From: tgpedersen
Message: 64292
Date: 2009-06-29
>No, you didn't.
>
> --- 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.Since you're out of your depth here.
> All the literature I have consulted acknowledges Jastorf asNone of the existing literature is aware of the need for an event of dispersal to explain the seeming sudden breakup of the Germanic languages at the time.
> carrying a form of Germanic. And that is good enough for me.
> That explains Tacitus' comment about the Bastarnians.Which one is that?
> There are plenty of good "Germanicists" on this list. Let themBring'em on.
> comment on your peculiarities.*****
> but in that case we should find Proto (...) Germanic placenames inI still don't get the contents of your home made words. But here's a comment:
> 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 noWhat would a geneticists know about that? They reject it, because that's what linguists and archeologists tell them to.
> 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 mantraApparently not. Try reading the paragraph again.
> which you were asked long ago to discontinue...****
> >I'm undecided as to where Germanic came from, but I lean towards Jastorf.
> > 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.****Dates?
> 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.****
>
>That wouls have to be in the beginning of the period 72 - 59 BCE, as far as I can see. That qualifies as mid first century BCE for me.
> 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 prettyAha. Tweak that by a few decades, and I'm in business.
> 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 theAnd then they weren't.
> 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 theAha, south to Saxland.
> basin of the Tisza,
> amicable relationships were resumed (until a?? You just said they did? And why would Napoleon or Hitler attack anybody? But they did.
> 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 ScythianWhen?
> vassals. The victory of Mithradates' generals over Palak son of
> Skilur destroyed this renewed Scythian power.
> Scythians, Roxolans, Iazigi, and Bastarnians became autonomousThere is a sharp archaeological break (Zäsur) in Przeworsk with a new upper crust with international, Roman grave goods. What traces would Iazigi (= Yass, etc) have left?
> 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. ****