Re: Goths and Bavaria
- Hi Cory and Keth
I found this quote about Bavarian:
Man unterscheidet innerhalb der bairische Sprache zwischen drei
Dialektgruppen: Nordbairisch wird in der Oberpfalz und im Donauraum
gesprochen, Mittelbairisch in Ober- und Niederbayern sowie im größten
Teil von Österreich, Südbairisch in Tirol und südlich der Ostalpen.
Dazu kommen einige Sprachinseln in Oberitalien, wo archaische
bairische Dialekte noch heute in Gebrauch sind.
Thus, there are also isolated areas in upper Italy were
archaic variants of Bavarian are still spoken. The southern-most
German language-area is the Zimbric/Cimbric language spoken only in
one villages near Trient/Verona. Cimbric is also related to Bavarian.
--- In gothic-l@y..., dirk@s... wrote:
> --- In gothic-l@y..., cstrohmier@y... wrote:
> > Hi Dirk,
> > I agree: The connections between the Goths and the Bavarians
> > are a fascinating topic. Thank you for clarifying how the
> > fit in: I had misunderstood what you meant. (I took you to mean
> > that the connections of the Langobardic royal family with the
> > Bavarian royal family pertained to the Italian Langobards, and
> > the proposed emigration followed the same pattern.) An imigration
> > Langobards from Bohemia seems less problematic than one from
> > especially if it was north of the Danube. (The "devastation"
> > and "depopulation" of the region south of the Danube in A.D. 476
> > Odoacer and this troops would seem to make this theory problematic
> > there.) This would certainly seem to be one more piece of a
> > complicated puzzle. (I'm still pondering the significance of
> > Scheuerer's interesting article.)
> > I was unaware that the modern Bavarians connect the beginning
> > of their state in an unbroken line back to Ostrogothic times; it
> > seems reasonable, but I wonder how they arrive at the exact date
> > A.D. 520. Is there some specific historical event underlying this
> > date? In my previous posting, I mentioned two sets of
> > dates: A.D. 489-539 and A.D. 488-520. (I believe one of these
> > sets of dates came from the Encyclopedia Britannica.) The
> > arrival dates of A.D. 488 and 489 no doubt refer to the beginning
> > Theodoric's invasion of Italy (which he entered through the Alpine
> > region), but I wonder what events the encyclopedia writers had in
> > mind when they selected A.D. 520 and 539 as the latest possible
> > arrival date. There must be some historical references to the
> > Bavarians in these two years which I am unaware of. The date A.D.
> > 520 is especially interesting, since it coincides with the
> > date of the Bavarian state in the northern part of the Ostrogothic
> > Kingdom. It would be interesting to know what these two dates
> > to.
> > Sincerely yours,
> > Cory
> Hi Cory,
> I seemed to remember the year 520AD from somewhere, but cannot
> say where I read this. Here are two short histories of the early
> I don't know how reliable these texts are, but the second article,
> stated that the first duke/king of the Bajuvari was Theodo I
> (508-511AD, but said to have been born in 420AD!). Note the many
> 'Langobardic' names in the Bavarian king-list (Garibald, Grimwald,
> Agiulf) and the text also mentiones the Herulic Prince Fara (died
> 535AD) as co-founder of the Bavarian ducal house. Fara, Farwald etc.
> is also a common name of Langobardic dukes, especially at Spoleto.
> The text also states :"After the highest level of protection granted
> to the Agilolfing dukes, the next highest was the double weregeld
> granted to the five noble families of Huosi, Drozza, Fagana,
> Hahilinga, and Anniona - probably the descendants of kings of
> lesser tribes incorporated within the Bavarian nation..."
> > P.S.
> > I need to make two clarifications. In my last posting, I
> > included a quote about the Ostrogoths "Teutonizing" the Austrian
> > Tyrol. The word "Teutonizing" has several possible meanings:
> > author seems to have left the meaning deliberately ambiguous. I
> > it to mean that the area was unpopulated, and that it
> > became "Teutonized" through settlement of Ostrogoths in the area.
> I am not sure, but the Tyrol area was where the Celtic (barely
> Romanised) Brennones lived. Maybe, it was these people in South
> (now Italy) who were 'teutonised'.
> > another previous posting, I mentioned that some pieces of Old and
> > Middle High German literature which show a curious mixing of Old
> > Saxon and Old and Middle High German influences may point to an
> > explanation of the West and North Germanic features in Southern
> > German; two more examples of this would be: "Das Hildebrandslied"
> > (which also shows Langobardic influences) and the so-called "Low"
> > German "Der Heliand". I believe there are also smaller fragments
> > such as prayers which also reflect both Saxon and High German
> > influences. No doubt there are more examples.
> My understanding was that the Hildebrandslied was written down by an
> Old Saxon speaker based on a Bavarian 'original'. I think it is
> probable that the material goes back to Ostrogothic tales of the
> 5th/6th century, was taken up by the Langobards in Italy (the name
> ending -brand/prant was popular among the Bavarian dynasty of
> Langobardic kings (Ansprant, Hildeprant, Luitprant) and then passed
> to the Bavarians.
- --- In gothic-l@y..., keth@o... wrote:
>...Any way, it is well know that "Milano"Hello Keth,
> is not really an Italian city, but an old German city that is called
> "Mailand", and consulting the map shows that "Mailand" is in fact
> the major city of Lombardia.
I am not sure what you mean by this. "Mailand" is derived
from "Milano", not the reverse. And "Milano" is derived from the
Latin "Mediolanum", which is probably of Celtic origin. Milan was
originally a Celtic settlement dating from about the 5th century BC
and was conquered by Rome in 222BC. It was capital of the Western
Roman Empire from the 4th century AD. So I am not sure how it can be
an old German city rather than an Italian city, in fact, it initially
declined under the Germanic invasions. Perhaps I have misunderstood
- --- keth@... wrote:
Any way, it is well know that "Milano"<BR>
is not really an Italian city, but an old German city
that is called<BR>
"Mailand", and consulting the map shows that
"Mailand" is in fact<BR>
the major city of Lombardia. Tirol must earlier have
far south. Perhaps as far as Verona? From the map I
see that it is <BR>
approx. 150 kilometers from Bozen to Verona. And so I
think the <BR>
discussion might be much clarified if one specifies
envisions the old 5th century language borders, as
well as what<BR>
areas that were then conceived of as Bayern and
Raetia it also said. That was the old name of Baiern,
the Bavarians came.<BR>
Re: I'm sorry but here I've got to correct you, Milano
is in fact an old "celto-roman city", it was called
Mediolanum and was founded by the romans on a place
where there were/had been some celtic settlements.
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
- Hello Leonardo!
>Re: I'm sorry but here I've got to correct you, MilanoBut you know the Germans call it "Mailand".
>is in fact an old "celto-roman city", it was called
>Mediolanum and was founded by the romans on a place
>where there were/had been some celtic settlements.
I thought perhaps this name went back to the Goths and
the Lombards; especially because it is today (still?) the
capital of Lommbardia.
And besides, if it was the Kelts who founded it, then its
original name might not have been "Mediolanum", which sounds
Latin to me.
It says that in 774 it came under Charlemagne and the Franks.
And then later in the Middle Ages there was a strife there
between the "Welps" (sp) and the "Ghibellins" and then
also Frederic Barbarossa was involved there. But of course
I do not know anything about the language. But I believe Tirol
used to extend further south and that German or a variety of
Bavarian may then have been spoken there.
I found the Britannica of 1962, and looked under "Bavaria".
It says the year 520 stems from a Frankish document, of that
date, which mentions the "Baivarii" as having settled in
the Donau valley and adjacent areas by that time. It is
only a brief note, but I interpret it as meaning that the date
of the document is 520, and that hence they must have been
known to have settled there sometime before that date.
So maybe there wasn't a definite date, only a fact of presence.
And you were right about the Brockhaus, since the one I looked
in was from 1996, and the text there was a little different from
your excerpt. Thanks!
P.S. The Britannica quotes G.T.Rudhardt and A.Quitzmann as references
for the oldest history of Bavaria. Both wrote around 1840-1860.
Maybe you can find something there.
- hI kETH,
--- In gothic-l@y..., keth@o... wrote:
> Hello Dirk!
> who are supposed to have come from Bohemia. (any connection with
> the Boii?)
The Boii were a Celtic tribe who gave the name "Bohemia" (from
Boio-haemus). "Baju-wari" means in fact "dwellers of the Boii(-land)",
because they lived in Bohemia before coming in Bavaria.
> However when I looked under "Bairisch" (writen with "i", whereas
> is written with "y" - any one know why?), the Brockhaus referred to
> "deutsche mundarten" and under that topos I found an interesting map
> of the Germanic dialects. And there I found something that surprised
> me; for it became clear that linguists refer to the language spoken
> Tirol *also as bairisch ! ! ! Now why didn't that come up on the
> as we discussed this before? I even specifically mentioned Süd
> with Bozen and the Brenner. Now if all that is *also Bairisch
> ically speaking), then that changes things quite a bit. No wonder I
> found I could understand Bairisch when I visited there some years
> after having spent many months in Tirol.
> You see, what I thought until now, was that Bairisch referred
> the dialect spoken within the present borders of the Teilstaat
> But if the dialect spoken in Tirol (Innsbruck!) is also bairisch,
> then that changes things quite a bit from my point of view.
> However, what the map *also says (o, erstaunen, erstaunen) is that
> Vienna is *also in the "bairischen mundarten" area. Now, that is
> beginning to sound a bit odd to me. For if there is something that
> is certain, then it is that the "Wienersprache" has a very distinct
> note to it, that distinguishes it from other Austrian dialects.
> And especially "bairisch". More likely is perhaps the attribution
> of Steiermärkisch to bairisch, but even that is a long distance
> from Tirol, and clearly distinguishable, even to my ear. (or maybe
> especially to my ear)
In all the classifications of the German dialects that I have seen,
one division of the "Oberdeutsch" part of Hochdeutsch is
Bairisch(-Österreichisch), where are included not only the dialects of
Bavaria, but also those of Austria and the Alto Adige (= South Tirol)
province of northern Italy.
- --- In gothic-l@y..., keth@o... wrote:
>...Mediolanum is considered a Celtic toponym, meaning "middle plain".
> And besides, if it was the Kelts who founded it, then its
> original name might not have been "Mediolanum", which sounds
> Latin to me.
medio- "middle" is Celtic, inherited from Indo-European, that's why it
sound similar to Lat. medius, Goth. midjis, Greek mezos, Sanskrit
lan- "field, plain" appears in many Celtic topnyms.
Only the ending -um indicates a latinization of the original Celtic