[gothic-l] Greutung, Treving, Rus

[george knysh]

--- åÇÏÒÏ× ÷ÌÁÄÉÍÉÒ <vegorov at ipiran.ru> wrote:
> Continuing our polemics with George Knysh.
>
> I have not intentions to dispute on ZR,

*****GK: Very wise.*****

 I don't
> insist on authenticity
> of Shahriar's complains (I'd like only to note that
> nobody said "Russes"
> were equal to Khazars, in any sense)

*****GK: That can be deduced from your own words which
I cite: "In the seventh century, the Derbent's ruler
Shahriar
complained that he found himself between two
aggressors, Khazars and
Russes." There is no difficulty in holding that in the
10th c. the Russes were the equal (and more than the
equal) of the Khazars. That is what prompted the
putative interpolation.*****

, I'm far from
> dissuading many
> scholars from believing that "Rus'skoe" should be
> emended to "Rums'koe",
> I'd even agree that some centuries in my list were
> inaccurate (at least
> not proven). But would Finns agree with the George's
> belief that their
> self-naming Suomi has been thought out by Russians?
> Because if
> (as stated George) Finnish "ruotsi" is derivative
> from Russian "rus'"

*****GK: Where did George say that? George holds that
the incoming Norse borrowed some of their political
vocabulary from the lexicon of the Khazar Empire (not
directly from its central Turkic component [Turkic
does not allow for words to begin with an "R". Rus,
Ros, Ras, would be (in Turkic) something like the
recorded "Arsiia" of Arabic authors], but from their
Iranic symbiots, whose kagan ruled West Khazaria from
his capital of Sarada (near the current village of Old
Saltiv in Kharkiv obl., whence the entire material
culture of the Khazar Khaganate is called
"Saltovian"). So the Finns would have borrowed either
from the Norse or from the (West) Khazars. Since I am
not a professional linguist, I can't explain the
Finnish "o". I do know however that not all
Finno-Ugrian languages sport it. Thus the late Harvard
linguist Struminski pointed out in 1996 (I reviewed
his book from a historical perspective) that in the
language of the Komi-Permiaks (the ancient Biarmians)
it's not "ruotsi" but  "roots" with the double o
pronounced as u in Rus'.******

> than inevitable Finnish "suomi" is derivative from
> Russian 'sum'".
> It's obviously nonsense.

******GK: Indeed it is, but it's your nonsense not
mine.******

 George can accept the
> Indo-Iranian
> derivation of the term "rus'" but what shall we do
> with "ruotsi"?

*****GK: Look for linkages with the Norse "Ros" (as it
appears in 839 AD, carried by "Sueones") since
"Ruotsi" points to Swedes in Finnish.******
>
> I'd like to tie up Reidgotaland with greutungi in
> order to find some
> linguistic basis for "Country of "russes" meaning a
> common root like
> Gothic '(h)rau?s". Arabian authors stated that the
> term "rus" meant
> "red" in the language of "russes".

******GK: Which Arabian author? Working from memory (I
could be wrong) I have a feeling that this comes from
Liutprand. Note BTW that for Arabs "red" would not
necessarily mean what we understand as red, but
something closer to "brown-blond" ["rusiavyj" in Ukr.]

 The same
> statement was repeated
> by Tatishchev (from an unknown source).

*****GK: The less said about Tatishchev the better.
Many of his "unknown sources" never existed (he made
them up).******

 Gothic
> '(h)rau?s" lies
> somewhere in the middle of an "resemblance area"
> close enough to
> all items: (H)raid-Gotaland, (g)reud-ung/ing, and
> "ruotsi".

******GK: Oh for God's sake. Is this serious?******

 By the way,
> I did not found the word "rau?s" in Codex argenteus.
> Can anyone
> comment whether this form is restored (e.g. from ON
> "raud") or it is
> known from some other documents?
>
> I also consider Reidgotaland as a "movable' notion.
> Since it is
> encountered in Icelandic sagas only a few times
> while (as far as
> I know) is represented on Swedish runic stones, the
> initial allocation
> of Reidgotaland should be searched somewhere in the
> east.

*****GK: Why not the Vistula? Modern science holds
that the historical Goths (no matter where some of
their components originated) were formed South of the
Baltic, and were initially represented by the Wielbark
culture (as were the Gepids). And we do have WIDSITH
which suggests this location.******

> Ermanaric's Empire seems to be a good place for
> this.

*****GK: Well certainly for one of the
"Reidgotalands". And quite logically, since many of
the later Wisigoths and Ostrogoths had migrated
westward from that area.******

 Later this
> notion shifted to northwest along with general
> movement direction
> of Germanic tribes, Heruls specifically. Finally, it
> drifted to Baltic Sea
> and contemporary Denmark. Of course, I mean no
> direct connection
> between Reidgotaland and Russia. However, Goths
> remained
> in Crimea until XVI Ó. (at least).

*****GK: That is indeed arguable, even if the notion
that a distinct Gothic language persisted among the
Crimean "Goths" is not absolutely certain.******

 So-called
> tetraxites settled not only
> in eastern Crimea but also on the Caucasus coast of
> the Black Sea
> (refer to Procopius Caesariensis).

*****GK: I agree.****

 So Goths could be
> preserved that
> area till end of VIII c. when all these territories
> were seized by Khazars.
>
> Sure, Goths were not rulers of Bosporus Kingdom;
> they were its
> "grave diggers".

******GK: Not entirely. The BK revived for a time (it
ia last mentioned in 362 AD when its ambassadors were
received by Emperor Julian). It continued to vegetate
under the Huns, who became its suzerains. In fact
Gaidukevich has shown that much of the Hunno-Alanic
late polychromic jewellery was made there.
Paradoxically, it is the Byzantines (Justinian in
particular)who put an end to any kind of autonomy
there after recapturing some of its main cities from
the Huns in the 530's.*****

 However, having used Bosporus as an
> initial
> "jumping-off place", Goths regularly attacked
> islands of Aegean Sea
> and continental Greece on ships of own construction
> (!) already
> at the end of III c.,

******GK: Yes indeed. They used Tiras and Olbia (and
nearby areas) as staging grounds rather than the
BK).****

 i.e. this branch of Goths
> turned into a people
> of seafarers known later as "dromites".

*****GK: I'm afraid this is not borne out by the most
recent archaeology. Practically all of the population
of southern Gothia (or "Greuthungia" if you like) had
migrated by 430 AD.****

 If these
> dromites preserved
> our hypothetic "(h)rau?s" (which may shift to
> "hro?s" due to
> contraction of the diphthong), than this explains
> everything:

******GK: No. It explains absolutely nothing.*****

> hros of ZR,

*****GK: The only significant Goths left in the East
at that time were the Tetraxites (and those of
"Gothia" next to Chersones). Certainly not the
fantastic creatures of ZR.*****

 people Rhos (who would object that Goths
> are,
> at least for medieval Europe, really "gente
> sueorum"?),

******GK: I don't think the Franks would have had any
problem in identifying Goths. In any case (as you
would immediately see if you read the Annales
Bertiniani s.a. 839, these "Ros" came to
Constantinople from a considerable distance,almost
certainly from the area of Ladoga.******

> Arabian "russes" of IX c. on Russian plain "to east
> from Slavs",
> and finally "ruotsi". Moreover, I wouldn't be
> surprised if
> the Viking age in Scandinavia were provoked by
> "russes" dromites
> reached into Baltic Sea.

******GK: No I'm sure you wouldn't be. But others
would...(:=))))******


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

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/