Re: Hachmann versus Kossack?

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> I've just re-read the various items Torsten graciously
> translated for us. It would seem to me that:
>
> (1) Both writers implicitly agree that Elbe-Germanic
> is the name of the archaeological culture which
> evolved in the Elbe river basin during the
> "transitional" period of the first century BCE, out of
> the previous Jastorf culture, which it replaced.
>
> (2) Hachmann contends that this EG cult. pushed
> westward from the Weser to the Rhine in the course of
> the 1rst c. BCE (accompanied by Przeworsk associates),
> and that many traces of it were already available in
> situ east of the Rhine by the turn of the millennium.
> He identifies EG with the Suebi and Przew. with the
> Lugii.
>
> (3) Kossack agrees with the notion that this push
> (verified in the historical data) was real, and
> continuous, but he thinks that, for EG at least, its
> firm and permanent traces west of the Weser are not
> available until after the withdrawal of the Roman
> legions to the Rhine in the late second decade of the
> first c. CE.

There is a very good reason why you don't find any Cherusci, Marsi,
Chatti, Bructeri, Chauci and Sicambri there after Germanicus went
looking for them. That's why I think we can tentatively identify the
Chatti etc as NWBlock speakers and Chattic/NWBlock as the language
substrate responsible for the geminates in Germanic. At the same time,
perhaps we should look for NWBlock substrate as responsible for
geminates in Celtic?


Torsten