Re: Bow and arrow

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andrew_and_inge" <100761.200@...>
wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "andrew_and_inge"
> <100761.200@...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen"

<tgpedersen@...>

> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which is enough for me to suspect they these archers

were

> > > > > descended
> > > > > > from Nordwestblock peoples arriving in England with the
> Saxon
> > > > > > invasion.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean that their language and skills derive from
> immigrants
> > > of
> > > > > the continent, which is not precisely the same thing.
> > > >
> >
> > Yes, I admit the aspect of hitherto unknown ethnic group making

up

> > part of the Anglo-Saxons is horrifying.
> >
>
> That's not what I think. I simply think we should be careful about
> drawing more conclusions the evidence allows.

I of course go for the opposite: We should draw more conclusions
than the evidence allows.

> I also think that it is silly to think that the "Anglo-Saxons"

(the

> modern ones) are the result of only 2 or 3 well defined groups of
> people.

I totally condemn the unscientific pseudo-scientist who said that.

> > > > Seems to me you're imagining a situation similar to today,
> where
> > > an
> > > > immigrant would be immediately swamped (ideally) by the
> > > Englishness
> > > > (or similar -ness) of the place.
> > >
> > > No my point is that you should realise that skills, languages
> and
> > > institutions can move, or cease, quite independently of the
> people
> > > who use them. I am saying that you only have an argument that

a

> > > certain skill came from Europe, and there is no reason to

assume

> > > that anything else came.
> > >
> >
> > And that's what made America what it is today? BTW why should
> > I 'realise' that? Is it a moral imperative? If you want to

believe

> > that this is necessarily the way things happened I won't tell

you

> to
> > realise otherwise.
> >
>
> More to the point, we do not know what happened but you are

drawing

> conclusions anyway.

True, that's what linguists do. A professional hazard, I'm afraid.

>If you have evidence that archery was a
> Nordwestblok skill that came the Belgic part of Europe to England,
> then you only have evidence about this skill.

And I have claimed otherwise? I don't get this.

>That's no a "moral
> imperative". That's an imperative of reason.
>

Erh, what? My brain is too small to follow your line of reasoning.

> > > > Actually they were part of an
> > > > invasion, but must have served as a lower class. Kuhn found
> > traces
> > > of
> > > > that instituton in Nordwestblockland. They were not

immigrants

> > > > leaving a mark, they were part of the definition. That's why

I

> > > think
> > > > there was such a difference in the attitude of the 'plebs'
> being
> > > > armed I think. Would AngloSaxons have trusted Celts enough

to

> arm
> > > > them?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why not? You seem to have a neat idea of language boundaries
> > > matching political boundaries.
> >
> > Erh?
> >
> > >Everyone fought everyone in dark ages
> > > Britain, and everyone allied with everyone else at one time or
> > > another.
> >
> > Odd. I got the impression the Anglo-Saxons drove back the Celts.
> >
>
> The English language replaced previous languages. We do not know

how

> many there were. For the most part, however, the English people,

did

> not geographically displace their predecessors. This can be
> determined from genetic evidence.

Yes, I watch Discovery too. And from this follows?

> > >In any case, it was the Normans, French speakers, who armed
> > > the peasants of England before Agincourt.
> > >
> >
> > If the French-speaking Normans were so keen on archery, how come
> > their colleagues back home weren't?
> >
>
> If the French speaking Normans at the time around Agincourt were

so

> keen on archery, then why had they not been so keen on it a few
> generations before?

I seem to recall that Harold got an arrow in his eye?

>It is seems to me the longbow, and the training
> for it, was a new thing, brought into being by people thinking how
> to win wars. It had not existed previously in England or Belgium.

In other words bow and arrows are a British invention? Why am I not
surprised?

> > > > >However
> > > > > firstly your theory ignores the possibility of arms race
> being
> > > the
> > > > > case (the English developed better bows, and encouraged

the

> > > > > peasantry to practice and compete).
> > > > And why is that, was the question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Secondly, I would think the most
> > > > > obvious period for NWBlok entrance into Britain would have
> been
> > > the
> > > > > Belgae (perhaps = Fir Bolg in Ireland) who fled the

Romans.

> > > >
> > > > Yes, if they should have made up a free component of British
> > > society.
> > > > And the Fir Bolg were Celts, the NWBlock people wasn't.
> > >
> > > You mean they were Celtic speaking, don't you?
> >
> > That's right, I mean they were Celtic-speaking Celts.
> >
> >
> > >If any ancient people
> > > known to history was Nordwestblok it was surely the Belgae.
> >
> > Surely, my foot. Please list a couple of Nordwestblock words

that

> are
> > known in a Belgae context, in Britain.
> >
>
> Caesar seems to indicate that they had spoken a different language
> than the Gauls, but they seem to have become Celticised, as indeed
> had most of Europe. You may be aware that there is hardly a tribe
> name we know from that time who has not been considered a possible
> case of a tribe who were only superficially Celtic. Consider the
> Boii.

I have now considered them. Unfortunately that did not make me
experience any Nordwestblock words known in a Belgae context, in
Britain.

> In any case, the Belgae lived in the right time and the right

place

> to have been the successors of the Nordwestblok speakers. Which
> other tribal groups can we say that about?
>

No they didn't. They lived to the south of them, and at the same
time. Kuhn thinks they were a group that was temporarily successful,
and had conquered the land down to the Seine just prior to Caesar's
arrival. The name of the Parisi (of Lutetia Parisium) would be an
example, since it's from *par-isi- "on the Oise", the confluence of
the Seine and Oise being a few tens of km's upstream from Paris.
Note the Un-Celtic preserved p- (cf. the proper Celtic tribal name
Are-morica "on the sea"). Another example is the name of the Seine <
Sequana, with preserved -kW- although Gaulish is p-Celtic.
And another thing, Kuhn distinguishes between pre-IE Nordwestblock
(also called the ar-/ur- language) and IE Nordwestblock; two
obviously very different languages spoken in sequence in the
Nordwestblock area.

> > >But by
> > > Caesar's time it seems likely that the Nordwestblok language,

if

> > > there was one, was on the way out.
> > >
> > > > I would think
> > > > the most likely period for the NWBlock people to enter

Britain

> > > would
> > > > be after their societies were overrun and Germanicised by
> their
> > > > Eastern ex-Jastorf neighbors.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah. You mean earlier than Caesar?
> >
> > Around the time of Caesar and later. Ariovist and his army would
> have
> > been Germanic, but Arminius and his uprising was at least partly
> > still Nordwestblock.
> >
>
> How do you judge that? What is the evidence for that?
>

Caesar and later Tacitus describes a situation where the tribes
close to the are constantly harassed by tribes from the interior of
Germania, which are described as belonging to the Suebian
confederaton. Archaeology shows that the Celt-like civilisation on
the right bank of the Rhine (until then archaeologically
indistinguishable from that on the left bank) and the civilisation
of western North Germany (ie. the Nordwestblock civilisation) at
that time is overrun by a culture to the east the upper class of
which is indistingushable from Poland to Thuringia.

> > > > >Thirdly, why would Eastern Germanic contain a word from NW
> > Europe?
> > > >
> > > > Good question. In order for that to happen, the *ark- stem
> would
> > > have
> > > > had to be part of the language expanding out of Thuringia,
> which
> > > is
> > > > not a totally unlikely proposition. The -azna part of the
> Gothic
> > > word
> > > > also sets it apart from the other Germanic occurrences.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Any path for words from Thuringia to Gothic territory would
> surely
> > > be much later than the demise of the Nordwestblok language?
> >
> > I think you misunderstand. The *ark- root would have been not a
> > Nordwestblock loan into Germanic and Italic, but a gloss common

to

> > these three languages.
>
> Than I do not understand the point being made.
>

You're right. I've made a mess of it. The fact that these words
have -a- in Latin shows that they are loan words in that language,
so that the *ark- root might have been a Nordwestblock loan into
Germanic and Italic, contrary to what I wrote. Mea culpa.

Torsten