[gothic-l] Re: Jutes and Goths

[faltin2001]

Hi Sunny,

the fact that you continously quote from books, which are between 100 
and 500 years old is really curious. Especially since modern research 
is more easily available. 



--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "sunnytjatsingh" 
<sunnytjatsingh at y...> wrote:
> Hi Dirk, I'll look into Todd's book, when I get a chance

> 
> "We should not just throw people together just because their names 
> seem to sound somewhat similar. Ancient historical sources don't 
link 
> these people, so why should we? Note that there lived a people the 
> Venedi at the south Baltic coast, in northern Italy and in western 
> France. Yet, neither group had anything to do with the other. Name 
> similarities are a treacherous path without historical sources to 
> guide us." 
> 
> According to Kliger, one of the first Old English dictionaries 
> states, "Under `Geatar' we find the simple definition: "Jutae, 
Getae, 
> Gothes (Kliger 1952: 15)" (Oxford 1649). 





Yes, 'Oxford 1649' gives you are clou as to the reliability of the 
information. Such a dictionary is certainly curious, but not a good 
source for up-to-date research. 






 Not to mention Laurence 
> Nowell who equated the Geat, Goths, and Jutes in 1550, De Anglorum 
in 
> the 1670's, Britannia antiqua in 1676, etc.  Surely, they had some 
> reason for this identification?



Yes, as the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 
under 'Jueten', writes, even ancient Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian 
sources were notorious for their confusion of these names. What would 
you expect from books published in the 16th and 17th century? At this 
time knowledge about the late antiquity was still close to an all-
time low. 





> 
> Further, Shore writes, "Of these Jutes, the Goths were probably the 
> more numerous, seeing that the name adopted from the Kentish people 
> generally was a modified form of Gutae, a name for their own race 
> (Shore 1906: 191)."  He continues, "That Kent was largely settled 
by 
> Goths is proved by the evidence of the runic inscriptions which 
have 
> been found within it (Shore 1906: 185-186)."  
> 


If more prove was needed, the last bit of your quote shows that Shore 
knew bonkers about these things. Sorry for my slobby expression, but 
linking Kent with Goths and Goths with runes just is too much to 
deserve a serious deliberation. The Goths have nothing to do with 
Britain whatsoever. To be sure, Shore may have represented the 
cutting edge when he wrote in 1906, but you should consult the latest 
literature to get a sense of what 100 years of research has come up 
with.   

On the Goths, you could look at P. Heather's and H. Wolfram's books. 
On the Germanic people in general, you may want to consult M. Todd 
and H. Wolfram or A. Lund. 

best regards
Dirk 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Save up to 80% on top-quality inkjet cartridges and get your order fast!
FREE shipping on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. Shop at Myinks.com!
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/v2G7ND/KfUGAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/