Talk:Reidgotaland

Untitled

The information that "hreidr" means "bird's nest" is very enlightening. Presumably this is a noun rather than a verb, meaning "place where chicks are raised" (perhaps made of "reeds"). Most birds re-nest in the same spot, rather than moving around (as did the Ostrogoths and Visigoths), so perhaps a better translation of Reidgotaland would be "Goth birth-place" or "Goth home-land"? In the tales of King Heidrek, the reference is clearly to the Geats/Gautar (the Goths remaining behind in Scandinavia) rather than those roaming around the continent. The Geats were also called the WEDErs. Is this connected to the sWEDEs? Is "Geat" connected with "git" and/or "goat", given the folk-mythology (untrue in reality)that Swedes are a little "slow"? Jeff Stevenson.

In my opinion it is better to link the "mainland" goths to the Scandinavian "Gutar" or "Gotlanders", than the "Geats", given the etymology of the namnes. In west Norse the ethnonym "Gotar" is given both the "Goths" and the "Gotlanders". The east Norse equivalent is "Gutar", which for instance accure in the famous runic inscription of the Swedish "Rök-stone". The population on the island of Gotland still refer to themselves in their own mothers-tongue as "Gutar".(Joar)

In Heidrek's case it is quite obvious that Reidgotaland refers to the Ukraine, see Hervarar saga. I don't think that there's any connection between weder and swede, since weder was an Anglo-Saxon word and the Swedes were called Sweon in Anglo-Saxon.--Wiglaf 09:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the claim that the Hrei∂goths were specifically the Ostrogoths based on a suggested etymological connection with "Greuthungi"? --Abou 17:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing obsolete scholarship

I had removed some obsolete stuff, apparently taken from page 437 and 438 of the 1889 edition of Nordisk Familjebok. Much of that text was replaced in the 1915 edition, of which I put in a web link, even though that does not really reflect current understanding. As usual, User:Berig resists changes, and klinging to 19th century scholarship, reintroduced the stuff from the 1889 edition. I am flabbergasted. /Pieter Kuiper 20:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course. Regarding that 19th c stuff and that user: WP:OR and WP:NPOV should be embraced fully by each and every editor. This is an international encyclopedia, not a the-"winners"-write-the-history encyclopedia. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)