"sergejus tarasovas" <
s.tarasova-@...> wrote:
original article:
http://www.egroups.com/group/cybalist/?start=1755
> But you do not believe that Aestii were the Balts. Though I would
> insist that the two are one and the same. The terms Aestii and Estii
were
> used not only by Tacitus, but by later medieval chroniclers -
Jordanes and
> Wulfstan (which is as late as the 9th century). So the term does have
> historical continuity. Another things that ties Aestii to the Balts
is the
> other historically mentioned peoples of that area.
Typology of nations' names is another complex subject to discuss, so
just some notes.
1. Very often (most often?) an ethnos is known not by the name it's
members call themselves (usually this is something very trivial like
'all the our, locals' etc), but rather by the name given by its
neighbours (like Germans from Celtic word with a meaning 'neighbours').
Aestii is just the name given by some Germanic tribes, it means
'easterns'.
2. Such a name can be associated with a TERRITORY, and applied to
another ethnos later (Estonians aren't Balts). So that what Tacitus'
rendered as Aestii could well be a name of a Germanic group of tribes.
The Lithuanian language itself gives us one typologically interesting
example of such re-appliance. A representative of the Byelorussian
ethnos is called gudas in Lithuanian, but etymologically this is
'Goth'. The presence of Goths in that area is explained by Jordanes
text, but Gothic adstratum has completely disappeared, and even may had
disappeared by the time the Slavic waves assimilated local Balts. We
can discuss ethnogenesis of Byelorussians, but they are not Goths,
anyway. The ethnonym RusI 'Russians' was re-applied to Eastern Slavic
people from a relatively small totally assimilated ethnic subgroup.
-----------------------------------
I understand your point about how people are called by what name is
given to them by their neightbors, not by what they call themselves.
This would bring us to another discussion - the etymology of Aestii,
but it is an even more complex question, while to this discussion -
quite irrelevant. It is of course most likely Germanic, referring to
those in the east. However, the question at hand is - can the Aestii of
Tacitus be equated to the Baltic cultural/linguistic group we are
speaking of? This is not so much a question of linguistics as it is of
historiography. I will try to answer your points in a more concise
order:
1. Begining with Tacitus the Aestii are identified as a Northern people
trading in Amber. More exactly - he says "the only ones collecting
amber". From this we must place them in any area where this resource is
of relatively high concentration. This can be one of two places in
Northern Europe - Jutland or gegraphical Prussia (East Prussia in
19th/20th century terms). It is most likely the area between Vistula
and Nemunas - the place of highest concentration of amber, and
archeology shows patterns where most of the amber in Europe has spread
from this region, much less so form Jutland. But away from theories of
probability:
2. Tacitus identifies the Aestii as Germanic, but says that their
language is more like that of Britain! Should we then modify our model
so that the Aestii are Celts? The safest conclusion that we could draw
from such a stetement is that Tacitus had some information about the
languages, but did not consider this attribute ethnos-defining. Wether
we trust his comparison of that language to Cletic or not, it is enough
to take not that at this very earliest mention of Aestii they are
differentiated from the various other Germanic people by their
language. That's quite a relevant point.
3. The one historical account that directly links Aestii to Prussia is
that of Wulfstan. Wulfstan was an Anglo-Saxon traveler who traveled to
the land of Esti. This voyage occurred around 890-893 AD. This is
significant in that Wulfstan precisely defines the location of this
'Eastland'. He indicates it to be directly East of the Vistula
('Wisle'), and relates the locations of "Meore, and Eowland, and
Gotland" as well as Sweden - relative to Estland. The most fascinating
part of his accound, of course, is not geographical but cultural - as
he descibes the burrial customs of the 'Estum', most precisely - in the
town of Truso, which he specifically indentifies. This town, close to
Elbing/Elbla(n)g is now being excavated by the Polish. The Prussian
name of the town was more precisely Dru:so: (according to the phonetics
of the Elbing glossary). The name can be related to the nearby lake -
Dru:sino:. In conclusion - this is our evidence for relating
Aesti/Esti/Estum to the Baltic cultural/linguistic group.
4. You raise the point that the name may be associated not with the
people but with the territory of Aesti, Wulfstan's 'Eastland'. Well,
Tacitus himself says that they were not linguistically Germanic (for
all that his perception of languages is worth). If, as you say, at the
time of Tacitus the Aestii were to be some Germanic tribe, then there
had to occur some large migration of Blats between the 1st and 9th
centuries, pushing out the previous Germanic people. What evidence do
we have of large-scale migrations in Prussia? Practically none. The
burrial mound culture makes gradual progress through the centuries,
even with close ties to the burrial mound culture of Gotland. There are
traces of Sacndinavian adstratum, but ad- and not sub-. In the
canturies A.D. shield construction and various jewelry carries traces
of Roman influence. Semba (Sambland) and Notanga were the general
region from which Baltic cultural trends eminated, influencing other
parts of Prussia as well as Western Lithuania (Then inhabited mostly by
Couronians). Among all this, throughout those centuries there is no
evidence of great migrations in the area. The Goths passed by, true,
but barely touching the borders. In fact - archeological data shows
that large wastelends were left uninhabited betwen the Balts and Goths
as to perhaps keep each other at arm's length. Nevertheless - trading
and cultural exchanges were present. To make my point - even if only
the geographical area concides, all evidence points to that there were
no great migrations in the area. It is most likely that the Aestii of
the 1st and 9th centuries are approximately the same cultural group -
perhaps with minor Germanic and Slavic influences.
5. Taking the historical and archeological data into account, there is
more evidence to link the Aestii (and all the subsequent mentions of
them since Tacitus) to the Balts (more precisely to the Western Balts)
than to any other cultural group. In this scenario - the etymology of
Aestii is most likely Germanic. If the related question of 'glesum' is
still relevant, I propose two hypotheses:
a) 'Glesum' was indeed used by the Aestii of that time, as a Germanic
borrow-word, just as you said, by "what the traders call it". In this
case, a reconstruction of OPrus.(Elbing) gle:si:s or OPrus.(Semba)
Gli:sis is possible.
b) The other likely even is that Tacitus received the word 'glesum'
from some trader, but not as the Aestian word but as that of some
intermediate German traders. Then the registered word only attests to
the word in some local Germanic (or Slavic?).
Tacitus also dedicates a few sentences to explain that the Aestii only
trade amber and that they are completely ignorant of it's origins. Is
this cultural insight enough to imply that his source was someone who
actually travelled all the way North and spoke directly to the Aestii?
That's a deciding factor betwen a and b.
I hope this helps in any way. I tried to stay mainly to the historical
analysis pertaining to the Aestii and their identification. Of course,
a more sophisticated treatment of the subject is required, but I wonder
if it has not already been done? I am sure there already is some
extensive study done on this. The idea that Aestii are Balts (and most
likely just the Western Balts) is the most accepted one. If you think
there is a sounder interpretation of the Aestii, you are welcome to
take a stab at it.
(My archeological source is V. Simenas "Uzmirstieji Prusai" possibly
still for sale in Lithuania. Except for the few superficial expeditions
into Kaliningrad by V. Kulakov and the currect excavation of Truso,
Prussian archeology is pretty much at a standstill. In other words -
pre-World War data subject to modern interpretation.)
Martin