[gothic-l] Goetar, Gautoi, Gutar, Goths and Gaut

[keth at ONLINE.NO]

Bertil wrote:
>Keth,
>
>The facts have been provided som many times
>on this list

opinions yes, facts no.

>(my lates contributions can  be found in the
>archive).

They are also on my harddisk.
If you think I missed something, perhaps you could refer
me to your earlier posts. (Date & subject header)


>Maybe it would help you to read for yourself
>the contribution on Gaut by Professor Thorsten Andersson.
>Am sure that some library in Stavanger has the
>yearbook "Namn och bygd - Tidskrift för nordisk
>ortnamnsforskning", Aargaang 84, 1996 with the
>ärticle by Professor Anderson.
Is it in Oslo (Blindern) too? I'll be going there soon.
>
>It seems better that you read the original material.



If a major reading effort is involved, then maybe that might
be a good idea. On the other hand, if it is only a few sentences
or a paragraph, it would also seem possible to communicate it
directly to the group.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So what you are saying then (lest I misunderstand
you), is that the above article explains in a convincing
manner that  "Ther cannot be much doubt that Gaut is the
progenitor of the Goths"

Please, Bertil, let us try to separate "facts" from
interpretation of facts. The "facts" as I see them
is what the sources tell us. But in order to establish
things that "there can be little doubt", such facts
need to be interpreted.

So please let us at least try to make a brief list of
what the "facts" are about "Gaut". Snorri does not mention
"Gaut" in conection with the Goths, as far as I recall.

Then _by who_ or _where_ is it that the name is mentioned?

I have earlier noted that Jordanes mentions the "Gauthigoth"
as a people in Scandinavia. But from this brief mentioning,
it does not follow that "Gauth" is necessarily the name of a
person.

Then there is also Jordanes mentioning og "Gapt"
which has then been "interpreted" (by some*) as "Gaut".

These are then the "facts". If you are aware of more facts
than these, then please don't withhold them.


*) Please note that Looijnga in her book that Dirk referred to
(it is on the web at the Gron.Univ. web site), who wrote in
1997, refers to an alternative explanation, by Stoklund
and Seebold (1992). And if there was, as you say "not much
doubt", it would seem quite unnecessary for Looijnga to
refer to alternative explanations, wouldn't you say?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Best regards
Keth






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/