Re: Przeworsk as the genesis of Germanic

--- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

>
> > P.S. The difficulty with Przeworsk as "prime
> Germanic"
> > is not only associated with the Gothic issue, but
> also
> > with the Bastarnian issue. There is no Przeworsk
> at
> > Peuca, and we have the three Germanic names of
> > Bastarnian leaders of the early 2nd.C. BCE. Nor is
> > there any Przeworsk in the area of Moldavia (also
> > Bastarnian acc. to Strabo) whence the "Sciri"
> (first
> > historically attested Germanic term?) threatened
> Olbia
> > ca. 240 BCE. As you know, I think these early
> > Sciri+Galati "associates" mentioned in the
> Protogenes
> > Decree are the Bastarnians. Their culture is
> Jastorf+
> > Pomeranian (with later assimilation of local
> Getans +
> > Sarmatian elements), but not Przeworsk. Despite
> > cultural differences due to their local
> contacts,the
> > speech was still Germanic in the time of
> Tacitus.****
>
>
> Those three 'Germanic' names were Clondicus, Cotto
> and Talto according
> to your source.
>

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/49731

****GK: You can read the source directly here:
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/celts/index.htm

>
> Hubert was a great archaeologist. He knew Gibbon of

course,but based his views on more recent (and more
accurate) scientific work. Namely Muellenhof's
Deutsche Altertumskunde, vol. II, p. 109.****

>

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/13998Gibbon(?)'s

> words bear repeating:

****GK: Certainly, but with appropriate commentaries.
Gibbon had no archaeological data to supplement him,
and his manuscripts were not always first class.****

> "
> From Gibbon's "History Of The Decline And Fall Of
> The Roman Empire",
> vol 1:
> "
> [Footnote *: The Bastarnae cannot be considered
> original inhabitants
> of Germany

****GK: Not in their historical haunts.****

Strabo and Tacitus appear to doubt it;

****GK: Strabo, ever cautious, simply says that he
knows little or nothing about them, as indeed about
most of the population east of the Elbe. Tacitus does
not doubt their Germanic language, but feels they
don't live up to his ideal standard of
"Germanism"(Germania, 4), because of their
"contamination" by Sarmatians et al.... ****

> Pliny alone calls
> them Germans: Ptolemy and Dion treat them as
> Scythians, a vague
> appellation at this period of history;

****GK: It refers to those inhabiting the lands of
"classical Scythia", whatever their ethnicity. Pliny
was quite aware of this: cf. NH,IV, 80-81.****

Livy,

> Plutarch, and Diodorus
> Siculus, call them Gauls, and this is the most
> probable opinion.

****GK: The Germanic identity was frequently
undetected by Greek and Roman authors, because of the
dominant position of the Celts at that time. I think
that the original alliance of Galatae and
Sciri(Celts+Germans)=Bastarnae, was also originally
identified as Celtic (Polybius).****

They

> descended from the Gauls who entered Germany under
> Signoesus.

****GK: This is where archaeology has disproved
Gibbon's theory. The Bastarnae descended largely from
Pomerania and the Jastorf area.****

They

> are always found associated with other Gaulish
> tribes, such as the
> Boii, the Taurisci, &c., and not to the German
> tribes. The names of
> their chiefs or princes, Chlonix, Chlondicus,
> Deldon, are not German
> names.

****GK: Muellenhof and Hubert disagree.***

Those who were settled in the island of Peuce

> in the Danube,
> took the name of Peucini.
> "
>
> In my scheme, the Bastarnians would have been
> para-Germanic, ie. their
> language was a cousin that didn't make it.

****GK: Tacitus didn't seem to agree with this.****

>
>
> Torsten
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping