From: george knysh
Message: 65668
Date: 2010-01-16
--- On Sat, 1/16/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
:
>
> >
> > > (2) Przeworsk itself was earlier Germanized by Yastorf elements
> > > coming in from the West and Northwest.
> >
> > That's where I'm not so certain. If Celtic was an elite language,
> > who knows what language the masses of Przeworsk spoke before the
> > invasion of the inhumating people.
> >
> > GK: Whatever that language was ("Venedic" perhaps) it was
> > submerged by incoming Yastorf influence (we know there was no
> > Przeworsk before that happened)whose language was just as
> > prestigious as Celtic.
>
> > The "invasion of the inhumating people" is a fantasy which exists
> > only in your brain.
>
> Because?
>
> GK: There is no evidence of any "invasion" such as you propose.
> The adoption of an inhumation rite (with no discernible Sarmatian
> characteristics) rather suggests "influence" (not necessarily
> Sarmatian) on local aristocracies.
I can see Koryakova and Epimakhov's talk of the general relationship between nomads and sedentaries is getting to you.
****GK: What doesn't seem to be getting to you is to stick to the point. Your keep repeating your baseless mantra about "Sarmatians in Przeworsk" (which is your current version of the "Odin invasion"). And since you have no concrete evidence, you keep falling back on irrelevancies. There were no "nomads" among the Przeworsk "sedentaries", notwithstanding your verbal flotsam.****
Here's the deal: there wasn't any 'local aristocracy' in Przeworsk to influence.
****GK: There are top dogs in the simplest villages. There are leaders in the most primitive warbands.*****
And since Zarubinia at the same time fell to Sarmatians (judged to be that solely on arrowheads found) they are the major suspects.
****GK: Total confusion as usual. There is no difficulty in the case of Zarubinia (either for the 1rst c. BCE assaults or for the mid-1rst c. CE disintegration (with the appearance of Sarmatian objects and gravesites in erstwhile Zarbinian territory.) There is nothing similar in Przeworsk. Scientific conclusion: there were no Sarmatians in Przeworsk. Odin fantasy connclusion (Torsten): there were Sarmatians in Przeworsk. They had inhumation graves... Objection: but these inhumations do not reflect Sarmatian grave types . Answer: I don't care. I need Sarmatians so they are Sarmatians. End of "discussion.(:=))*****
> > The Bastarnians had chieftains with Germanic names in the early
> > 2nd c. BCE,
>
> http://tinyurl. com/yl7kc6j
> I have proposed to explain the Bastarnian names Clonix
****GK: No such thing. Cf. Piotr's correction.*****
and
> Clondicus on the basis of a Grimm-shifted root that would exist in
> Germanic otherwise only as a loan from a substrate language of
> people connected with amber-mining. On the basis of that Bastarnian
> seems to have been para-Germanic. We reached that conclusion years
> ago. What do you think you achieve with a behavior like that?
> http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/64761
> My "behaviour" consists in restating my view that these names were
> Germanic, and that the Germanic linguistic identity existed long
> before the time of Caesar.
Exactly. That's your idea of proof. George has said so and by that speech act, if necessary, repeating it, it becomes truth.
****GK: With the importasnt proviso that "George" stands for a lot of historians, archaeologists, and linguists, whereas Torsten stands for himself+ Snorri Sturluson (:=))).*****
> > and their culture (Poeneshti-Lukashiv ka) was created by the same
> > Yastorf impulses which produced Przeworsk and Oksywie. The
> > carriers were known as "Sciri" to the people of Olbia as early as
> > 240 BCE.
>
> It seems you are arguing here against the origin of Germanic coming
> in from the east.
>
> GK: That is correct.
>
> But the inhumating invaders would have spoken either an Iranian
> language, or, if they were former mercenaries for the Romans (cf.
> the Golden Cementery), Latin.
>
> GK: All this is fantasy. The inhumations of Przeworsk do not
> intimate Iranic or Latin speech or any linkage to Kuban area
> culture. Cf. above.
Yes, do cf. above.
Cf. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64735
>
> The candidates for the title of ancestor of the Przeworsk language
> are:
>
> 1) Jastorf
> 2) Some previously existing language in the Przeworsk area.
>
> GK: One thing archaeologists have demonstrated is that the local
> Pomeranian culture was not instrumental in the development of the
> Przeworsk culture in its initial phases. Which suggests that there
> is very little backing, if any, for hypothesis (b). On the other
> hand, the archaeology of Zarubinia suggests a rather important role
> for the Pomeranians (with Yastorf and La Tene playing second fiddle
> here). It is my view that in Przeworsk, Poeneshti-lukashovk a, and
> Zarubinia there was a period of functioning multilingualism at the
> top: Germano-Celtic in Przeworsk and Poeneshti-Lukashovk a (the
> latter, Bastarnian, would explain some of the comments of Polybius
> and esp. Livy, as well as the Protogenes statement), and Venedic-
> Germanic-Celtic in Zarubinia.
Most linguists see an early contact phase with Italic in the past of both Germanic (Kuhn) and Slavic (Gol/a,b), the cognates involved however turn out mostly to be in the 'mots populaires' layer of Latin. It is tempting to assign that set of words to Venetic. But given that contact (including words without Italic correspondence) there must have been some early contact between Germani and Slavs, within Przeworsk and Zarubinia.
****GK: Early contacts between Germani and Slavs is one thing, and "Sarmatians in Przeworsk" quite another. It would be nice if you kept to the point.****