[gothic-l] Re: "Eruli", "Goths", "Danes" and wherefrom the runes

[konrad_oddsson <konrad_oddsson@yahoo.com>]

Háilái Dirk, Troels jah galistans allái!

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>" 
<dirk at s...> wrote:

> Hi Troels,
> 
> I think the component 'Hari-' and similar might be too common as a 
pointer for any ethnic attributions etc. As examples, we have 
Hariulf (a Burgundian in Trier, 4th cent.); Ulfhari a Saxon, runic 
3rd cent.; Inghari a Saxon, runic 3rd cent.; Harietto a Frank 4th 
cent. (?) also Haribert as Frankish royal name and equivalently 
Aripert as Langobardic royal name. Overall, I think the 
component 'Hari' etc (i.e. Army, germ. Heer) is common Germanic and 
not specific to Heruli or any other group. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Dirk

Yes, indeed. The component "Hari-" is far too common to have ethnic 
attributions within the Germanic realm (see also "Swâbaharjaz", 
"Harja", and so forth - harjaz/harjz/hariz into the i-umlauted North 
and West Germanic forms). Also, no recognized sequence of changes in 
Germanic linguistics (at least that I am aware of) is going to make 
a connection between "erilaz" and either "herul-" or "harj-". The 
form "herul-" could, of course, be corrupt.

> PS With regards to the overall discussion, I find the attribution 
of certain house types (3-naved long houses) to the Heruli highly 
questionable. Three-naved long houses, were common in many Germanic 
areas. Similarly, iron combs are found in the Wielbark culture and 
among other groups. If anything they likely had a geographical 
distribution not an ethnic distribution. The same is true for 
the 'grosse monstroese' Fibula-type. This fibula has a fairly wide 
distribution and cannot be linked to one specific tribe the the 
Heruli.

I agree. The distribution must be geographical rather than ethnic.

 Finally, the attempts to link runic objects to Heruli is in 
> my view a very old and misguided approach based on this assumption 
> that the Heruls/Erilar are the 'original runic masters'. Finally, 
as you correctly pointed out the reference that the Dani expelled 
the Heruli does not refer to the 3rd century; again this is an mis-
interpretation of earlier scholarship.

Yes. Also, there is one point about runes which I feel compelled to 
make over and over again: they were a regular alphabetic sequence 
used primarily for communication. We can forget the trendy books 
on "rune magic" and the "deeper meaning" of the runes. As far as 
their origin is concerned, the evidence points to the area we call 
Denmark today. While it is possible that these alphabetic characters 
were first developed by a member (or members) of some such Germanic 
community as the "Goths" or "Heruli" while in southern Europe, or 
that some more northerly trader or traveler (or travelers) did so 
while in the south, the bulk of the evidence clearly points in a 
different direction - in this case to Denmark. Why? Well, I will 
start by quoting Haugen: 

"The first direct testimonials to any kind of Gmc language are found 
in Scandinavia. These are the inscriptions in the runic alphabet 
beginning about A.D. 200, most of which have been found within the 
confines of present-day Denmark and Norway."

Extant runic inscriptions provide evidence, especially if they are 
not on movable objects. While all kinds of claims have been made as 
to the "ethnic" nature of the older inscriptions on movable objects, 
no certainty can be attached to them. Claims for a "Herulian" 
or "Gothic" origin of the earliest attested runic alphabet are based 
on pure speculation. There was enough contact between non-Germanic 
southern European traders and their more northerly cousins, before 
and during the period of the earliest inscriptions, to account for 
an alphabetic innovation such as the runes. As regards the "Gothic" 
origin of the runes, I will quote Nielsen on the older inscriptions:

"As for the purported Goth. and West Gmc. inscriptions contained in 
the Early Runic corpus, these would, at best, appear to confine 
themselves to a small number of bracteates with West Germanic 
features. The claim for a Gothic element seems weekly founded."

I agree. I can see nothing in the extant inscriptions on movable 
objects that points to a "Gothic" origin. On the contrary, the 
evidence of both the language and the location of the earliest 
inscriptions points to a common NWG (North West Germanic) origin, 
likely within the borders of modern Denmark. Any map showing the 
distribution of the earliest runic finds will confirm this. Now let 
us look at another map, this one showing the Germanic tribes c.100 
A.D. (see Haugen, pg. 104). In Denmark see the names "Teutoni, 
Vandilii, Cimbri, Eudoses, Varini, Charudes, Aviones, Ambrones, and 
Anglii". Immediately to the south (from west to east) we see the 
names "Frisii, Chasuarii, Chauci, Saxones, Varini, Langobardi, and 
Semnones". Further east we see the names "Burgundiones, Rugii, and 
Gutones", while just north of these (in modern Sweden) we see the 
names "Suiones, Gautae, Dani, Gotones, Heruli". Immediately to the 
north of Denmark (in modern Norway) we see the names "Charudes, 
Rugii, and Hasdingi". Whatever map of early Germania we might 
prefer, it is nevertheless clear that its geographical spread was 
once more northerly than it is today. As far as the language of the 
earliest inscriptions is concerned, it points to a common North West 
Germanic tongue (see Antonsen, Nielsen, and others), the ancestor of 
Old High German, Old Saxon, Old English, Old Norse, Old Frisian and 
other less attested dialects. Translation? The guys who raised the 
rocks and carved runes on their belongings could have been Saxons, 
Danes, Norsemen, Frisians, Swedes, Angles or members of any other 
NWG group during the period of the earliest inscriptions. They were 
almost certainly not "Herulian" or "Gothic" in as much as these 
terms represent groups known to have once lived in southern Europe. 
By way of conclusion I will say that while our unnamed alphabetic 
innovator may or may not have called himself a Dane, the odds seem 
to favor him being at least a geographical "Dane". One would expect 
such an innovation as a Germanic alphabet to arise in a commercial 
center of Germanic peoples such as Denmark. Whether our innovator 
was a Saxon riding north to sell his wares or a Norseman rowing 
south to do the same, the geography of his innovation seems fairly 
clear. I doubt if anyone even gave a damn where he was from. It was 
only the innovation itself that mattered. 

> > > ****GK: I think it is based on the assumption that
> > > since there are no "datable" Erulian/East Germanic
> > > objects around the Don delta after ca. 450 AD then the
> > > Eruli et al. had left. I think many Alans stayed
> > > behind however. (The later "Yassi"=As).*****
> > 
> > 
> > It will make sense that they here learned to be horsemen as the 
people from the plains - and that they in this way got the Iranian 
influence in some of their names - earlier discussed at this list. 
The "As"-name inspired Heyerdahl, but the Scandinavian scholars 
killed that idea by referring to "Ansu". 
> > 
> > Troels

The nasal "n" in forms like "ansu-" and "gansu-" is a Proto-Germanic 
innovation, the phonological influence of which can be seen in those 
languages which descend from it. While its existence reminds one of 
the "i" so often produced by Sievers, its development must have been 
earlier. The corresponding Indo-Aryan word is "asurah", while the 
Persian and Hittite forms are "ahura" and "ashur" respectively. As 
one might expect, all these words refer to the supreme being in the 
singular and to demi-gods in the plural. Like the Greeks and the 
Romans, our Proto-Germanic ancestors recognized the shining heaven 
above as *Tîwaz (Gr. Zeus, Lt. Jupitar). Unlike the Greeks and the 
Romans, however, they did not place *Tîwaz at the head of their 
pantheon of elemental gods, but rather *Wôðanaz, a vernerized wind-
god (compare Latin "Vates", Indian "Vatah"). Also unlike the Greeks 
and the Romans, they recognized an invisible and non-elemental god 
which they called "Ansuz". This is why scholars refer to Ásatrú, the 
Germanic heathen religion, as an "Aryan" faith as opposed to calling 
it "European", "Greco-Roman", or even "Germanic". It is because it 
shares with Hinduism and Zoroastrianism the distinction of refering 
to the supreme being by this word rather than by the more generic 
Indo-European sounding "tîwaz", which it uses for the heaven in the 
singular and for its elemental gods in the plural (ON tívar). The 
Germanic "ansuz", on the other hand, can refer to the supreme being 
only, except in the plural (where it means "gods") and when used 
with reference to a specific and named god (compare "sá áss, er Þórr 
heitir"). As "Aryan" can only refer to Indo-Iranians and not to any 
other Indo-European people, scholars´ use of the term is only 
analogical with reference to the Asa-religion. While some scholars 
believe that this religion was imported from India or Persia through 
trade, others insist that Indians or Persians themselves spread the 
religion in Germania through trade and settlement, still others say  
that the religion followed the Germanics from an original Asian home 
where they lived together with the ancestors of the Indians and the 
Parsis. I´ll let you draw your own conclusions. One thing that is 
for certain is that there never was a "man" named "Odin", regardless 
of what Heyerdahl or Snorri Sturluson or any old kingly geneology 
might say. It´s simply a folk story that some important chieftains  
availed themselves of at the point in their ancestral lineage where 
memory failed and no older names could be remembered. The "children 
of Abraham" did the same where memory failed....and who was before 
Adam? Well....uh....you know. Food for thought for what its worth.

Glad Yule to You All,
Konrad.






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/