> See
>
> http://ifa.amu.edu.pl/sap/files/42/05Gasiorowski.pdf
>
> where it is argued that different realisation of /r/ (including
> retroflex ~ bunched and uvular ~ velar ones) date back to Old English.
Retroflex r in Wessex, Brittany, Holland. And since r in Norwegian and
Swedish retroflexes the following /d/, /l/, /n/ and /s/, one might
assume that r was once retroflex too. All possible refuge areas, from
a geographical point of view. If that's what they are wrt. retroflex
r's, what language was responsible?
Belgic/Fir Bolg?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgae#The_Belgae_outside_Gaul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fir_Bolg
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60815
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/60821
The ur-/ar- language?
(and here I add my translation of one of Kuhn's article on the
subject, which I've otherwise placed in the files, to make sure people
read it; the illustration that goes with it is still in the files)
'A SECOND OLD EUROPE
[Namn och Bygd 59, 1971, S. 5266;
print version of a lecture, made at the VI. Nordiske navneforskerkongres
(Helsingør, 23.26. 8.1971)]
The title of my lecture presupposes that I recognize that there
already exists one Old Europe for the place name researcher. It's the
legacy of Hans Krahe known as the Old European river name system, the
significance of which to the Nordic countries is one of the main
themes of this congress. But my recognition of this Old Europe is
characterized by many restrictions and modifications. Of these, three
are important here, viz. that Krahe's system does not the merit the
position he gave it, that the borders he drew for it, constantly
modifying them, can hardly be correct, and that it does not make up
the oldest layer of river names recoverable by us (cf. ref. 1, 320
ff.). There exist many more other river names from prehistoric times
and part of them form a rather homogenous group which just as much
merits being called a system as the core of the great name group which
Krahe has collected and ordered. This is the "second Old Europe" we
will discuss.
We must in the Nordic no less than in the other Germanic countries
take account of prehistoric names which are not only non-Germanic, but
also non-Indo-European. For also in those countries, as is well-known,
people have lived and of course given names too in millenia before the
invasion of the Indo-Europeans. But the long source-less time, and in
particular the radical transformation of the Nordic languages before
the beginning of the literate period would have erased most traces of
them, so that it would seem almost hopeless to reach some tangible
results. In spite of that, when I appr. 15 years ago began to turn my
attention to these questions, I became aware of a slowly increasing
number of names also in Scandinavia, most of them in Norway, which by
their phonology, morphology or the distribution of their stem appeared
to be pre-Germanic. Separating whole groups of them in which one case
supports the other, will only succeed if we compare the oldest Nordic
onomastic material systematically with that of other countries, namely
those which have shown themselves particularly rich in very old
onomastic material. This I have attempted on a clearly circumscribed
material.
In this endeavour I took, somewhat at random and at first without
having the Nordic area in mind, as a starting point Dur-, a river name
stem widely distributed in Europe, to which belong among others Durius
(Duero) in Spain, Duranius (Dordogne) in Southern France and two Duria
(Dora) in Upper Italy. As the phomeme sequence -ur- in old names is
rare in general, it puzzled me that the uppermost Po area beside the
two Duria also has several rivers named Stura, also Nure, Curona and
even more. They are joined, with stem vowel -i- or -a-, by Taro, Ira
and Stirone. The -ir of these last ones is even much more rare than
-ur (and -ar). A particularly impressive group of such names I found
more easterly around the Lake Como. This was called lacus Larius in
antiquity, and into it a Maria (Mera) streams, and into that a Liro.
Shortly west of Como however is a river Lura. Thus Lur-, Lar- and Lir-
close to each other. This seemed to permit me to consider also the
mish-mash of the previously mentioned Stura and Stirone to be relevant.
But also Dur- is attested near Lake Como. On its western side is a
mountain named Monte Duria. Thus not only lakes and rivers were given
names of the observed type. This is true btw also in Krahe's system,
so that his opinion, that most of his name stems were 'water words',
alone for that reason is untenable. Landscapes too and settlement and
camp sites had of course names early on which could be formed by the
same means, and also of those a lot may have persisted through the
millenia.
This sketchily described state of affairs in the higher, more
mountaneous parts of the Po area stands, as far as my knowledge goes,
in contrast to a complete absence of river names of the described
morphology in the lower, more open parts. In Southern France a similar
contrast seems to exist between the Rhone depression and the adjacent
mountaneous country to the west. A third landscape rich in -ur- and
-ar- names is the mountaneous country of northern Swizerland, in
particular the area of the river Aare. There one finds a Dura (die
Thur, -> Rhine) and then Aare (-> Rhine) and Suhre (-> Aare), as well
as der Jura (mountain massif), further a group of related formations
with a consonantal suffixation or derivation. There is a river Orbe
(-> Neuenburger See) and a river Surb (-> Aare), die Urnäsch (->
Sitten -> Thur), die Uerke (-> Suhre) and the town Murten (on the
Murtensee), then die Sorne, (-> die Birs -> Rhine), die Sarine (Fr.
name of the Saane) and the town Sarnen (with Sarner See) plus Uri
(with Urnersee) and finally 5 times the river name Murg, which is
reckoned to be Celtic but can't be so everywhere. Most of these
derivations are geographically so clearly associated with the basic
forms Dur-, Sur-, Ur- etc. that we may count them as belonging to this
group. Also the upper Po country has its share of such fornmations,
among others with the river name Urbis (Orbe), which should be
identical with Orbe in Switzerland as well as an Orb in southern
France and one in Hesse plus the town name Urb in the Rhineland. Other
than that, Switzerland seems only to have Dur- (Thur-) in common with
the Po area. However, most of its formations are also attested in
other related areas.
The situation of the -ur-/-ar- names in Switzerland is related to the
one in Upper Italy. Also here there are adjacent more open areas where
such names are rare. O. Springer, Die Flußnamen Württembergs und
Badens (1930), contains besides Murg only one Murr and one Morre,
further perhaps Würm (from Wirm). On the other side the names we
discussed seem to stretch only a short distance into the high
mountains. If we add the Italian (and the Southern French) group there
emerges an impression of a relict or refuge area in mountain areas
which had become suitable for settlement relatively early.
I found -ur-, -ar- and -ir- names in all the European countries in
which I searched, mostly, it seems, scattered thinly, but here and
there concentrated as in the areas mentioned. This is in particular
the case in a large area in Northern France, Belgium, Luxemburg, the
Netherlands and North West Germany on both sides of the Rhine, with a
center of gravity around the mountain and forest landscapes of the
Ardennes and the Eifel (the "Fünfländerraum", five country area). It
contains hundreds of names of the types we've mentioned, in some
places conspicuously concentrated. Thus the Moselle above Trèves is
joined, shortly interspersed, by Saar, Su:r (Sauer) and Sir (Syr), and
this Su:r is joined by Ur (Our, with the town of Urb), and this again
joined by die Irsen and Iren (Ihrenbach). We have in these areas,
mostly several times or even often, the stems Ur-, Ar- and Ir-, Sur-,
Sar- and Sir-, Dur-, Fur-, Mur-, and Rur- plus further, mostly in
suffixed forms of the types mentioned above. It seems as if there has
existed a widespread tendency in the west to extend the short stems of
the basic layer, and above all in four kinds of ways, with -s-, -k-
and -n- suffixes as well as (probably late only) with -apa. The former
happened in particular around the Rhine. There we find names with the
stem forms Urs-, Burs-, Durs-, Murs-, Nurs-, Surs- and Wurs-, further
Ars-, Bars-, Fars-, Kars-, Mars- and Nars- plus Irs-. Here I leave
outside consideration the fact that a perhps large part of these stems
could be based on a form of type of *Duris-.
The group with the -k- suffix is distributed further and also more
important. It is strongest in the Netherlands, but extends over almost
the entire area of the names mentioned and is probably its most
impressive characteristic. The Fünfländerraum can be circumscribed in
general with formations of the stem Urk-: from river Ourcq (-> Marne)
in the west to river Orke (-> die Eder -> Weser) in the east and from
river Ource (-> upper Seine) in the south to the island Urk (in the
Zuidersee) in the north. The name stems which form this group are
Urk-, Burk-, Kurk-, Lurk- and Murk-, Ark-, Bark-, Kark-, Mark-, Sark-
and Wark-. Of the round dozen old island names on the southern North
Sea coasts three, Borkum, Marken and Urk, belong to this group of
formations, while three more, Marne, Voorne and the no longer existant
Voorn, are formed with an -n- suffix. This type of formations is
distributed widely, but is not so prominent as the type with the -k-.
The suffixed forms mentioned greatly contribute, especially by their
abundance, to giving the onomastic material of the Fünfländerraum its
particular appearance, but are not limited to it. Also the fourth and
probably youngest form of derivation that I mentioned, the one in -apa
- Or-pe/Ur-f, Dor-pe, Sor-pe and Lor-fe, Ar-pe, Mar-pe and Sar-pe -
has, although it is almost completely limited to the mountaneous area
to the right of the Rhine, parallels in the far distance (Lith.
Dumpis, Nurupis, Surupis, Urkupis usw.). Almost completely limited to
our area are till now, apart from isolate formations, only the stem
forms Fur- and Rur-. The first belongs to coastal areas, the second
non-coastal ones.
It is, as far as I can see, on most sides hardly possible to indicate
the borders of the large area under discussion with any clarity or
certainty. But towards the Northwest a clear border can be discerned.
It may be characterized with six of the otherwise very rare Burk-
names: from the island Borkum at the mouth of the river Ems via Borken
on the lower Ems but also west of Münster (in Westph.), the
Borken-berge at Haltern (on the Lippe) and Bork north of Dortmund to
Borken SSW of Kassel. North and east of this approximate line
formations of the type we followed become extremely rare. I shall came
back to this "Borken border". But a thin chain of such names do
stretch along the North Sea coast to the Jutland peninsula. There is a
river Stuhr at Bremen and river Sturia (Stör) -> river Elbe in
Holstein, river Egi-dora (Eider) with river Sorge (older Sorke) and
several Marne or Marren. Also the island name Föhr presumably belongs
here. This chain leads to a remarkable stronger group of such
formations in the south, west and north of Jutland, the most of which
have close relatives or perfect cognates in the more southerly
occurrence areas of these name types, but also in Norway and also
Sweden, whereas the Danish Islands are almost empty. On this point
compare the map drawing below with its name list.
With that I face the question of the Scandinavian part of the
mentioned name groups. But first some remarks on methodology. I'm
aware that I will have categorized many names wrongly, and that many,
perhaps the majority, also could be explained satisfactorily otherwise
- and especially in the Nordic countries usually are -. This is
inevitable in such old name layers, and that goes for Krahe's name
sequences too. I am however convinced that I may assume that names or
name stems which are distributed over various different (old) language
territories in similar groups and applications and which lack specific
markers of later or local origin, in general will belong together even
if they in a few of the relevant countries can be explained from the
(present) language of those. One may interpret our river name Su:r bei
as "the sour one" easily, but not the island names Norw. Surn-øy and
Greek Syrie:, Sy:ros and Syrnos. Apart from that, with the name types
I presented it is the peculiar layering and grouping which would
remain an enigma with that type of explanation. Furthermore, such a
procedure as yet usually pays too little attention to the morphology
of the names. In spite of that it is obvious, looking at the above
example, that some Germanic rivers might have got the Su:r name the
other way. I accept this willingly in the knowlegde that the peculiar
overall picture which we see before us, could never and in no way have
been there if most of it had resulted from rather random coincidences
and similarities of very diverse origins. The same is true of one
other serious source of errors, that we of no prehistoric name are
certain that we know its oldest form and of many may be certain that
we do n o t know it. Even if a third or even half of the names I've
collected and approved should have to be excluded, there would remain
enough of them to justify my conclusions. Also the incompleteness of
the material will not disturb the overall picture by much.
One of the most difficut questions is that of the phoneme
correspondences. This is the case as well in general to what extent
may we eg. treat Murg- and Murk- (plus Morg- and Mork-) or Dur- and
Tur- as one? as especially in particular with respect to the
Germanic Sound Shift. That this, compared to more southerly parallels,
in the names mentioned in Switzerland and also the north west area
apparently applied only sporadically should not disturb us, since
these areas only very late became Germanic geworden. But in the
geatest part of the nordic countries such an explanation fails. That
most of those names of that area which have seemimgly unshifted
consonants only should have arrived there after the soundshift had
taken place is, apart from a few cases, completely improbable. Or did
this language change leave them untouched? This is actually possible.
However, thew explanation for that would take up so much space, that I
here abstain from it, at least, at least for the time being, and treat
the non-application of our sound shift in most of the Nordic names,
which I deal with here, as a fact which we can't very well deny.
I turn now to the situation in Norway, where the most important part
of the onomastic material is collected and ordered in a particularly
good and transparent form. Here it's the names of the islands no less
than those of the rivers which contain parallels to the examined
formations in the more southerly countries. This is so because of the
nature of the country and the particularly high age of settlement
along its coasts. From O. Rygh's great onomastic works come hundreds
if formations, which have either exact cognates or at least relatives
in those -ur- and -ar- names, which turned out to be so typical for
the southern areas we outlined. There in the South there are not many
characteristic stems and types of suffixed forms, of which Norway
doesn't have its share (or seems to have). It is not possible here to
list many of the parallels, so I'll restrict myself to a few cases in
which Jutland forms the missing bridge
First the stems already mentioned Urk- and Burk-. Jutland has the
latter in Bork (on the Ringkøbing Fjord), the former probably in Vork
(W of Vejle) and Orke-krog (on the Solkær Å, SE of Kolding). In Norway
I'll mention with this stem only Ork, the old name of the river in
Orkdal, and the Yrkefjord (E Haugesund). Sweden contributes here at
least wth the lake name Örken (Småland). Burk- is found i.a. in the
Norwegian river name Borkn (Bortna, Gauldal) and the lake name Borken
in Östergötland. Then Urt-. France has the river name Orthe (->
Sarthe) and Belgium Ourthe (-> Maas), the Netherlands the old town
names Orten and Lower Saxony Ohrte, Denmark Orten (NW of Varde) and
Orte (western Fyn) and further an Orte-krog (on the Uge Å, SW of
Åbenrå) and Yrt (in Sundeved), Norway i.a. Orten and Urter as island
names and twice Ørteren as names of a lake, and likewise Sweden has
Örten. To the stem Murs- belongs a Mursa plus Mursila and Mursella in
the old Pannonis, on the Lower Rhine the old hydronym Mörs, in Jutland
the island name Mors and in Norway Mors (Moss on the Oslofjord), even
this the old name of a river.
The Netherlands Fur- (and Fu:r) briefly mentioned above have many
relatives in the Nordic countries, on the Jutland peninsula in the
island name Fur (and probably also in Föhr), in Norway in the frequent
river names For/Fora, Fura and Forn, in Sweden at least in the lake
name Furen and the well-known river Fyres-å. The island names Voorn
and Voorne in the West seem to have an exact cognate in the west
Norwegian Fonn. Also Dur-, the name stem, from which I started out
with, is not quite infrequent in the Norwegian river names nicht ganz
selten (s. NE 33 and 35 f.). In Jutland it's different. There I found
this stem, aprt from Egidora , only in the derivations Dørken (at
Give) and Dorf (Vendsyssel). Dorf may be compared to the old river
name Durbia (France) and Durbis (Britain) as well as probably Dyrfa in
Western Norway (NG 11, 599). Dørken seems only in the West to have a
few relatives (in the Netherlands de Durk, in Western England a river
Dork).
One of the most intersting among the name stems I have traced is the
Sir-, which is coupled with Sur- and Sar- in the Moselle area. Of the
few old name stems which contain -ir-, this is the most widely
distributed. Norway has it in the island name Si:ri (Utsira), outside
of Haugesund) and the rivers Sira (Agder) and Sire-å (Hallingdal),
further two *Si:r-vin, Sweden apparently in the island name Sirk-ön
(in the Åsnen, Småland), Denmark in the place name Sir or Sire (N of
Holstebro) and in the island name Sejer-ø (old Syr-ø). There follows
then in the Netherlands a deserted Sier on the island of Ameland,
itself probably an old island name, the name of the brook Sire-beke
(Zierbeek) at Brussels, the already mentioned Sir (Syr) in Luxemburg
and a bit more to the south (in Lorraine) the place name Sierck, which
probably also was the name of a brook, in Switzerland (Thurgau) a
Sirn-ach and futher in Southern Italy the island Sirenes (outside of
Campania) and der river Siris (Lucania) as well as the Sirnides
islands outside of Crete. And there are still many more names. Sir-
(and Sīr-) is also at least 6 times, from Norway and Sweden to Italy
and Greece used in connection with islands and even more often and
similarly layered with water courses. This ensures that the names are
related and forbids us, as was done in Norway, to explain the stem
from the historical individual languages focussing on just one of its
uses. With the closely related Sur- the situation is most likely
similar to that of Sir- (see above).
Their considerable share of the stem Fur- as well as of the -k- and
-s- derivations - in Jutland alone in Bork, Vork, Orke-krog and
Dørken, Bars-ø, Mors, Nors and Ørs - testifies to the close
relationship between the Nordic -ur-/-ar- names with those of Western
Germany and its neighboring countries, whereas other things, as shown,
suggest much wider connections. The examples I have adduced will at
the same time suffice to make it clear that beside Krahe's system,
also distributed over large parts of Europe, have existed and exist
many old names, above all river names, which in the phonological form
of their stems as well as in their methods of derivation are related
to each other, and also by their distribution on landscapes show that
they belong together, so that we with the same right (or not) may
organize them as a system as Krahe's name sequences. On both sides
much work remains to be done, much more than hitherto performed,
before we get close to the insight attainable. Especially in the
Nordic countries most such work still lies ahead of us. As long as not
all (seemingly) pertinent names have been collected and ordered - and
also filed - we may not hope to solve the most important questions
with any reliability. One thing however stands clear in my conviction,
that there exist two systems in the oldest onomastic material in
Europe, which are related in many respects, but fundamentally
different in others, and that also the Nordic countries have their
share of them, and at least of the latter even a large share.
I will now try to say something about the relationship of these two
name systems to each other. Both must have been fashion phenomena
which were active over long time and might have have had long
afterlife. They differ from our later name fashions especially by the
fact that these latter are consistently centered only on the identity
of the suffixes or second name elements, and then perhaps on agreement
in semantic category of the stems or first elements (eg. personal
names), the former ones on the other hand evidently above all on the
phonetic similarity of the name stems and a limited selection of means
of derivation. This may have been connected with understood a
consistent lack of insistence that the name should mean something. But
names should designate, not mean something, so that also such systems
could fulfill its purpose. This to us strange way of naming would
probably have matched the development stage of its time.
In the methods the two systems the two systems used the difference is
great, but not absolut. The most striking one is probably that both
limit themselves almost exclusively to the three vowels -a-, -i- and
-u-, whereas -e- and -o-, the most important basic vowels of
Inde-European, are almost absent. In this respect in Krahes sequences
-a- is by far the most frequent and -u- the most infrequent, in my
groups however -u- is in front and -i- in third place. Krahe in his
groups has non with the phoneme sequence -ur-, which forms the core of
the other system. On the other hand the phoneme sequence -ar- enjoys
great importance on both sides. Krahe's sequences contain - in praxi,
not in theory - the stems ar- (with arg-), kar-, mar-, nar-, sar-,
tar- and war-, which I for the most part have claimed for my system.
this is obviously justified with ar- and sar-, and probably also with
the more infrequent nar- and tar-. For they are almost completely
limited to those lands to which the -ur- forms are indigenous, and
have partly a clear relation to them. The confusion of Sar and Sur on
the Moselle, which I have mentioned several times, has many parallels.
In contrast kar- and in particular war- seems for the overwhelmingly
largest part to belong on Krahe's side. There are beside them only a
very few kur- and wur- with typical characteristics of the second
system and their distribution is not bounded as eg. the way eg. ar-
and sar- are. The last -ar-stem remaining, mar-, was, it seems, from
early on at home in both systems. Still, much remains to be adjusted
here, and details could be mentioned which seem to testify to a mix of
the two systems. It wouldn't surprise me, if a more meticulous
investigation focusing on the distribution of the particular
constructive elements on landscapes would suggest that the systems
initially were more clearly separated and most of its common pool of
stems and formation elements were the late product of an interchange.
For understanding how the two compared systems are connected their
distribution area is of course of great relevance. Krahe has
circumscribed that of his names at least roughly. It covers most parts
of Europe, and almost only marginal areas in the South and the East
remain outside, so that he with full right called his system European.
Still, also here there things to amend and probably more to
complement. Krahe paid in particular very little attention to the
great fluctuation in the denity of his names. It's my impression, that
these usually decrease appreciably, where the other system is at its
strongest. This then is also distributed very widely, but much more
irregularly and, as already stressed, with large lacunae. His names
are situated most densely, as far as I can see, in most of the extreme
margins of Europe which are reached only weakly or hardly at all by
Krahe's names. They also reach into Asia Minor and probably even
further. On their distribution in the central parts of Europe the most
important things I can say are already mentioned. In the East at least
Lithuania has a large share, and similarly according to old sources
the whole periphery of the Black Sea. Apart from that I know only very
little of the situation in Eastern Europe.
The thesis that this fragmentary overall picture of the distribution
of the -ur-/-ar- names has led me to, is the following: These names
were once in use in almost all parts of Europe and also beyond its
borders. But then Krahe's system penetrated into its center, replaced
there the majority of the formations of the other system, stopped its
further development and expansion and pushed it far to the west and
south and especially into the more inaccessible mountain landscapes.
However, it took hold later in many or most of the countries and
landscapes in which the names of the second system till then had been
able to stand their ground and establish themselves. Most of what
supports this theory has been said or hinted at above. But some
amendments are necessary. The area where I had been struck by a
confusion of landscapes rich and poor in -ur- names - in upper Italy,
Southern France, Switzerland, North West Germany and its neighbor
countries and also Denmark -, borders on those poor in such names in
the East and North East. From this direction the destruction must have
come, at least in the western half of Europe. That my name system was
once distributed more widely is indicated by scattered occurrences
outside of the circumscribed areas, mostly in more remote areas. Also
the Danish Islands have their share. On those I know three pertinent
formationes, all lying at their edges, the already mentioned place
Orte (on Fyn) and Sejer-ø and the the lake name Fure-sø near
Copenhagen, to which J. Kousgård Sørensen drew my attention. Most
occurrence of this kind, it seems to me, relics of an older
distribution area.
The state of affairs in Denmark are remarkable also for another
reason. If we ignore the geographically isolated Sejer-ø and Fure-sø ,
then the remaining 22 formations of the -ur-/-ar-/-ir-Systems form a
concentrated distribution in the western half of the country, the
boundary of which at first looks very random, since it divides Jutland
as well as Fyn in two parts, which however match the western boundary
the distribution area of the Late Neolithic megalith graves
(jættestuer) so conspicuously well, that coincidence is quite
improbable (see adjacent map). In this period, according to J.
Brøndsted the first centuries of the second millenia before Christ, or
at least not long after, the eastern boundary of the examined names in
Denmark thus seems to have estrablished or entrenched itself. There
are also other very old name types which are limitted to the thus
delineated western half of the country (thus the island names on -s
and the name Dover).
illstration: "Das zweite Alteuropa, The second Old Europe.jpg"
My next question is whether it there are reasons to connect one or
both of the old name systems with a particular linguistic or ethnic
group. There are such pointers, and they are so strong that I may try
to give an answer. They point to the -ur- names having been given by
non-Indo-European speaking peoples. Many of those countries which have
a large share of them - thus the main part of the Pyrenaic peninsula,
Liguria, Greece and the most part of Asia Minor - only late or never
became Indo-European, and the Greek names of these types are at least
for a large part said to be have been given by the pre-Greek
population, and they were hardly Indo-European. The same goes for the
name stem Dur-, which besides that betrays its foreign origin with the
attested non-Indo-European nominative form Dur (in Ireland). Also the
river Nar (-> Tiber) had such a name form. On top of all this, the
North German "Borken border" matches the north east border of a small
group of other names ot name elements which certainly or highly likely
are not Indo-European (ref. 4, 270-276), and in the largest part of
the Fünfländerraum old Indo-European names are very rare, but not so
Celtic, Germanic and Roman ones, so that we must assume a very late
Indo-Europeanization of these areas (cf. ref. 1, 324 and here ref. 3,
352 f.).
On the other hand Krahe was completely convinced that his river names
were Indo-European. The strongest support of that was and is its
distribution as sketched above. On top of that, most of its elements
were explainable, or seemed to be, from Indo-European languages. It's
another question whether they were all of that origin. Against that I
have raised serious objections. (ref. 1, 326 ff.). But in spite of
that we may presumably assume, that in the main it was Indo-European
tribes or peoples who distributed Krahes river name system. I'll add a
perhaps weak argument. The Indo-Europeans, according to the evidence
of their language, were initially inland inhabitants without knowledge
of the sea. This matches with the fact that the other name system
seems to have persisted particularly well around the coasts of the
North Sea, of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, as if the new names
and thus the new people had stopped up before them. Therefore it is
probably so that the invasion of Krahe's name system and the retreat
of the second reflect the Indo-Europeanization of the core areas of
Europe and that in large part thus migrations stand behind this.
It should be possible, then, to place the processes we mentioned in
time. Krahe placed the genesis and dominance of his system in the 2nd
pre-Christian millenium. This may, at least what regards the onset,
also be supported be strong arguments which he did not take into
account (s. ref. 2, 219 ff. and ref. 1, 333 f.), and with this
modification it seems to be true. Many elements of his formations have
lived on a long time, and many of the names are certainly younger.
Other than that, we will have to rely on the assistance of prehistoric
research. The case of the old name border running through Denmark
shows that we might expect much from having it cooperate. For the
"Borken border" however it doesn't provide us with any explanation.
Even if the many hundred names, of which I have presented samples
here, didn't form a coherent group, the would suffice to reduce ad
absurdum Krahe's claim that his names are the basic and core layer of
hydronyms in most of the participating countries. After all, it's
obvious and admitted by himself that of the great rivers of Europe
hardly a single one carries a name belonging to his hydronymy. The
second system appears in this respect to do somewhat better, but not
by much. I only need here to mention Po, Rhine and Moselle, the
tributaries of which are so particularly rich in -ur- and -ar- names.
Therefore I don't intend to place my system next to or instead of
Krahe's in the beginnings of the European river naming. There are
beside them further several hundred ancient appearing hydronyms which
are formed differently and of which hardly more han a small part could
be assigned to a third or even higher system, and which are of a
similar age or for a large part could be even considerably older. This
is in general not only the case for hydronyms. Also in this remaining
part the Nordic countries have their great share.
ref. 1 Hans Kuhn, Besprechung von Hans Krahe, Unsere ältesten Flussnamen
ref. 2 Hans Kuhn, Ablaut, a and Altertumskunde
ref. 3 Hans Kuhn, Die ältesten Namenschichten Frieslands
ref. 4 Hans Kuhn, Grenzen vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Ortsnamentypen'
Torsten