Origin of the Goths: Slavic or Germanic?

[Delodephius]

Most likely it is not so. Goths already under Filimer left Scandinavia for Gothiscandza in the 1st century AD. The origin of the Germanic peoples is from around the Northern Sea, Scandinavia, Netherlands and Rhineland, not from the east. I won't say that again.

[Onur]

You better look for Persian for the possible meaning of "mir". I know that one cuz Turkic people was using the word "mir" since 12-13th century.

"Mir" means "seigneur, commander, chief, lord" in Persian and in Turkic languages. It can be used as a suffix to the names too. You can find many Iranian rulers with the word "mir" in their names. It`s probably entered Turkic from Alans or after islamization in 12th century. It`s Turkic equivalent is "bey, beg" but some important Turkic characters in history used the title "mir" like Tamerlane, (e)mir Timur. We don't use that in modern Turkish anymore but we still use the words which derived from it, like "emir, amir" which has similar meanings with "mir".

If Germanic "mir" comes from the Persian language, most likely it is so, then they must have adopted that word during their Eurasian days b4 great migration, maybe from Alans.

[Delodephius]

To continue on my previous post. I have been searching for the meaning of these endings in many Germanic names: -mir, -mer, -mar, -mær. I finally found just a reference in one book of mine that it means "famous", "glorious", originally from Proto-Germanic meri. Now, when Slavs use the ending -mir in their names, this might just be a relic of the Germanic names, since in Slavic mir means "peace" or "world" and several names that contain it make no sense if we apply this etymology. However, if -mir is Germanic for "fame" or "glory", then this could also explain the Slavic ending -slav, because -slav, from slava = "fame", "glory", would just be a translation of -mir. In other words, early Slavs used to apply the same model for their names based on the Germanic one, and some Slavic names could actually be literal translations of Germanic names, for example Gottmer in Germanic would be Boguslav in Slavic. I would need to look into the meaning of other Germanic names and to compare them to existing Slavic ones. There are also many Germanic and Slavic names that were translated from one language to another in later epochs (10th century onwards) by the Lusatian and Pomerian Slavs who lived in Germany.

[Onur]

The greatest of all Gothic kings was Theodoric the Great, the son of Theodemir. He ruled in Italy, at the heart of Roman empire but after his death, eastern Romans invaded his court in Italy and desecrated his memory, destroyed his Arian churches and whatever left from him because he was still a barbarian to them and he was also a member of Arian sect, which was considered as heretic by eastern Romans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoric_the_Great

He ordered the construction of his own future tomb when he was still alive and he wanted it to look like a yurt, as a reminder of his nomadic roots. His grave has been looted by eastern Romans and his remains has been removed from it;

His mausoleum in Ravenna, Italy;

[Delodephius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valamir

Valamir (c. 420 – c. 465) was an Ostrogothic king in the ancient country of Pannonia from 447 AD until his death. During his reign, he fought alongside the Huns against the Roman Empire and then, after Attila the Hun's death, fought against the Huns to regain Ostrogothic independence.

Valamir was the son of Vandalarius and cousin to king Thorismund. A vassal under the overlordship of the Huns, Valamir helped Attila raid the provinces of the Danube (447), and commanded the Ostrogothic contingent of Attila's force at the Battle of Chalons. With Attila's death (453), Valamir became the leader of the Goths settled in Pannonia. In the ensuing fight for independence from the Huns from 456 to 457 AD, he defeated and routed the sons of Attila.

A dispute concerning annual tribute caused Valamir to lead the Goths against the Romans at Constantinople from 459 to 462, when the emperor Leo I agreed to pay the Goths a gold subsidy annually. During a Scirian raid, Valamir was thrown from his horse and killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemir

Theodemir was king of the Ostrogoths of the Amal Dynasty, and father of Theodoric the Great. He had two "brothers" actually brothers-in-law named Walamir (or Valamir) and Widimir. Theodemir was Arian, while his wife Erelieva was Catholic. He took over the three Pannonian Goth empires after the death of Widimir, ruled jointly with his brothers-in-law Walamir and Widimir, and was a vassal of Attila the Hun. The reason is probably that this relatively long reign of the Ostrogoths in Pannonia, while his elder brother Thiudimir only for four years on the throne, followed by Theodoric, and firstly inherited, the heirless, Walamir's part of the kingdom. He was married to Erelieva, with whom he had two children: Theodoric (454–526) and Amalafrida. When Theodemir died in 475, Theodoric succeeded him as king.

[Delodephius]

Thats wrong. You could at least check wikipedia before claiming this.

I write most things from memory. I don't consider them important enough.

This is the most famous one;

The Issyk inscription is written in the Kharoṣṭhī script (which I have studied and can write in) not the Turkic runes. Whether the runes evolved from the Kharoṣṭhī script is another matter. The Germanic runes evolved from the Roman and North Italian alphabets.

ᛁ᛫ᛞᚩ᛫ᚾᚩᛏ᛫ᚹᚪᚾᛏ᛫ᛏᚩ᛫ᚹᚪᛋᛏᛖ᛫ᛗᚣ᛫ᛏᛁᛗᛖ᛫ᛞᛁᛋᚳᚢᛋᛋᛁᚾᚷ᛫ᚦᛁᛝᛋ᛫ᛁ᛫ᚪ ᛚᚱᛖᚪᛞᚣ᛫ᚳᚾᚩᚹ᛬

What does Scythian mean to you?

[Onur]

If they did not have letters how could they have runes? Runes are a writing system not mere symbols. A smiley face :-) is just a symbol.

Runes evolved from symbols ("tamga" in Turkic) and then gradually refined into an alphabet around ~4th century BC to ~1st century AD. Thats why both Germanic and Turkic runes are defined with several different words like "god, horse, riding, man, tree, sun" but not only with the sound they produce cuz these were symbols b4 evolving to an alphabet system. You can see here;

Living in the proximity of the Romans and Greeks I think Slavs had used their writing systems. However, there is no evidence of writing among the Germanic peoples, nor the Baltic, nor the Iranian Scythians (later the Sarmatians, later the Alans, today Ossetians). Only around the 4-5th century AD did first runes appear in Germania and Scandinavia and by that time Slavs were already formed and in full contact with the Roman Empire on the Danubian frontier.

Thats wrong. You could at least check wikipedia before claiming this. Germanic runes as with complete alphabet system has been found in central, southeastern Europe, dated from 1st century AD . In central Asia, some proto-runic writings from 4th century BC has been found in kurgans. This is the most famous one;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issyk_inscription

This finding from 4th century BC is a proof of runic writing system has been evolved in late Scythian era.

Onur, the Runic script consists of letters, whereas Hrabar says that the Slavs didn't use their own letters, nor does he say that they used someone else's letters. If they were using the Turkic Bulgar runes, why would Hrabar fail to mention this supposed fact, and why would he be ignorant of them when Slavic-speaking populations had been interacting (even on a level as indicated in the Romanian cave) with the Bulgars for at least a couple of hundred years by that point?

SOM, No one can give definitive answers for your questions. Already, that's why we are discussing about that, otherwise we wouldn't.

[Delodephius]

SoM, I think they're missing the first part of the quote from Hrabar. The first paragraph goes:

Прѣжде оубо Словѣне не имѣхоу кънигъ· нъ чрътами и рѣзами чьтѣахоу и гатаахоу· погани сѫще· крьстивше же сѧ римскъіими и грьчьскъіими писменъі нѫждаахоу сѧ пьсати словѣньскоу рѣчь без оустроѥниіа.

Translation:

In the past the Slavs did not have letters (books), but with cuts and strokes they read and told fortune (guessed), being pagans still, baptising themselves with Roman and Greek letters they were forced to write the Slavic language without order.

If they did not have letters how could they have runes? Runes are a writing system not mere symbols. A smiley face :-) is just a symbol.

Living in the proximity of the Romans and Greeks I think Slavs had used their writing systems. However, there is no evidence of writing among the Germanic peoples, nor the Baltic, nor the Iranian Scythians (later the Sarmatians, later the Alans, today Ossetians). Only around the 4-5th century AD did first runes appear in Germania and Scandinavia and by that time Slavs were already formed and in full contact with the Roman Empire on the Danubian frontier.

[Soldier of Macedon]

SOM, "strokes and incisions, scratches and sketches" means they were using runic script. Probably the 9th century writer was ignorant about Runic alphabet..........Chinese people were ignorant about that too and wrote like "Huns writes on wooden tablets by scratching and incising"

Onur, the Runic script consists of letters, whereas Hrabar says that the Slavs didn't use their own letters, nor does he say that they used someone else's letters. If they were using the Turkic Bulgar runes, why would Hrabar fail to mention this supposed fact, and why would he be ignorant of them when Slavic-speaking populations had been interacting (even on a level as indicated in the Romanian cave) with the Bulgars for at least a couple of hundred years by that point?

[TrueMacedonian]

According to Blazhe Koneski "The monk Hrabar, who writes that the Slavs, before becoming Christians, used lines and runes and later the Greek and Latin scripts" and later in his article when describing the development of Cyrillic script and the difficulties it faced "In Hrabar's apologia the central question is not the negation of the Slavonic alphabet, although this theme is present here to an extent. The polemics are concerned above all with the question of the alphabet. The claim by the opponents of Cyril's script that it was possible to write with fewer letters, like the Greeks, indicates that Hrabar wrote at a time when Cyrillic had not yet been accepted as the official script, that is during the period of its emergence when the Greek script was used to write the Slavonic language. If this assumption is correct, then Hrabar's text goves us the most direct reference to the struggle over the official script in Symeon's state. If this is the case, M. Weingart's opinion that Hrabar was no other than Naum gains in credibility.
The Ohrid Literary School, by Blazhe Koneski , Macedonian Review Vol. VIII No.1 1978

If Hrabar is Naum then is it possible that Hrabar's/Naum's comments that the pre-christian tribes used lines and runes gain more credibility?

[Onur]

TM, he talks about strokes and incisions, scratches and sketches, or something to that effect. This doesn't necessarily imply runic letters, nor does Hrabar mention anything about them.

SOM, "strokes and incisions, scratches and sketches" means they were using runic script. Probably the 9th century writer was ignorant about Runic alphabet, so he tries to relate how they write by saying "incisions, strokes". We also have these same definitions about runic writing of Huns in 2-3rd century AD Chinese documents because Chinese people were ignorant about that too and wrote like "Huns writes on wooden tablets by scratching and incising"

People say that the lack of evidence for Slavic runes lies in them being written on perishable materials, like wood. But Germanic, Hungarian and Turkic runes were written on stone and metal, why would Slavic ones be an exception? It only shows that Slavs used Latin and Greek for writing, since they were close to these literate peoples. Germans and Hungarians being far away created their own writing, though it was of a much limited use than Latin or Greek.

Maybe you don't remember but you also claimed that Cyril&Methodious would have been used some proto-Bulgarian Turkic runic letters to create Cyrillic script in May 2009 here;

http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/showpost.php?p=70462&postcount=9

Also you are right about the usage of wood for regular writing with runes. Yes, we have Hungarian and 1400 year old Turkic writings today but only the ones which has been written on stones. These are mostly the messages of kings, khans on monument like stones because it should be difficult to write on a giant stone and probably it would take so much time, so this should be a privilege for the important people. Maybe slavic people was always subjects of other societies and no one in their society bothered trying to write on a monument? who knows?. But if you don't know this, there is a cave in current Romania, it`s walls are fully covered with old church slavonic and Turkic writings, written by using Turkic runic script in 9th century. Who knows who were these people, Slavs, Turks or both? because the usage of Turkic runic letters for writing in slavonic language is something very unusual.

Click here; http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum...ead.php?t=4741



But you are wrong about the proximity of Slavs to the Germanic and Hunnic tribes. All three tribes wandered around the north of Blacksea, between east and west. They were not far away to each other and don't forget that unlike sedentary Latins and Greeks, these nomadic people, especially Huns were able to cover 100s of km on horse, wandering from eastern Europe to Siberia in few weeks. Horsemen squad of Ottoman empire was using same tactics of Huns and if necessary, they were using 4 horse per one man, to be able to use fresh horses all the time and ride 1000+ km with minimum pause and maximum speed.

[Delodephius]

Tomas, SoM what do you guys think about what Onur posted on page 2 about the monk Hrabar stating that the pre-christian Slavs used Runic writing? Any belief in this?

People say that the lack of evidence for Slavic runes lies in them being written on perishable materials, like wood. But Germanic, Hungarian and Turkic runes were written on stone and metal, why would Slavic ones be an exception? It only shows that Slavs used Latin and Greek for writing, since they were close to these literate peoples. Germans and Hungarians being far away created their own writing, though it was of a much limited use than Latin or Greek.

[Soldier of Macedon]

TM, he talks about strokes and incisions, scratches and sketches, or something to that effect. This doesn't necessarily imply runic letters, nor does Hrabar mention anything about them. He may not even be talking about a collective form of writing or a 'standardised' alphabet at all, as he says that the Slavs "did not have their own letters, but read and communicated by means of tallies and sketches". The statement is ambiguous, but worthy of further attention so the number of possible scenarios can be narrowed down. I haven't really looked into it too much, but will do so.

[TrueMacedonian]

Tomas, SoM what do you guys think about what Onur posted on page 2 about the monk Hrabar stating that the pre-christian Slavs used Runic writing? Any belief in this?

[TrueMacedonian]

Perhaps a segment of the Goths may have derived from there, but I think the story about 'Scandza' is a fanciful rendition by Jordanes that lacks credibility.

Yes that is what Peter Heather stated in his book 'The Goths'. He wrote that the Goths may have been part of a larger cultural affiliation with a people called the Luggi and the Vandals. Scythian was something every Roman writer called anyone outside of their kingdom, including the Slavs. Sometimes they made differentiations and sometimes they didn't.