[gothic-l] Gaut/Gapt

[Bertil Häggman]

Keth,

Of course Gapt/Gaut can be treated together.
Wolfram does so (_History of the Goths_) and we
here have three similar forms

Gaut
Gaus
Gapt

But I also think there is an argument for treating
Gaut/Gapt seperately. Gaut is attested mainly
in the late Old Norse sources (see Helm, Wodan. Ausbreitung
und Wanderung seines Kults, 1946, p. 45). The
Battle of the Goths and Huns could even point
toward the Gothic patron being Tyr (Angan-Tyr)
and not Odin.

Langobardic Code of Rotharius (636-652) does
for instance not mention Odin. _Origo gentis 
Langobardorum_ mentions, however, Godan < Wodan, 
Odin).

Thank you for views on the Langobards. We don't
agree here and is not the subject of this list.

Of course it is not possible to state with exact
historical truth from where the Goths came. I can
only agree with Ingemar: "The question
if the Vistula Goths came from Scandinavia,
as Jordanes believed, can never with certainty
be decided."

It does not have to be a massive one time migration
but the break in the chronology in the grave
fields of Vaestergoetland may well be an
indication of a migration and there is a lack of finds between
300 BC and the Birth of Christ in the areas of
Vaestergoetland, Oestertgoetland, and other
parts of present Sweden.

There is an extensive amount of gold from the
time of the migration era which could point
to contacts between continental Goths and
the Gauts. Even Hachmann admits that the Goths
were known on the continent 350 BC. This could
point to an earlier migration from Gotland
but also from Vaester- and Oestergoetland.
There could have been three different migrations.

"Quite a bit" in _Germania_, yes, but on Gaut/Gapt
and Gothic religion at the time?

Yes, indeed, a connection between Gaut and Gaus.
Nobody claimed they were identical.

Interesting, yes, I think Geat could be added
to the list of related progenitors

Gaut
Gapt
Gaus
Geat

Well, on the source of the progenitorship of Gaut/Geat
of a number of royal families have a look at p. 117 in 
Ingemar's _Goterkaellan_. 

Linguistically I think the shedder=goeten makes much
sense but we are interpreting here. I am sure one
can produce other explanations (and some researchers
did) but they don't make as much sense.

Yes, I meant de Vries by Vries.

Which volume of Grimm do you refer to. The latest
edition is of 1966, I believe (_Teutonic Mythology_)
has four volumes. As I am not an avid reader of
Grimm, maybe I am mistaken. Maybe you are
referring to some other of Jacob Grimm?

Gothically

Bertil




Indeed no, because for the Langobards we have sources that explicitly
state "Gausus" (or was it "Gausen"?)
I have no difficulty with the equation "Gaut" = "Gaus".
(they both belong to the similar verbs "gjota" = to pour, and
"gjosa"= to stream forth. cf. ahd. gussa = überschwemmen.
In Norway also "Gaussdal" = from river name, connected with
the verb "gjósa" (gýs; gaus, gusum; gosinn); whereas "gjota"
has the similar forms (gýt; gaut, gutum; gotinn). The two verbs
are not the same, but are related. Which adds a realistic perspective,
since variation is the rule, rather than the exception in such things.
It underlineses the difference between the Langobards and the "Götar",
and at the same times it illustrates the possibility of seeing
a common idea underlying the two names. It is also interesting to
see how frequently we end up with a river name as the bottom line.)

And concerning the Goths, we do not even know if they connected
with Scandinavia, and if they did, it is unclear what part
of Scandinavia it was. It could very well have been Gotland.
But it is not obvious that the Gotland of 300 B.C. had
the same legends and myths as the Gotland that we know from the
Gotland picture stones 800 years later.



Well, I'd say Tacitus contains quite a bit on religion !
What I said was that it is about the GOTHS that very
little is known. (zil?)
But Tacitus' writings amply demonstrates the topic of
VARIATION as the rule.


Could you state what sources say that these tribes mention "Gaut"
as ancestor? Are you able to quote the sources ?
NB "Gaut" is NOT listed in Fisher Davidson's index !
Widsith is supposed to mention "Geats". But does it also
mention a "Geat" as ancestor? Any way, the Angles coming from a region
rather close to the Langobards, near Hamburg, and at approximately
the same time, would certainly be very likely to reproduce
some of the same legends as the Angles and the Saxons.
But in a book I have about the Vandals, I cannot find anything
about "Gaut". What is your source?

Yes, I've heard you state this explanation on a
number of occasions. The books I consulted also mentioned this,
but they said it was only a guess. I have the impression
that a river name is much more likely as ancestor name.
Göta älv IS after all a well known river. And river names
have often been shown to be the oldest topographic
descriptors we have. They often survive shifting populations.



>this interpretation. Vries is sceptical but Professor
You mean "de Vries" (the Dutchman - the Dutch do use
lower case for prefixes like "de". But the prefixes are
necessary to say the name correctly)

Exactly. This seems to be a recurrent theme, that
you end up with a river name as the bottom line.

That seems like a reasonable explanation.
Gaut for the river and Goths for the people.


If Jacob Grimm was the originator of the idea, then
there is every reason  to bring him into the discussion.
In fact, in the better books about the subject,
sources of the ideas are always quoted.
I brought it up because you quoted the result
as if it was a fact, without giving any sources.


As I see it, it was rather the other way around.
I see it as too easy to just state things (repeatedly)
as if they were facts, without quoting either sources
nor any idications of explanations of WHY one thinks so.





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/