--- On Sun, 6/28/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> But here it is: the Roman expansion under Caesar and other field
> commanders in the area where later Romance languages are spoken is
> matched on the other side of the Rhine in the area where later
> Germanic languages were spoken by a number (at least two) with the
> Germanic(?) title of Wod-an- "army leader".
>
> GK: But Germanic spread eastward some two centuries before it spread westward (if indeed that is what happened with Ariovistus in the first c. BCE), "protos" or "proto-protos" notwithstanding.
No, Jastorf spread eastward. It might have been Proto (...) Germanic speaking,
****GK: Like I said, I'm not getting into your "pre- para- proto-" games. All the literature I have consulted acknowledges Jastorf as carrying a form of Germanic. And that is good enough for me. That explains Tacitus' comment about the Bastarnians. There are plenty of good "Germanicists" on this list. Let them comment on your peculiarities.*****
but in that case we should find Proto (...) Germanic placenames in the western parts of Germania (actually you could argue that's what the IE NWBlock language is, it's linked archaeologically to the Harpsted-Nienburg culture,
http://de.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Harpstedt- Nienburger_ Gruppe
(no English version, it seems)
which like Jastorf is descended from the Nordic Bronze Age culture).
> That does not fit the Snorrist scenario. But then neither does the
> career of Ariovistus. There is no discernible relationship between
> a westward movement which began ca. 72 BCE and events further
> east.
>
> >
>
> > Let me see if you understand this one: Everywhere the *xarud-
> > name appears you find high percentages of haplotype I
> > (Oppenheimer' s 'Ivan').
>
> > GK: The Wikipedia "Croats" article suggests the haplotype I
> > convergence
...
> > between Croats and Scandinavians is due to events which happened
> > 30,000 years ago, not in the time of Ariovistus.
>
> 30,000 years ago is the time that haplotype broke away from the
> rest. Since historians, also DNA historians by default assume peace
> and quiet and no major take over by a foreign male gene pool where
> they haven't heard of one, they automatically assume that
> everything is founder effect, ie. that those groups were
> distributed the way they are today because people moved into the
> areas we find them in today immediately after the last Ice Age.
> Thus it is a default assumption, based on no further data. However,
> a scenario in conformity with that presented by Snorri
****GK: The Snorri scenario is not taken seriously by genetic scientists because it is ridiculous and has no foundation in reality. I don't see you as advancing anything new beyond your usual mantra which you were asked long ago to discontinue...****
>
> http://www.sacred- texts.com/ neu/pre/pre03. htm
>
> ('The Æsir took wives of the land for themselves, and some also for
> their sons; and these kindreds became many in number, so that
> throughout Saxland, and thence all over the region of the north,
> they spread out until their tongue, even the speech of the men of
> Asia, was the native tongue over all these lands.') would explain
> the distribution of haplotype I (there's a map of its distribution
> in the Files under 'Maps, The Orgs of the Brits').
>
> GK: Are you saying that the Przeworkers= "the men of Asia"?
Yes.
> Where's your proof? There is no discernible "eastern influence" in
> the constitution of Przeworsk. Snorri's fantasy can't fill the
> gap.
Maybe Wikipedia can.
****GK: Prove that "the Germanic -speaking men of Asia" constituted Przeworsk and brought Germanic speech thereto from Asgard? OK let's see your Wikipedia evidence.****
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Przeworsk_ culture
'Influences
Scholars view the Przeworsk culture as an amalgam of a series of localized cultures. Preceeded by the Pomeranian culture (especially the Bell-Shaped sub-culture, the Przeowrsk tradition arose due to influences which are considered external to the Vistula basin. The most prominent influences are those of the La Tene (especially in metal-work) and Jastorf cultures.
****GK: Unimpeachable stuff. Nothing from the East.****
To the east, in what is now northern Ukraine and southern Belarus, was the Zarubintsy culture, to which it is linked as a larger archaeological complex.'
****GK: That is OK also (though there are also important differences). One ought to add that two other local cultures belong to this larger "linkage": Poeneshti-Lukashovka in Moldavia and the Oksywie culture in northern Poland.****
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Zarubintsy_ culture
'The Zarubintsy culture was of mixed origins. Valentin Sedov postulates that the culture arose when tribes local to the Pripyat and middle Dnieper basin forged contacts with peoples of the Milograd zone and the Scythian nomads.
****GK: This is either incorrect or badly stated. The Zarubinian culture had four substrate components: (1) Milograd/Pidhirtsi (identical to what Sedov calls the "tribes local to the Pripyat and [the northern portion of the GK] middle Dnieper basin" (2) the settled "Scythians" of the southern portion of the Middle Dnipro basin (these were almost certainly "Thrakoid") (3) the Pomorian culture carriers who settled in Western Polissia during the 4th c. BCE) and (4) incoming Jastorfers. The Scythian nomads had largely evacuated the Ukrainian steppes by the time the Zarubinian culture began to form (3rd c. BCE).*****
Malcolm Todd also sees evidence of Celtic influences.
****GK: What is unclear is whether this influence was direct or mediated. A good case can be made for both scenarios.****
The Scythian-Sarmatian influence is evident, especially in pottery, weaponry, domestic objects and personal ornaments.
****GK: That depends on the time frame. There is no such discernible influence in the early phases of the Zar. culture.****
The bearers of the culture engaged in agriculture and livestock raising as well as hunting. There is evidence they also traded wild animal skins with Black Sea towns. They practiced cremation burials, with the ashes placed in an urn or pit. Settlements include both open sites and hilltop villages defended by ditches and banks, structures built to defend against nomadic tribes from the steppe.
****GK: Correct.****'
How will you prove that no Iranian or otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE?
****GK: If you want to involve Ariovistus it would have to be somewhat earlier? But no matter. I've studied the history of the Z. culture pretty thoroughly. (There is also a lot of relevant stuff in Shchukin for you).(I'm away from my notebooks till July 10 so what follows is from memory). There is no contemporary or near-contemporary evidence of any kind to prove or indicate that an "Iranian or otherwise hostile group arrived in the Zarubinian culture in the mid first century BCE". There is evidence that a series of Sarmatian assaults (probably by the Iazigi) were undertaken against Zarubinian fortresses sometime in the last decades of the 1rst c. BCE (arrowheads,signs of fire etc. The fortresses were later rebuilt). Prior to this, the relationship between Zarubinians and the Scythian complex to the south had been amicable. There are Zarubinian burials in the Scythian Lower Dnipro cities, and Scythian burials in the Zarubinian Middle Dnipro fortresses.
After the departure of large Iazigian contingents towards the basin of the Tisza, amicable relationships were resumed (until a new Aorsan Scythian dynasty embarked on empire building in the mid-1rst c. AD. The Zarubinians do not appear to have been affected by the Getan expansion under Burebista in the mid-1rst c. BCE.) Why would the Iazigi have attacked them? In the period ca. 150-110 BCE Iazigi and Roxolans had been Scythian vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak son of Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power. Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomous under the King of Pontus' overall suzerainty. They retained this autonomy after the death of Mithradates. The Iazigi (located between Danube and Dnipro) were not well disposed towards Scythians. They had probably collaborated with Burebista (whose destruction of Olbia was a major blow against the economic interests of Scythia). The Zarubinians as old Scythian
trading partners were a target.
I should add that AFAIK that is also no evidence of any invasion of the Przeworsk area from the East in the mid-1rst c. BCE. ****