Re: Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins

From: george knysh
Message: 65327
Date: 2009-10-29

--- On Thu, 10/29/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

.

> >

> > His objection is misplaced, since several names clearly in

> > <Ígul-> are known from runic inscriptions, as is the simplex

> > <Ígull>. From Rundata, keeping only the spellings with <g>

> > or <h>:

> >

> > Ígulbiörn

> > Nom. ig(u)lbi(u)rn U667, ihulbarn U593, ihulbiarn *857,

> > U925, ihulbiurn U901, U904, [ikulbiarn] U51+, ikulburn

> > U963

> > Acc. igulbiarn *922$, ihulbiarn Sö2, Sö141, ikulbiaurn

> > Sö229,

> >

> > Ígulfastr

> > Nom. ihulfastr *279, U961, ikulfastr U624, UFv1953;263

> > Acc. ikulfast U939

> >

> > Ígulfríðr

> > Nom. [ikulfriþ] U582+

> >

> > Ígull

> > Nom. igul Sö350, ihul U620$, U940, U1027, U1047, ikul

> > Sö232, U202

> > Acc. igul Sö381, ihul U997, U1154, [ihul] U378, M14+,

> > ikhul U758, ikul U624, (i)kul NA13


****GK: Is the tribal name "Igylliones" (reported by Ptolemy, Geogr. III.5) as located between Stavani and Costoboci related to this? If so, it would be quite interesting since these Igylliones, archaeologically, correspond to the merging East Przeworsk and west Zarubinian cultures in the mid- 1rst c. CE.****

Previous in thread: 65326
Next in thread: 65330
Previous message: 65326
Next message: 65328

Contemporaneous posts     Posts in thread     all posts