Was the word "kunig/kunigas/kunigur" a gothic word?

[Ingemar Nordgren]

    <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/message/9200;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNWpia3ZkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzEwMjA1OTgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNjAwNzM5MjA2BG1zZ0lkAzkyMDAEc2VjA2Rtc2cEc2xrA3Ztc2cEc3RpbWUDMTE1ODY3MDU4Mg-->


Hails Ualaraus!

> So, a "people" consisting of several "tribes" is thiuda. The supreme
> ruler of such a tribal confederation is thiudans. No problems so
> far, moreover that, taking into consideration the numerous parallels
> in other IE languages, we may think of the pair "thiuda – thiudans"
> as a common heritage of the PIE epoch
> (*teuta: - *teutanos/*teutonos).

I agree that far.

>
> A "tribe" as a component part of a thiuda-people is most likely the
> unattested *kinds F.-i, a totality of interrelated big families,
> kinsfolk in a broad sense as you pointed out, absolutely convincing
> for my part. A head of such a tribe is called kindins, a word we
> have in the Bible translating Greek hHGEMWN, which termed a Roman
> governor of a particular province. Pontius Pilatus was kindins of
> Judaea (Mt. 27:2ff.) and Quirinus - kindins of Syria (Luc. 2:2).
> >From these examples and the fragment of the Gothic Calendar we know
> which word choice was made by Wulfila to approximately render the
> Roman power institutes in Gothic. It was the Emperor who was called
> thiudans, and his governors in provinces became kindinos. Which
> implies that a Gothic kindins was in charge of a lesser "unit" than
> a thiudans, and that several kindinos stood in fact under the
> leadership of their supreme ruler – thiudans. It is interesting
> enough to see that, if thinking in Gothic terms, the Roman Empire
> was understood as a big thiuda (people), and a province like Syria
> or, say, Thracia, was thought as a *kinds, a component tribe of the
> larger body. More important though for our ends is that we may
> roughly draw the following scheme: the people (thiuda) standing
> under the (both administrative and religious -?) power of the king
> (thiudans), is subdivided in several closer-related communities or
> tribes (*kindeis pl.) led by their particular leaders (kindinos
> pl.). That is, in my opinion kindins was more likely not a successor
> of thiudans to perform his functions in whatever way, but rather one
> of his subordinate officers, sworn to allegiance together with his
> kinsfolk (*kinds) to follow the rest of the thiuda, to fight for the
> common cause etc. This relation (*kinds – kindins) can prove no less
> ancient, it has its IE cognates too and may be reconstructed as
> *gentis - *gentinos.

Perhaps! There are contradicting points in the above. A kind could as 
you say be a subordinate part of the Þiuða and I think you are right 
that far. This still leaves the kuni hanging in the air. Your examples 
of governors ruling great landareas in the Roman empire and who are 
called kindinos by Wulfila may present a solution. The Swedish kinds are 
of course not that big but still there is a lot of space within them. 
There are two feasible possibilities. Either it could be a stepwise  
building of a tribe based on kindred like a clan. In the head of the 
clan there is a recognised clan-leader but also a number of strong 
independet clan-chiefs, and the business of the clan often calls for 
common agreement among the leading clan families. If kind is the total 
people within this extended kindred and headed by the kindins, with 
functions also as a sacral king, kuni could be the ordinary clan 
chiefs/tribal kings/petty kings. Wolfram speaks as well of 'kings of the 
Army' under the Þiuðans but I am not convinced this is comparable. These 
kindins are, of course, in a way subordinate of the Þiuðans but this 
does not nessecarily show a formal organisation but just that they stand 
on the kind level.

Another possibility is that the newly formed Gutþiuða is considered an 
province differed from the rest of the Goths and comparable with the 
Roman regions and hence is an independent kind in it's own right. The 
region is too big for one single tribe to occupy and hence the kuni must 
be tribes but within the same kindred group. Thats why they also have a 
kindins in the head and as well let him care for the responsibilities of 
the lost sacral king.

>
>
> Now it's kuni which has to find its place in the whole picture. Was
> this word to designate the big family, probably the smallest social
> unit, a component of the above-discussed *kinds? Or it was a term of
> quite another size and order? However it may be, this is the word
> which *kuniggs is derived from. Please note again that this way of
> forming words (kuni + -igg- = *kuniggs), unlike PIE-style thiudans
> and kindins, is exclusively Germanic, a later one as compared to
> them.
>
> In fact, it's the fragmentariness of the survived texts that can be
> blamed for some "inconsistency" in this matter. We have two pairs of
> words *kinds – kindins and kuni - *kuniggs. But only kindins and
> kuni are actually attested. So the researchers not eager to tread
> the insecure soil of word reconstructions speak of Gothic kunja
> (pl.) led by kindinos (pl.) which may happen to be a
> misrepresentation of the relations once existed. A *kinds headed by
> a kindins might have been an institute quite different from a kuni
> with *kuniggs as its derivate. To determine the presumably original
> meaning of the latter word, we have to clarify what kuni precisely
> referred to within the social structure of the Gothic wandering
> communities reconstructed by specialists. And of course, Ingemar,
> you are right that this word is not attested in the meaning other
> than "king". The "nobleman" semantics which I suggested result from
> its formal linguistic shape (lit. "descendant of kuni"). It could
> have been the very first meaning of the word, and it didn't last
> long enough to make it into written sources, and was very soon
> shifted to "king", at least in West- and North-Germanic. And of
> course I can easily prove wrong here, for the Germanic pre-history
> is a rather insecure soil for myself. I'll be happy to get a drag
> over to a safe path.

It may be a question of linguistic developement over time indeed. Also 
the tribal organisation in time as well gets more and more flexible and 
the old ties to kindreds weaken. Maybe there is an Celtic original 
tradition that the first Germanic tribes evolved from  and this was more 
thoroughly family based. Later we know the Goths accept more and more 
new people in their tribes making the family tradition rather formal 
than real.

I really hope we can reach a credible solution of this problem since it 
is indeed very essential.

Best greetings!
Iggwimer


[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/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gothic-l/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:gothic-l-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:gothic-l-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> 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/