans, “it is reasonable to assume that men like Tac-
itus or Ammianus had quite a lot of genuine information” (2007: 349) about them.
He argues that the spread of artifacts can be used to trace migration and conquest as
well as trade or “cultural diffusion,” and that shared language must aid the process
of ethnogenesis. Finally, he uses legal evidence transmitted via the Roman histories to
illustrate the kinship nexuses that were in existence in Germanic society, and the con-
cept of the blood feud to show how different these were from Roman judicial systems
(Liebeshuetz 2007: 352). His key point is that Germanic ethnic identity comes into
focus in situations of war—when a tribal name is used to describe a group invading the
Roman Empire, or the origin of soldiers in the army: “the identity of a major tribe was
also activated when individuals left their homelands to enter the service of the Empire”
(2007: 354).
This is similar to Malkin’s argument with regard to the Greeks: ethnic identity was
clarified when it came into contact with a distinct “other.” In other words, the social
networks of tribal people who shared aspects of identity—language, religion, customs,
and so on—were strengthened outside of their tribal home. Although the skepticism
concerning the evidence as detailed in the arguments of Gifford, Goffart, and others
must be taken into account, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Cultural traditions are passed through strong-tie familial networks, inherited as part of
the environment an individual grows up in—and, moreover, the rhetoric of Germanic
tribal kinship in Roman works reminds us that ethnicity can be attributed as well as
self-defined. The ethnogenesis and definitions of the Germanicgentesin Late Antiquity
will continue to be the subject of debate, but approaching the problem from a network
perspective may help (see also, Chapter 37, “Goths and Huns”).