[gothic-l] Re: Digest Number 348

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

--- In gothic-l at y..., Ingemar Nordgren <ingemar.nordgren at e...> wrote:
> Dirk wrote:
>
> "the Vandili did no break loose from this group. In the first
century
> AD there was apparently no one tribe with the name Vandili, but the
> name  Vandili was a collective name for several tribes (including
> Lacringi, Victufali, Asdingi, Silingi, Helvecones, Narharnavales,
> etc.), like the name Suevi was a collective name for many tribes.
The
> upheavals from the late 2nd century onwards resulted in ethnical
> processess which let to the demise or merger of some smaller tribes.
> These tribes than reverted to the group-name Vandili/Vandals as this
> was a common-unifiying denomiator. This is exactly analogous to the
> Suevi. The name Suevi was also a group name that became a specific
> tribal name only during the migration period, when various Suevic
> tribes like Marcomanni, Quadi, Semnones, Juthungi etc. seized to
> exist."
>


Hi Ingemar!

You wrote:

> Tacitus  counted them - all the vandilian subtribes - as Suebi.


That is true, but I think that Tacitus regarded all tribes behind the
Rhenish tribes as Suevi, which is probably analogous to extending the
the name Germanic to all tribes that spoke what became known as
the Germanic language. The Vandilli-Lugians are seen as a group in
which I think the cult of the Narharnavales played an important role.
But I have to double check this.




> "There is no indication that the Vandili worshipped a god Gaut. Such
a
> god is not mentionend in the royal geneologies of the Vandals."



You wrote:
> There is - in the  Hasding subtribe.


What is the source for that please?



> "Vandili and Jutland? This is good old Gustav Kosinna again. The
only
> thing that links the Vandili to Jutland is the name similarity to
> Vendsyssael (or so). Most authors today argue that there is nothing
to
> link the Vandili-Lugian group with northern Jutland. Marek Oledski
> has shown that the Oder-Warthe culture (that is linked to the
> Vandili-Lugii) owes nothing to north Jutish iron age cultures."


You wrote:
> Clever guy. Nowadays most people argue that remains can not prove a
> culture. It normally is your own standpoint.People moving also adapt
> new  traces.


That is true, people do adopt new styles, but they also take their
styles with them. Otherwise, how would we know that the
Chernyakhovsk-culture was influenced or based on the Wielbark culture,
etc.? I am not an archaeologist, but speaking to archaeologists who
have worked with Iron-age assemblages all their lives, indicates that
they can tell whether an established culture became suddenly subject
to outside influence or not.





> "Again, leading experts like Prof Ettel who worked all their lives
with
>  archaeological assemblages attributed to Langobards and even
> proto-Langobards dating back to 600BC (Muehlen-Eichsen cemetary
600BC
> to 100AD) say that there is no way that these people came from
> Scandinavia. Of course they could have been influence from
> Scandinavia, but especially the Muehlen-Eichsen cemetary shows that
> most cultural influences came from the Celts in the south."



You wrote:
> Again - the Nordic Bronze Age culture influenced and probably
included
> these parts of PRESENT Germany and accordingly influenced and the
Scania
> origin is in fact stressed by Paulus Diaconus and  also Origo
mentions
> Gausus. Still the Langobards must not nessecarily have the same
> technical/material culture  as other parts of Scandinavia .All
> tribes/peoples of course differ.


For an interpretation of Paulus' Historia Langobardorum, and the Origo
Gentis it is necessary to study all the related literature. I belief
we cannot simply take what is nowaydays accepted to be a mere topos of
early medieval histiogragphy (Scandza topos) and take it as fact. Both
Hachmann and Goffart analysed these problems in-depth as you know. to
give but one of the difficulties. The earlier Fredegar chronicle
stated that the Langobards came from Scathanavia which lies between
the Danube and the Ocean. Also the Codis Gothanis, which is roughly
contemporary to Paulus stated that the Langobards came from Scatanauge
at the Elbe river. In fact the Codis gothanis is the only of the
sources that placed the origin of the Langobards within an
identifiyable geographic area. As you know the Franks were said to
have come from Troy! while the Saxon were said to have originated in
Britain! Do you believe that as well?

The fact that the Langobards mentioned Gausus means very little. King
Rothari, to whome this referes was said to have been of Harudian
origin. Now the Harudes were a sub-tribe of the Saxons of which some
20,000 accompanied the Langobards to Italy, and the Saxons also
counted Gaut among their gods.




> "Of course, but fact is that there is no indication whatsoever that
the
> Vandili worshipped Gaut. There is also no indication that the early
> Gutones worshipped Gaut. Note that royal geneologies have often been
> made up on the spot as it were."


You wrote:
> There is no written evidence for the Vandili, no. There is a lot of
> known intermarriage and cooperation however but most important for
me is
> my Ring-name survey  which points towards a common religious origin.
> Concerning the early Gotones nobody   knows for sure but I stick to
my
> theory, which took me a great number of years to reach, and you to
your
> I suppose.


That is right!



>
> "The Vandili have always been on the continent."

You wrote:
> Glad you know that for a fact. I never could be so convinced of
> something that is not proven.


But you often fomulate you statements of things that are even much
less accepted with greater certainty!



>
> "What is the evidence for parts of Northwestern Germany beeing part
of
> Scandinavian Bronze Age culture?"


You wrote:
> It was part of the old Suebian/Suionean cultural sphere finally
falling
> apart in a.e. the Suebian leauge, preserving the name.


Do you see what you meant above?. I think nobody really regards the
name similarity Suebian/Suionean as anything but coincidental, at
least not  implying comon orign, but you make your statement as if you
know that for sure. At any rate, what do the Suevi have to do with the
Scandinavian Bronze Age? The Suevi was a name of the bearers of iron
age cultures in the Germania magna. They are first mentioned in the
50s BC, i.e. some 500 years after the end of the Bronze Age.


You wrote:
Do not tell
me it
> means "the brave" or "the free" because that I know and disagree
to.To
> me it is "the Sun people".


I was not going to, because there is no convincing etymology for the
name Suevi, as far as I know.  Have a look at this short summary of a
recent publication that came out in the Reallexikon der Germanischen
Altertumskunde:

http://www.gwdg.de/~uhsw/udolph1.htm





> "PS:  Oh dear, I am sure we will always disagree on these matters."
>
> I suppose so but this also secures the scientific research, wich
needs
> opposite ideas to develope.


At least I can agree to that.

best regards
Dirk





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/