Name of the Goths

[Tore Gannholm]

Hi!
I am at present reading "The Rise of Bronze Age Society, Travels,  
Transmissions and Transformations by Kristian Kristansen and Thomas  
B. Larsson.

I find this interesting passage:

Springs and flowing water were important in Hittite religious belief -
probably seen as links to the Netherworld - and many rock reliefs are  
located
close to such features In the laridscape:

Traces of simple 'sacred springs' do not often survive, but a rock- 
monument like
Eflatun Pmar, marking a perennial spring, may well be an elaborated  
version
of a common type of open-air shrine. Other rock-monuments, such as  
that of
Muwatallis at Sirkeli, and the much-worn 'Niobe' figure (now thought  
to be
male) at Sipylus, are clearly positioned above flowing water, and  
these too may
be connected with similar beliefs. A possible spring-shrine on a less  
pretentious
scale has been discovered near Ilgin, where a spring at the foot of a  
hill was
provided with a rectangular stone basin, whose walls were inscribed  
with a
long hieroglyphic inscription which includes the cartouche of  
Tudhaliyas W.
(Macqueen 1986: 112)


The close connection between flowing water, shrines and rock art in the
Hittite world, as pointed out in the above quotation, is extremely  
interesting from a Scandinavian perspective. An overwhelming majority  
of the tens of thousands of rock art sites in south Scandinavia are  
positioned very close to water (coasts and river mouths) and in many  
cases the images themselves are cut on sloping rock surfaces, over  
which water regularly flows. The similarity at a structural level  
with the Hittite practice is striking, though the details, motifs,  
etc. differ. We will return to the south Scandinavian rock art in the  
next chapter.

Tore

On Aug 3, 2006, at 10:14 AM, akoddsson wrote:

> Hails Michael.
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Michael Erwin <merwin at ...> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, 7500 years is too long.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with Gotlandic archaeaology. Is it possible that
> > many settlers came from the Vistula to the island in the first
> > several centuries A.D. and simply carried the name with them?
>
> The other way around, I think, is more logical. To begin with, the
> Germanic archeaological record on Gotland is older than the Vistula
> culture, which is supposed to show marked similarity (see archeaology
> of Gotland, Vistula, Wielbark culture, etc.) as regards material
> culture, disposal of the dead, etc.. Also, the fact that Gotland has
> been continually inhabited by a Gothic folk, as well as it bearing the
> name Gotland itself, is highly suggestive of older inhabitation there,
> while the Vistula-region's culture had a much shorter lifespan and
> then simply disappeared (we don't even know when, exactly). Now, the
> capital of the Gothic Vistula-region culture is named in Norse sources
> as A:rheimar, a very convincing name of older type (ON names in heimar
> being generally archaic). It means 'river-homes' or 'homes at the
> river', being suggestive of a settlement (group of houses) around or
> at a river. I think that this name is in all likelihood correct, as it
> shows none of the hallmarks of later name-innovation. Now, if the
> Vistula-culture were really older than Gotland (not born out by the
> archeaological record, see that for further reference), why would it
> not have a name like Gotland? On the whole, I think that the very name
> Gotland itself, along with its continuous inhabitation, is indicative
> of centrality for Goths. It is interesting that no other region later
> inhabited by the emigrant Goths receives this special name. I suspect
> that the reason may lie in it already have been taken in use as the
> name of the Goth's original homeland. If this is the case, then it is
> easy to understand how the name could have become synonymous in song
> and oral history (not extant in Gothic, however) amongst the emigrant
> Goths with their ancestral origins, and that to apply the name to a
> new area, regardless of how many Goths lived there, might have seemed
> absurd. Given that there are no records about this subject of any kind
> (other than the voiceless archeaology, suggesting Gotland as the older
> Gothic settlement), however, I think it important to steer away from
> wild theories and instead take a sober look at what is most probable:
> that Gotland, with its tell-tale name and older archealogy, as well as
> special linguistic links to Gothic, was likely the center/nucleous of
> the oldest Gothic culture, which then gradually broadened over time.
>
> Regards,
> Konrad
>
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    gothic-l-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/