IMHO, there is _no reason whatsoever_ to start speculating about an
identification "with (the ancestors of) the 'watergeuzen'". It would
be the same as starting to speculate about the ancestors of the Red
Socks players on the basis of the etymologies of 'red' and 'socks'...
> Please note that there were also groups named 'bosgeuzen' (lit.
forest/bush geuzen).
The latter remark made me start to speculate again: Beggars are
almost by definition homeless vagrants, so it is almost a
contradiction in terms to ascribe any particular habitat to them, and
both of them typical relic areas, at that, in situations where a
people is forced off its old territory.
In what context were those 'bosgeuzen' mentioned?
BTW I assume the English use of 'bush' in the sense "uncultivated
land" is a calque from Afrikaans 'bos(ch)'? In which case you might
maintain similarly to the Berlaymont example, that if Jan Riebek had
mentioned a 'boschman' in a document in the 17th century that this
proved that no 'bushmen' or !Kung people prior to that document.
Do you have a quote of what Berlaymont actually said?
Torsten