> While I would tend to agree that Dane doesn't come from PIE*Da-nu
but, to
> play devil's advocate, I will admit that we do have a classic
example of a
> people taking on a foreign name - the Gaels.
> The Irish weren't a politically unified people anciently, but
during the
> 6th-7th centuries, the Irish began to develop a new sense of common
identity
> - especially when coming into contact with the Britons (whom the
Irish were
> often in conflict with). From the Welsh the Irish borrowed their
new ethnic
> name (replacing the popular Scotti) - Goedel (which was an attempt
at
> reproducing Welsh Gwyddel - perhaps meaning "forest people"
or "wild
> people").
> Perhaps the Danes got their name from remnant Celtic populations in
the area
> (a form of Celtic culture likely existed anciently in southern
Denmark).
> -Chris Gwinn
>
Me? Devil? OK.
Traditionally (museum-wise) Denmark has had a Celtic iron age and a
Germanic iron age. Archaeologists here have been very reluctant to
admit of a Celtic-speaking people in Denmark, but have gone for the
Celtic-speaking upper class idea. I'm just puzzled as to how this
would have worked in practice. Did it ever work in the present Celtic
lands?
The famous Gundestrup cauldron that you see on the front of every
glossy popular Celtic magazine is now thought (after the opening of
Eatern Europe so that stilistic comparisons have become possible) to
have originated in the area in Roumania between the Celtic tribe of
Treballoi(?) and the Thracians and Dacians.
The first time "Denmark" and "Danes" is mentioned by a Dane is in a
parallel situation: on the Jelling stones set up to praise the
accomplishments of Harold Bluetooth "that Harold who united Denmark
and Norway and who made the Danes Christian".
The word might have been out of use, except abroad, and since the
younger futhark had only one series of stops: p, t, k, a possible
writen tradition (who knows what they wrote down) of t- would not
have been reliable. Another point: who would call their own land a "-
mark" (frontier)? After a successful campaign in Jutland (10th
century?) a German emperor declared Denmark to be a "mark", with all
the political implication of that. I don't know whether the Germans
ever recalled that declaration. Also parallel: Since Charlemagne
crushed and incorporated the Saxons with much bloodshed, creating
many political asylum seekers in Denmark, whom he proceeded to demand
be handed over, Denmark had been in conflict with the Frankish
empire. The several walls of Danevirke at Haithabu/Schleswig (the old
Frisian/Anglian "portage" between the North sea and the Baltic) are
evidence of that.
Which means you now think what? Your posting gets a little fuzzy,
opinion-wise, towards the end. As for *da:nu, we have now arrived at
a Sarmatian *danu-. As to the presumed *dani- I suspect a back-
formation from *dan-isk-. When I travelled in the USA, people kept
inventing an adjective "Denmark" ro replace "danish". Minor nations
can't afford separate stems in other people's heads. So now wer are
down to reconciling *danu- and *dan-
And where exactly is that Southern Denmark I keep reading about in
foreign sources?
Torsten