Re: Bow and arrow

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andrew_and_inge"

<100761.200@...>

> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is enough for me to suspect they these archers were
> > > > descended
> > > > > from Nordwestblock peoples arriving in England with the

Saxon

> > > > > invasion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You mean that their language and skills derive from

immigrants

> > of
> > > > the continent, which is not precisely the same thing.
> > >
>
> Yes, I admit the aspect of hitherto unknown ethnic group making up
> part of the Anglo-Saxons is horrifying.
>

That's not what I think. I simply think we should be careful about
drawing more conclusions the evidence allows.

I also think that it is silly to think that the "Anglo-Saxons" (the
modern ones) are the result of only 2 or 3 well defined groups of
people.

> > > Seems to me you're imagining a situation similar to today,

where

> > an
> > > immigrant would be immediately swamped (ideally) by the
> > Englishness
> > > (or similar -ness) of the place.
> >
> > No my point is that you should realise that skills, languages

and

> > institutions can move, or cease, quite independently of the

people

> > who use them. I am saying that you only have an argument that a
> > certain skill came from Europe, and there is no reason to assume
> > that anything else came.
> >
>
> And that's what made America what it is today? BTW why should
> I 'realise' that? Is it a moral imperative? If you want to believe
> that this is necessarily the way things happened I won't tell you

to

> realise otherwise.
>

More to the point, we do not know what happened but you are drawing
conclusions anyway. If you have evidence that archery was a
Nordwestblok skill that came the Belgic part of Europe to England,
then you only have evidence about this skill. That's no a "moral
imperative". That's an imperative of reason.

> > > Actually they were part of an
> > > invasion, but must have served as a lower class. Kuhn found
> traces
> > of
> > > that instituton in Nordwestblockland. They were not immigrants
> > > leaving a mark, they were part of the definition. That's why I
> > think
> > > there was such a difference in the attitude of the 'plebs'

being

> > > armed I think. Would AngloSaxons have trusted Celts enough to

arm

> > > them?
> > >
> >
> > Why not? You seem to have a neat idea of language boundaries
> > matching political boundaries.
>
> Erh?
>
> >Everyone fought everyone in dark ages
> > Britain, and everyone allied with everyone else at one time or
> > another.
>
> Odd. I got the impression the Anglo-Saxons drove back the Celts.
>

The English language replaced previous languages. We do not know how
many there were. For the most part, however, the English people, did
not geographically displace their predecessors. This can be
determined from genetic evidence.

> >In any case, it was the Normans, French speakers, who armed
> > the peasants of England before Agincourt.
> >
>
> If the French-speaking Normans were so keen on archery, how come
> their colleagues back home weren't?
>

If the French speaking Normans at the time around Agincourt were so
keen on archery, then why had they not been so keen on it a few
generations before? It is seems to me the longbow, and the training
for it, was a new thing, brought into being by people thinking how
to win wars. It had not existed previously in England or Belgium.

> > > >However
> > > > firstly your theory ignores the possibility of arms race

being

> > the
> > > > case (the English developed better bows, and encouraged the
> > > > peasantry to practice and compete).
> > > And why is that, was the question.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Secondly, I would think the most
> > > > obvious period for NWBlok entrance into Britain would have

been

> > the
> > > > Belgae (perhaps = Fir Bolg in Ireland) who fled the Romans.
> > >
> > > Yes, if they should have made up a free component of British
> > society.
> > > And the Fir Bolg were Celts, the NWBlock people wasn't.
> >
> > You mean they were Celtic speaking, don't you?
>
> That's right, I mean they were Celtic-speaking Celts.
>
>
> >If any ancient people
> > known to history was Nordwestblok it was surely the Belgae.
>
> Surely, my foot. Please list a couple of Nordwestblock words that

are

> known in a Belgae context, in Britain..
>

Caesar seems to indicate that they had spoken a different language
than the Gauls, but they seem to have become Celticised, as indeed
had most of Europe. You may be aware that there is hardly a tribe
name we know from that time who has not been considered a possible
case of a tribe who were only superficially Celtic. Consider the
Boii.

In any case, the Belgae lived in the right time and the right place
to have been the successors of the Nordwestblok speakers. Which
other tribal groups can we say that about?

> >But by
> > Caesar's time it seems likely that the Nordwestblok language, if
> > there was one, was on the way out.
> >
> > > I would think
> > > the most likely period for the NWBlock people to enter Britain
> > would
> > > be after their societies were overrun and Germanicised by

their

> > > Eastern ex-Jastorf neighbors.
> > >
> >
> > Ah. You mean earlier than Caesar?
>
> Around the time of Caesar and later. Ariovist and his army would

have

> been Germanic, but Arminius and his uprising was at least partly
> still Nordwestblock.
>

How do you judge that? What is the evidence for that?

> > > >Thirdly, why would Eastern Germanic contain a word from NW
> Europe?
> > >
> > > Good question. In order for that to happen, the *ark- stem

would

> > have
> > > had to be part of the language expanding out of Thuringia,

which

> > is
> > > not a totally unlikely proposition. The -azna part of the

Gothic

> > word
> > > also sets it apart from the other Germanic occurrences.
> > >
> >
> > Any path for words from Thuringia to Gothic territory would

surely

> > be much later than the demise of the Nordwestblok language?
>
> I think you misunderstand. The *ark- root would have been not a
> Nordwestblock loan into Germanic and Italic, but a gloss common to
> these three languages.

Than I do not understand the point being made.

Best Regards
Andrew