--- tgpedersen <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
(GK)>It is interesting that both
> Skiri and Galatae (as groups functioning together)
> disappear from the sources with the first note about
> the Bastarnians (early 2nd c. BC). Perhaps the
Celtic
> element was primary in the first generations
(sources
> note that Bastarnians at that period were "Gallic"
in
> speech)
(TP)Which?
*****GK: Polybius, Livy, Plutarch.*****
(TP) I'm looking forward to any counter-argument of
yours against Tacitus'
statement that there was a Sarmatian component in the
Bastarnian
culture, other than his not being contemporary with
the events. Since
we have established that there was an influx into the
Jastorf culture
from the Przeworsk culture just before the time most
people assume
Proto-Germanic was formed, with Tacitus' information
we have a
migration (and at least one loanword) from
Indo-Iranian to Proto-
Germanic territory.
*****GK: You obviously don�t understand what you read�
In the first place, Tacitus does not say that there is
a Sarmatian component in �Bastarnian culture�. The
latter (manner of life) was Germanic (unlike that of
the Venedae whom he does hold to have borrowed some
aspects of Sarmatian �culture�). What Tacitus says is
that the appearance of the Bastarnians had been
influenced by intermarriage with the Sarmatians. You
grasp the difference? The mother of Prince A.
Bogoliubskij of Suzdalia (d. 1174) was a Cuman
princess, and his recently reconstructed appearance
(from his skull) is very "Asiatic". But there was
nothing Cumanic about his "culture". And if you read
Polybius, you will note that in the early 2nd c. BC
there was nothing �Sarmatian� about the appearance of
Bastarnians. You also seem to lack elementary acumen
as to the implication of loan words in a language.
Just because language A borrows from language B
(assuming that you are right about your �saddle�
point, which is still being discussed) does not mean
that a population speaking language B had to migrate
into the area of a population of language A and mix
with them. What you need to prove the latter fact is
additional historical or archaeological evidence. The
mix of Przeworsk with Jastorf that you mention does
not support your pet theory.*******
>
> > And, finally and most importantly, that you are
> > perfectly free to advance your hypothesis if you
> can
> > find new evidence for it?
> >But there isn't any is there?
>
> I'm looking forward to any counter-argument of yours
> against Tacitus'
> statement that there was a Sarmatian component in
> the Bastarnian
> culture, other than his not being contemporary with
> the events. Since
> we have established that there was an influx into
> the Jastorf culture
> from the Przeworsk culture just before the time most
> people assume
> Proto-Germanic was formed, with Tacitus' information
> we have a
> migration (and at least one loanword) from
> Indo-Iranian to Proto-
> Germanic territory.
>
> Torsten
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/