[gothic-l] Re: ØVRE STABU runes - from 2nd century.

[Francisc Czobor]

Dear Keth,

please don't feel embarrassed because of my "angry" remark, because I 
was "angry" not on you, but on Looijnga, better said on her assertion 
made without a thorough information. 

--- In gothic-l at y..., keth at o... wrote:
> Hails Francisc!
> I am sorry if the quote I sent makes you angry.
> Of course I have heard about the neckring of
> Pietroasa. I even know that Hermann Reichert
> of Vienna (who Bertil surely remembers from
> the old Oldnorsenet) wrote a paper about.
> My personal knowledge of it is from a history
> book we've always had im my family, as long as
> I can remember, which was written by Alexander
> Bugge, the son of Sophus Bugge. Sophus Bugge
> was one of the important 19th century figures
> who was among the first to sytematically
> survey the oldest Scandianavian runic inscriptions.
> I also know the ring from R.I.Page's book on
> runes. R.I.Page's books have been repeatedly
> recommended as one of the best "down to earth"
> approaches to the runes. He is connected to
> the British Museum or something like that.
> 
> I also recall Reichert mentioning that the
> Pietroasa ring had once been broken (sawed?)
> and that one rune was hence a bit doubtful.
> But an accurate drawing existed (somewhere)
> and by investigating this, the doubtful
> rune could be read with more certainty.
> (I quote this after memory. It was
> something to that effect)
> 
> But exactly what consequences this one rune
> had for the reading of the text, I do not recall.
> 

Indeed the necklace (because in fact, it's a necklace, not a ring) was 
broken or sawed exactly in the middle of the inscription, so that it 
is not clear wether there is or is not an "O"-rune there: 
GUTANI(O)WIHAILAG. Depending on wether that letter is taken into 
account or not, differ also the interpretations of the text.

> Can you give me a local tip about how to remember
> the localisation of Pietroasa? I know so little
> about Rumenian geography. Is there a river called
> Theiss or is that in Hungary? The only thing that
> has become fairly well established in my mind
> is that Romania=Dacia.  But when *you* read that,
> you may perhaps even shake your head. I know so
> little that it could easily be different from
> the simplifications that I try to get by with.

Pietroasa is located in the eastern part of Romania, in the Buzau 
county, near the curvature of the Carpathian mountains. According to 
Ammianus Marcellinus, in this region tried Athanaric with his 
Visigoths a last resistance against the invading Huns, in a place 
named by the Goths "Caucaland" (i.e. Hauha-land, meaning Highland in 
Gothic) in the Montes Serorum (identifiable with the Siriu mountains, 
part of the curvature of the Carpathians, located in the same Buzau 
county, not far from Pietroasa). It is supposed that Athanaric 
concealed his treasure (in fact, the Visigothic national treasure) 
before the decissive battle with the Huns, with the intention to 
recuperate it after the battle. But being defeated, he was forced to 
take refuge with his Visigoths south of Danube, leaving the treaure 
where it was buried, until it was uncovered by chance in the 19th 
century.
But there are also other hypotheses. For instance, some people 
attribute this treasure not to the Visigoths of the 4th century, but 
to the Ostrogoths of the 5th century (in that period, the Ostrogoths 
occupied Dacia as allies of the Huns). Anyway, nobody contests the 
Gothic character of the Pietroasa treasure.

The river called Theiss in German, Tisza in Hungarian and Tisa in 
Romanian flows mainly on the territory of Hungary. Its origin is in 
the Ucrainian Carpathians, then flows westwards constituting the 
border between Romania and Ucraina, then enters the territory of 
Hungary, crosses Hungary from north to south and finally enters in 
Serbia, where it flows into the Danube.

To consider Romania=Dacia is fairly correct. The territory of today's 
Romania coincides in great part (almost entirely) with that of ancient 
Dacia.

> ...
> I think one of the problems with the internet is the abundance of
> information. This leads many people to read very quickly, and very
> often they simply skip over sentences. For example with the
> above: Now I nearly skipped over some of your very excellent
> logical arguments.
> 
> So if you will allow me to take out a piece of what you said above
> and repeat it, then maybe it will help to increase people's 
awareness
> of this. You said:
> 
>      "Some of the Gothic letter names
>       are similar to the rune names."
> 
> Which now appears to me as a _very_ strong argument for
> tying the Goths to runes. Immediately I also say:
> This I must not forget.  Looijenga does seem to have
> forgotten it, when she wrote as she did. And the best way
> to enter this firmly into memory, will then be by
> way of some examples, in order to make it more explicit.
> (and I hope you forgive me if you feel I am needlessly
> reiterating) Here I am however frustrated, because a book
> like Braune & Ebbinghaus does not seem to mention the
> names of the gothic letters. Looking at the shapes of
> the letters (p. 14), I can only see hints of runes in
> two letters: F and O.
> 
> I do however have a book by "Faulmann" that lists old
> aphabets. Faulmann (p. 164) mentions papers by ZACHER
> and KIRCHHOFF (do you have the exact references?) and
> says these "Möso-Gothic" runic names have come down to
> us together with Wulfila's alphabet, but gives no
> further references:
> 
> Ans     Bairika    Giba     Dags       Aihvus        Quairþr  
Iuja/Ius
> Hagls   Thaurnus   Eis      Kaunzama   Lagus         Manna    Nauþs
> Jer     Urus       Pairþr   Raida      Sojil/Sauil   Tius     Vinja
> Faihu   Iggus      Hvair    Oþal.
> 
> Now that I have the names, I can of course go to Lehmann and see
> what he has to say: ... But alas! Lehmann has not bothered to
> enter these runic names into his dictionary, whereas Faulmann
> definitely gives the impression that these are the original
> Gothic letter names associated with Wulfila's alphabet. It
> is little disappointments like these that makes me say that
> Lehmann's book might have been more inclusive. He does have
> something under "giban" (G85.), where he says: "geuua name of
> g-rune in Sal." And "Sal." = Salzburg-Vienna Manuscript.
> Well, at least that is something!
> 

Indeed, the Gothic letter names are known from the Salzburg manuscript 
(10th century), but I don't know more than you. I have only noticed 
that some of these names (Thaurnus, Nauþs, Jer, Faihu, Iggus, Oþal, 
and maybe other as well) are also rune names.

> If I then go back to Braune/Ebbinghaus I find (page 8):
> Codex Vindobonensis 795 (=oft ungenau 'Salzburg-Wiener Aluin
> Hanschrift') - well, why didn't Lehmann say so. -
> 9/10. Ja.s enthält: auf fol. 20 r ein unvollständiges got.
> Aphabet (bis zum Buchstaben u); auf fol. 29 v einige Abkürzungen,
> zwei unvollständige Alphabete des Sigma-Typs (eines davon nur
> aus dieser Hs. bekannt, das 'Wiener Alphabet') mit nebenstehenden
> Buchstabennamen' ... Anm 14. ... Daß die Buchstabennamen nicht
> die got. des 4. Jhs. räpresentierten, stellte fest J.Bloomfield,
> Saga-Book of the Viking Club 12, 177ff., 209ff.
> 
> Are these then the same "Möso-Gothic" letter-names mentioned
> by Faulmann?
> 

I don't have any idea.

> Best regards
> Keth
> 
> PS are you familiar with Bloomfield's article?

No. I don't know anything about this article.

Best regards,

Francisc


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/