From: george knysh
Message: 64786
Date: 2009-08-17
--- On Mon, 8/17/09, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
My Armorican conjecture needs for the Veneti and Osismi to be non-Celtic, at least in language. And sailing the sea is not really a Celtic thing.
****GK: That's one of the problems with Tacitus' "Venedi". There is nothing "maritime" about them. Not even "riverine" as with the later Vikings.****
> > But the Aestii, as related here
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Aestii
> > might be related to the Osismi/Ostimoi
> > http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Osismi
>
> GK: Have you checked this in Caesar, Pliny, and Strabo?
It's a conjecture. They don't mention any connection.
Why would Tacitus' spelling differ ?
****GK: The reason I ask is that Tacitus usually followed Caesar's "peoples" spelling. And if his Aestii= Ostomoi/Osismi he might have been expected not just to use that spelling but to make a connection with them rather than with the "British". Or connect his mysterious East European Venedi with the Gaulish or Italic Veneti...OTOH if the linguistic disconnection had happened a very long time before...****
> OTOH what if "Venedic" (Baltic and in the interior) was a
> language exhibiting both "Celtic" and "Illyrian" traits?
I'd have to have a list of traits to determine that.
> I'll have a look at and make a list of some "Celto-Illyrian" names
> associated with the Zarubinians (who largely stemmed from the
> Pomorians/Lusatians
****GK: I'll have a list in a couple of weeks.****
Torsten