From: george knysh
Message: 64237
Date: 2009-06-23
--- On Tue, 6/23/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
--- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> Forgetting that hopeless (whether old or new) Odin scenario, and
> just concentrating on "Nemetes" as a possible source of the Slavic
> "Nemtsi/Nimtsi" .
Call it the Ariovistus (Harjagist-) scenario then. It's the same thing. Both are titles, not names.
****GK: Ariovistus was certainly a name for Caesar. His title (since 59 BCE) was "rex". No point in rehashing the Odin pseudo-history of Snorri Sturluson BTW.****
> --- On Mon, 6/22/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > BTW
> > > > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Nemetes
> > > > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Niemcza
> > > >
> > > > That would make sense if the Nemetes had come all the way
> > > > from Przeworsk-land with Ariovistus. The question is then:
> > > > how close would the Slavs have to have been at the time A.
> > > > left with them for that to be their designation for Germanic?
>
>
> GK: A direct derivation of the Slavic term from the Caesar time
> "Nemetes" hardly seems possible.
Au contraire. It seems impossible to avoid.
http://tinyurl. com/mr42x3
****GK: You're missing the point. The old idea that there were "Slavs" in 1rst c. BCE Przeworsk is untenable. I'm not sure you can speak of "Slavs" anywhere at that time. But if there already were some genuine proto-Slavs somewhere in 75-58 BCE it would be considerably east and north of Przeworsk (cf. Shchukin's excellent analyses). These protos would thus have borrowed the term for Germanics from "Venedic" intermediaries (if this hypothesis is correct). It would thus be not a direct but an indirect derivation, like the later "Vlach" via Gothic.****
> Whether it could have come to them from a Venetic/Venedic
> expression for "Germans" (or "western neighbours") might be worth
> investigating. Perhaps there is an analogy to the Germanic "Wends"
> for Slavs, or "Vlachs" for Romanians etc. (to Slavic via Gothic).
> If one assumes that the Lusatian culture and offshoots were
> basically Venetic/Venedic, and did with "Nemetes" what the early
> Germanics did with the Celtic "Volcae", then the transmission might
> have taken place within the Zarubinian culture period (Zarubinians
> being Tacitus' migrant "Venedi" and prime contributors to
> historical Slavic ethnogenesis. > >
Seeing as the name Volcae fits into my whole Bolg- scheme I was wondering if they were not originally an ar-/ur- speaking coast people.
How about the Nemetes being a subgroup under Venetic/Lusatian instead? Then as the Venetic (Wendisch) Nemetes became Germanified the name stuck. The fact that a majority of them emigrated under A. and only survived as scattered refugees in Denmark would help that transition a lot too.
****GK: What you call "Venetic" Ukrainian linguists refer to as "Illyrian" or "Celto-Illyrian". There is an interesting study identifying a number of such "Illyrian" hydronyms in the Ros' river basin (south of Kyiv). They could be linked to the spread of the Zarubinian culture in the 3rd c. BCE And the possibly "Illyrian" ("Venetic"?) Zarubinians (Late Lusatian/Pomorian culture) were accompanied by Jastorf elements (their "Nemetes"?). That's a possibility. Though the folk-etymology "speakers/non-speakers" seems much later, perhaps as late as the time of Cyril and Methodius.****