[gothic-l] Re: Goths and Bavaria

[cstrohmier at YAHOO.COM]

Hi Dirk,
	Thanks for the information; you've given me some new ideas to
think about and some areas to explore.  I think your idea about the
six leading houses of Bavaria is very interesting, and it merits
further investigation.
	I'm not familiar with the Thuringian Kingdom.  Awhile back
you sent to Gothic-List an interesting report about an East Germanic
castle in Thuringia called Funkenburg and about East Germanic
settlements stretching from Silesia to Hesse; would these be
connected with a possible immigration from Thuringia to Bavaria?
	 The Langobards are an interesting people.  I have read that
their king wore a crown called the Iron Crown, which was trimmed in
gold, and which contained one of the iron nails used to crucify
Christ.  The Langobards connection with the Bavarians is also
interesting, but I am very skeptical about the idea that they were
the first Bavarians.
	The Tyrol is a part of Austria in the Bavarian speech
region.  Concerning the Tyrol, "Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia"
says:  "During Roman Empire times, it was the province of Raetia.  In
the 5th century the Ostrogoths Teutonized the northern part, while
the Teutonic Langobards (Lombards) who invaded the southern part
became Romanized.  Thus the Tyrol early acquired its dual character"
(volume 14, page 232b).  The same encyclopedia says of Lombardy:  "It
takes its name from the barbarian Lombard hordes who overran it in
the 6th century.  These people were the last Germanic invaders of
Italy.  They pressed down from the north in A.D. 568 within 15 years
after the emperor Justinian had expelled the East Goths" (volume 8,
page 279).  These quotes are important for several reasons.
	The first quote shows that the Ostrogoths did "Teutonize" at
least part of the Bavarian speech region long before the southern
part of the Ostrogothic Kingdom began to founder.  It also shows that
the Gothic influence on Lombardic is not directly connected to Gothic
refugees.  The second quote is even more interesting.  The southern
part of the Ostrogothic Kingdom fell in about 555; the Lombards
arrived 13 years later in 568.  This is interesting because the
Lombards arrived in the area after the Bavarians were already settled
in Bavaria.
	In 551, a Goth named Jordannes wrote a work called
the "Getica", or "The History of the Goths", and in it he mentions
the Bavarians (the Baiovari) who were already settled in Bavaria:
"LV (280) After a certain time, when the wintry cold was at hand, the
river Danube was frozen over as usual. For a river like this freezes
so hard that it will support like a solid rock an army of foot-
soldiers and wagons and carts and whatsoever vehicles there may be,--
nor is there need of skiffs and boats. So when Thiudimer, king of the
Goths, saw that it was frozen, he led his army across the Danube and
appeared unexpectedly to the Suavi from the rear. Now this country of
the Suavi has on the east the Baiovari, on the west the Franks, on
the south the Burgundians and on the north the Thuringians. (281)
With the Suavi there were present the Alamanni, then their
confederates, who also ruled the Alpine heights, whence several
streams flow into the Danube, pouring in with a great rushing sound.
Into a place thus fortified King Thiudimer led his army in the winter-
time and conquered, plundered and almost subdued the race of the
Suavi as well as the Alamanni, who were mutually banded together.
Thence he returned as victor to his own home in Pannonia and joyfully
received his son Theodoric, once given as hostage to Constantinople
and now sent back by the Emperor Leo with great gifts. (282) Now
Theodoric had reached man's estate, for he was eighteen years of age
and his boyhood was ended."  One supposes that if the Bavarians were
Suavi or Alamanni, they would have allied themselves with their
neighbors against the Goths, and that Thiudimer, King of the Goths,
would have attacked them too.  It is interesting to note that
Jordannes does not present the Bavarians as Suevi, Alamanni,
Thuringians, or Marcomanni.  (In Chapters XVI [89] and XXII [113]
Jordannes mentiones the Marcomanni, but he does not connect them with
the Bavarians.)  In any case, this clearly shows that the Bavarians
were in Bavaria long before the Lombard invasions began.  In
addition, I have two sets of encyclopedia dates which give the time-
frame for the Bavarian settlement in Bavaria:  A.D. 488-520 and A.D.
489-539.  Both of these dates about thirty years before the arrival
of the Lombards.
	The "New Catholic Encyclopedia says:  "After the Agilolfing
House had attained domination in Bavaria under the suzerainty of the
Franks (c. 550), the Irish and Frankish mission began.  The
missionaries Eustace and Agilus, who came fom Luxeuil, had only
limited success.  The work of the missionary bishops Emmeram, Rupert,
and Corbinian (c. 700) was much more lasting and effective" (page
175).  This too clearly shows that the Bavarians were already settled
in Bavaria before the time of the Langobards, that the Bavarians
turned to the Franks for protection when the southern part of the
Ostrogothic Kingdom was collapsing, and that the Bavarians were not
the Catholic Marcomanni.
	For these reasons I do not consider it likely that the
Langobards are the first Bavarians; however, it is entirely possible
that when the peoples of the areas "Teutonized"  by the Ostrogoths
came into close proximity with the Langobards, they may have affected
each others' languages through linguistic sharing; merchants from
these areas may have carried these changes to towns and cities
throughout Southern Germany, perhaps setting off the Second German
Sound Shift.   So in this sense, Dirk, I think you may be right, that
some of these characteristics may have occured indirectly and may
have involved the Langobards.
Sincerely yours,
Cory

--- In gothic-l at y..., dirk at s... wrote:
> Hi Cory and Francisc,
>
> your discussion is really interesting. I think one of the arguments
> against a Gothic mission to Bavaria is based on the fact that the
> Arian church was never really focused on missionary work in
general.
> However, one thing is obvious Theoderic was keen to secure the
borders
> of his realm once the conquest of Italy was complete. In some cases
he
> sought marriage alliances while he resorted to war against the
Gepids
> in order to secure the important north-eastern gate-way into Italy.
> The Bajuvari were at the northern border of the Ostrogothic kingdom
at
> a strategically important position. Controlling Bavaria could
> potentially help to thwart Frankish attempts to expand east and
> south-eastwards. The Thuringian kingdom was also allied with the
> Ostrogoths to a similar end. However, in Bavaria I suppose that the
> Ostrogoths might have seen a chance for more direct intervention.
It
> has been argued that some of the administrative divisions of
Bavaria
> were put into place by the Goths.
>
> I agree with Corey, that the ways of political and linguistic
> influence of the Goths on Bavaria is probably more complicated than
> missions and refugees, but I am slightly more sceptical about a
real
> 'influx' of actual Goths into Bavaria. I would propose a more
indirect
> scenario. It is an established fact that the Bavarian dukedom was
> closely related with the Langobardic kingdom in Italy. We know that
> some Langobardic kings spend much of their lifetime in Bavaria and
the
> last Langobardic kings are often called the Bavarian dynasty. After
> the fall of the Ostrogothic kingdom, the Goths did not vanish from
> Italy, but basically blended into the local and new Langobardic
> population. As  such Gothic will likely have made some impression
on
> Langobardic, and this influence could have been carried through
> Langobards/Goths to Bavaria.
>
> I believe one area where a linguistic and other influence should be
> visible is personal names. Bavaria has to this day a number of
> peculiar personal names that could portray an East Germanic (not
> necessarily Gothic) influence. Thus, we have otherwise unknown male
> names like Tassilo, Odilo/Uatila and Athala, but also Otakar which
is
> directly derived from Odoaker. Interestingly, a lead-name of the
> Bavarian Agilofing ducal house was Fara. This name may have been
> brought to Bavaria, by the Herul prince of that name who became
also
> duke of Bavaria. In addition, Fara was also a lead-name of some
> Langobardic ducal houses.
>
> In contrast to Corey I believe that Bavarian is essentially a West
> Germanic language and that the 'men from Baia', where initially
> Langobards and later after the 530s Thuringians. These were
> supplemented by East Germanic splinter groups such as Skiri (who
have
> given their name to Scheyern/Skirensis in Bavaria), Rugians near
> Passau and Heruls in Austro-Bavaria (where we may even have
placenames
> based on the Herul name), as well as some Goths and 'Italian
> Langobards'.
>
> I wonder if the so- called 5 'Genealogiae', i.e. the five leading
> early Bajuvarian families in the 6th and 7th  centuries: the Huosi,
> Fagana, Hahhilinga, Draozza and Anniona plus the Agilofing dukes
are
> not the ruling clans of 5 or 6 different tribal groups. Is anybody
> aware of an interpretation of these names?
>
> cheers,
> Dirk


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Small business owners...
Tell us what you think!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/vO1FAB/txzCAA/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/