--- tgpedersen <
tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> GK: I agree that Bastarnae is in all
> likelihood a
> > term devised by Iranians. I agree that *bast-
> could be
> > an Iranian loan. This does not prove your
> contention
> > that Germanic originated in Southeastern
> Europe.
>
> (TP)Do you have a better scenario?
> I suppose you have a hunch what I'll say next if you
> concede this one?
****GK: It would be somewhat pretentious for me, a
non-linguist (it looks as though I shall have to
remedy this (:=)), to come up with scenarios as to the
origin of languages. So, no, I don't have any
comprehensive scenario with respect to Germanic. My
chief concern is to point to difficulties in yours. As
to time frame and locale. It seems to me that the
traditional viewpoint is much more in tune with extant
historical and archaeological facts (perhaps also
linguistic ones).
Let's do this step by step.
You believe (unless I have sorely misunderstood your
point) that Germanic did not exist prior to the epoch
of the Sciri and Bastarnae. It was, you say, "born in
200 BCE".
Here is a document dated ca. 200 BCE, but dealing with
events perhaps a generation earlier [the usual date
suggested for these events is ca. 230 BCE). It is the
famous Protogenes Decree of the Olbia city-state. You
can find it here:
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/cchampion/HST352/Powerpoint/Cities-Kings.ppt#273,3,Problem
Cases
If the link doesn't work just look it up under
"Protogenes" and "Olbia".
Anyway here is the translation (the original is in
Greek):
"Deserters were reporting that the Galatians and the
Sciri had formed an alliance, that a large force had
been collected and would be coming during the winter,
and in addition that the Thisamatae, Scythians and
Saudaratae were anxious to seize the fort, as they
themselves were equally terrified of the cruelty of
the Galatians. Because of this many were in despair
and prepared to abandon the city...etc... [at which
point good old Protogenes comes up with the $$ to help
rebuild the city walls against the expected assault].
This is worth commenting on in great detail, but I'll
only note a few points:
1. In 230 BC the "Galatians" were already known to the
Olbians (and their neighbours) for their "cruelty".
This suggests that they had recently conquered the
area we later associate with the Bastarnae (West
Ukraine and Moldavia in essence), and had done so in
very rough style.
2. The "terrified" populations (Olbians and their
western neighbours) felt they were next in line. We
don't know very much about the Thisamatae and
Saudaratae. They were most probably allies of the
Scythians. We do know, however, that at that time the
Scythians had abandoned their classical haunts and
were migrating to the south and to the west
(essentialy to the Crimea and the Dobrudja). There is
an interesting paper by L. Bylkova, delivered at
Aarhus in 2002, and available on line at
http://pontos.dk/publications/papers-presented-orally/oral-files/Byl_archaeology_ethnicity.htm
which indicates that between 275 and 150 BCE (approx.)
there was a substantial "no man's land" between
Scythians and Sarmatians, and that the territory of
the most impressive 4th c. BCE Scythian "imperial
kurgans" on the Lower Dnipro was completely devoid of
any kind of population, settled or nomadic. We know
from later sources that Scythians repopulated the
Lower Dnipro (as urbanized settlers) from ca. 150 BCE
in connection with the resurgence of their power (King
Skilur/ d.110 BCE/: a recently discovered plaque with
Greek inscriptions glorified this monarch as
controlling all the lands "between Ister and Tanais").
It is Skilur's Sarmatian vassals who first crossed the
Dnipro. So Bastarnian-Sarmat contacts were
non-existent before 150 BCE.
3. The "Galatians" who roughly conquered the later
Bastarnia were not simply Celts. They were a congeries
of "northern" tribal units under the leadership of
Celtic and Celticized elements. We know this from
their archaeological remains [all this quite in line
with the traditional view of the enormous Celtic
cultural influence on the early Germanics]. They
already had a hefty Germanic component (strong Jastorf
c. presence). These must have been particularly
violent if the announcement by "deserters" from the
incomers that more "Sciri" were on their way
"terrified" the various populations east of the
Dnister. We don't actually know if these "deserters"
accurately mentioned "Sciri" as a tribal name, or
whether the information was that more people like
those "Galatians" who had been particularly "cruel"
during the recent events were expected to assault
Thisamatans etc... and have a go at Olbia itself. The
later Bastarnian tribes are designated by other names
(Peucini, Atmoni, Sidones /reminiscent of Tacitus'
Sitones/).
4. In any event, "Sciri" is a Germanic word (the
earlest recorded?) It refers to a new population. The
archaeological data supports the view that it is a
population of the north and west, not an outgrowth of
local material conditions.
So the conclusion should be that the earliest known
Germanics migrated southward from the area of the
Pomeranian and Jastorf cultures around the middle of
the 3rd c. BCE as a distinct linguistic community. The
contacts with Sarmatians mentioned by Tacitus came
much later.
The origins of Germanic thus long antedate "200 BCE".
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/