[gothic-l] Re: Vandals et c.

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

--- In gothic-l at y..., Ingemar Nordgren <ingemar.nordgren at e...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dirk,
> 
> 
> " There is - in the  Hasding subtribe.
> What is the source for that please?"
> 
> I  have searched frenetically in Hachmann, Wolfram and Wenskus. I 
know
> it is treated in one of them but I can not find the place right now 
in
> my disorderly photocopy-collection - I do not have the books in one
> piece. Will search further when I get the time. 


Hi Ingemar,

I have also searched my literature and I strongly suspect that there 
is no known link between the Vandals and Gaut.




Still Wenskus have
> treated the probable common background for both langobards, vandals 
and
> harudes but regards it as formations from originally small cores 
from
> the proposed areas of Vendsyssel, Hardsyssel  and Scania who later 
have
> gathered people from other backgroundaccepting their traditions.


Wenskus is strongly influenced by writers like Schmidt and Kosinna. As 
 Hachmann and Pohl have pointed out it will be a difficult and very 
long-term effort to get the mistakes that Kossinna introduced into the 
field out of peoples heads.




> Something like my idea about the origin of the Gothic 
tribeformation.
> The fact the Vandals and the Goths were such enemies points just in 
the
> direction of an earlier dependency of the Vandals, meaning they
> originally could have had a common general background until the 
Goths
> broke loose.

That is a very weak argument in my view. When I said that the Gotones 
were once subject to the Lugian-Vandili group and that their cultic 
believes could have been influenced by them you argued that the 
Gotones could still have worshipped Gaut while the Lugii may have 
worshipped some Celtic gods. 




The connection via Ring-names between Goths, Burgundians 
and
> Vandals however is strong as I see it. 


In my view many of the ring-names in Germany that you argue go back o 
the Burgundians cannot have been from them as they only passed through 
those areas very briefly, while there are no ring-name concentrations 
in their attested settlement areas (possbily near Worms/Mainz) and 
west of Genf.




At least later also several
> Vandilic kings had Gothic  ancestry meaning intermarriage wich 
NORMALLY
> the Goths did not practice exept with Vandals and Burgundians.
>  


Do you know that one of Theoderic's wifes was Frankish? 
Mathasunta married a Roman Germanus. There is also hard evidence from 
the Lauchheim cemetary between Alamannic and possibly Gothic 
intermarriage among the elites. The Burgundians married all over the 
place.






>  
> 
> For an interpretation of Paulus' Historia Langobardorum, and the 
Origo 
> Gentis it is necessary to study all the related literature. I belief 
> we cannot simply take what is nowaydays accepted to be a mere topos 
of 
> early medieval histiogragphy (Scandza topos) and take it as fact. 
Both 
> Hachmann and Goffart analysed these problems in-depth as you know. 
to 
> give but one of the difficulties. The earlier Fredegar chronicle 
> stated that the Langobards came from Scathanavia which lies between 
> the Danube and the Ocean. Also the Codis Gothanis, which is roughly 
> contemporary to Paulus stated that the Langobards came from 
Scatanauge 
> at the Elbe river. In fact the Codis gothanis is the only of the 
> sources that placed the origin of the Langobards within an 
> identifiyable geographic area. "
> 
> Wenskus points out for example the Langobardic law and also their 
names
> as most related to ON and Scandinavian law-tradition. 


You mean names like Luitprand, Ansprand and Hildeprand? The similarity 
with the law has often been cited in the past also for the Saxons, and 
the Frisians. 



Goffart is 
also
> rejected by Wolfram.


You mean Goffart as a person? ;) or some of his analysis. Which 
arguments are rejected by Wolfram? Does that  automatically mean that 
Goffart is wrong?



> 
> "The fact that the Langobards mentioned Gausus means very little. 
King 
> Rothari, to whome this referes was said to have been of Harudian 
> origin. Now the Harudes were a sub-tribe of the Saxons of which some 
> 20,000 accompanied the Langobards to Italy, and the Saxons also 
> counted Gaut among their gods."
> 
> Wenskus does not regard the Harudes as Saxons but mentions 
Hardsyssel
> but, as stated above,


Wenskus is obviously wrong. The Harudes are attested as part of the 
Saxons and are mentioned by various ancient authors like Widukind as 
such. There even is the pagus Harudorum (now Harzgau)as one of the 
**South** Saxon gaue. Harudes were already part of Ariovist's army.



 he means they started as a small core. We have
> already  discussed it once before and I pointed out that they also 
were
> settled in Hordaland, Norway.(Wenskus, Höfler) 


Again, the Hordaland analogy is no longer accepted. Firstly, it has 
been argued the name similarity Horda to Harudes is contrived and 
secondly, as Hachmann showed Hordaland was an extremely thinly 
populated area in those days which in effect was situated at the 
fringes of the populated world and as such by no means capable of 
sustaining significant out-migrations.


> 
>  
> 
> "I think nobody really regards the name similarity Suebian/Suionean 
as
> anything but coincidental, at 
> least not  implying comon orign, but you make your statement as if 
you
> know that for sure. At any rate, what do the Suevi have to do with 
the
> Scandinavian Bronze Age? The Suevi was a name of the bearers of iron 
> age cultures in the Germania magna. They are first mentioned in the 
50s
> BC, i.e. some 500 years after the end of the Bronze Age."


> 
> This is also discussed by Wenskus who does not deny a relationship
> betwen these names  but he of course does not state it is so. This 
is my
> own and original interpretation.I regard everybody living in 
Scandinavia
> including Jutland and surrounding continental areas as Suiþioþ 
during
> that period and that's why the name survived even after the 
formation of
> tribes whose rulers claimed descent from Gaut/Wodan.



But this does not explain the relationship between the Scandinavian 
Bronze Age, which I gather finished in about 600BC and the Suevi that 
are not attested for another 500 years. Also, I don't understand this 
relationship Gaut/Wodan. Most of the authors that you quote see 
apparently Wodan as having originated among the Rhine-Frankish tribes. 
 One of the earliest mentioning of Wodan and Donar/Thor is on the 
Nordendorf (Augsburg/South Germany) fibula (5/6 century).

cheers,
Dirk

PS: It is a funny thing, this on-line communication. Everybody makes 
his/her statements while non-verbal communication has almost no role 
to play. Remember, when we met in London a few months ago and talked 
about these things we seemed to be able to agree on much more. I 
suppose that is one of the thinks that we have to bear in mind, namely 
that this kind of communication tends to entrench positions rather 
than lead to mutually acceptable and beneficial compromises.





You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/