> Given from the reactions you're getting from fellow Cybalisters
(including
> several people who know something about early
Germanic), "consensus" is an
> overtatement, to put it mildly.
I was referring to the opinion outside cybalist, not inside it,
obviously. And the opinion of "ex Thuringia" at that, not "in
Thuringiam", ie of how the Germani spread from Thuringia, not how
they got there in the first place.
>I know from experience how unfaltering your
> belief in your own theories is, and don't hope to cure you of your
idée
> fixe. Not that I care. Anyone who can tell a valid linguistic or
historical
> argument from a travesty thereof and is patient enough to read
those long
> threads can form an opinion about your private mythology.
In that case, the below is a travesty of valid linguistic or
historical argument:
From Rolf Hachmann, Georg Kossack, Hans Kuhn: "Völker zwischen
Germanen und Kelten"
on "ex Thuringia": (own translation)
Hachmann:
"Already the events on the Rhine at Caesar's time point to the real
instigators (Urheber) of all the unrest. Swebians were represented in
Ariovist's army; Swebians had driven away the Usipeti and Tencteri;
Swebians had made the Ubii pay them a regular tax (zinspflichtig
gemacht); Swebians, as Caesar was told by the Ubii, sent auxilliaries
to the Treveri, therefore both Caesar's crossings of the Rhine were
directed against the Suebians. Such a push by the Swebians towards
the Rhine is unambiguously evidenced by archaeological finds."
Kossack:
After a description of the new types of pottery in Thuringia and
Bohemia, he calls them:
"Foreign phenomena (Fremdersheinungen) in Celtic surroundings, but
not in Middle North Germany, where they are rooted. The change in the
finds of pottery in Bohemia and in the Main region can actually only
be understood, if you see in it a change of the ruling layer of the
population... How else would one explain that domestic (Celtic) coin-
making disappears and with it an essential form of economy?... With
the decay of late Celtic economy is further related that iron-
production and forging wanders from the central oppida to the
agricultural settlements in the plain. Almost every village now
produces and processes iron for its own use".
Kuhn:
"It turns out again and again that our layers of pre-Germanic names
towards southwest blend over into the never Germanified lands. Not so
in the Northeast and East. There they ebb out slowly, but most types
reach to close to the lower Weser, Aller and the Harz, but only in a
few cases beyond that. Weser-Aller and the Harz are here a clear
boundary. Behind it Pre-Germanic names, spared by Grimm's law, are
hardly found at all. Here might be the original Germanic territory
(urgermanisches Land)."
Common Postscript:
"The northern border of the pure Latène culture .. is ... at the
level of the Taunus and the Thüringer Wald"
on "in Thuringiam"
Kossack:
"Particularly unambiguous is the state of affairs in Thuringia, the
Main-region and in Bohemia, where things Germanic appear as something
new, foreign (Fremdes), since the previous late Latène archaeological
finds have a completely different Character, and even a higher rank
of civilisation. The cultural manifestations are similar to those
Caesar describe for Gaul."
In other words, as I read it, pottery in Thuringia changed without
break, other finds(?) there with a break. I wonder what it is George
Knysh thinks it is he has proven repeatedly wrt the identity of early
Germani?
>But George Knysh has a valid point: you've told us nothing new this
>time -- it's the same dead horse getting another flogging.
I was busy exploring the Nordwestblock hypothesis when I got involved
in a broil with Marius and Marco, who hasn't been along long enough to
have heard the old arguments.
>You are a very active poster, but your
> interests are very narrow: the origin of Germanic with emphasis on
>the role
> of Odin, the Azov Sea connection and the literal truth of Snorri's
account
> (one could call you a Snorri fundamentalist)
Fundamentalists try to shut up other people. I don't. And I still
consider the possible truth of part of Snorri's account a working
hypothesis. It can't stand alone, it'll have to be backed up by other
material, eg linguistic or archaeological.
>, and the Sundaland saga. This
> limited scope makes you repeat yourself over and over again. Since
I have
> asked the members not to use Cybalist as a vehicle for promoting
their
> personal obsessions, I have to ask you to abandon the "ex
Thuringia" thread.
> I'll tolerate any concluding remarks posted within the next 24
hours, but if
> you go beyond that, you'll find yourself moderated.
>
That's what I could come up with in the last 8 hours.
You're the boss. It seems I'll have to stop quoting Kuhn (and
Hachmann and Kossack) then. I hope other people will read them and
change their views accordingly (unless you want to ban all mention of
these writers).
Torsten