The spread of Germanic (Was Re: Morimarusa)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- On Sat, 1/16/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > > (2) Przeworsk itself was earlier Germanized by Yastorf elements
> > > coming in from the West and Northwest.
> >
> > That's where I'm not so certain. If Celtic was an elite language,
> > who knows what language the masses of Przeworsk spoke before the
> > invasion of the inhumating people.
> >
> > GK: Whatever that language was ("Venedic" perhaps) it was
> > submerged by incoming Yastorf influence (we know there was no
> > Przeworsk before that happened)whose language was just as
> > prestigious as Celtic.
>
> Is this a linguistic thesis you propose?
>
> ****GK: Am I talking about grapefruits?*****

If you have some competence in that field, I think you should have.

> > The "invasion of the inhumating people" is a fantasy which exists
> > only in your brain.
>
> Because?
>
> ****GK: There is no evidence of any "invasion" such as you propose.
> The adoption of an inhumation rite (with no discernible Sarmatian
> characteristics) rather suggests "influence" (not necessarily
> Sarmatian) on local aristocracies.*****

I can see Koryakova and Epimakhov's talk of the general relationship between nomads and sedentaries is getting to you. Here's the deal: there wasn't any 'local aristocracy' in Przeworsk to influence. And since Zarubinia at the same time fell to Sarmatians (judged to be that solely on arrowheads found) they are the major suspects.

You like cowboy movies, you'll understand this one as pattern

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_samurai

So, there would be three collective agents:
agent a: farmers (fishers, hunters) who can live off the land, but can't protect themselves
agent b: nomads who live off the a in return for protection against the c.
agent c: nomads who live off the a, period.

The question is, how would the a manage to set aside resources to educate a warrior class? Solution: hiring some of the c to become the b. This became standard. As Don Corleone said: 'Why haven't you come to me before?'. The offer of protection is meant in earnest, not just as a racket, which it is in a state that has established its monopoly on the use of force.

> > The Bastarnians had chieftains with Germanic names in the early
> > 2nd c. BCE,
>
> http://tinyurl. com/yl7kc6j
> I have proposed to explain the Bastarnian names Clonix and
> Clondicus on the basis of a Grimm-shifted root that would exist in
> Germanic otherwise only as a loan from a substrate language of
> people connected with amber-mining. On the basis of that Bastarnian
> seems to have been para-Germanic. We reached that conclusion years
> ago. What do you think you achieve with a behavior like that?
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/64761
>
> ****GK: "Para-Germanic" means nothing to me.

What are you doing in cybalist then?

> My "behaviour" consists in restating my view that these names were
> Germanic, and that the Germanic linguistic identity existed long
> before the time of Caesar. *****

Exactly. That's your idea of proof. George has said so and by that speech act, if necessary, repeating it, it becomes truth.

> > and their culture (Poeneshti-Lukashiv ka) was created by the same
> > Yastorf impulses which produced Przeworsk and Oksywie. The
> > carriers were known as "Sciri" to the people of Olbia as early as
> > 240 BCE.
>
> It seems you are arguing here against the origin of Germanic coming
> in from the east.
>
> *****GK: That is correct.****
>
> But the inhumating invaders would have spoken either an Iranian
> language, or, if they were former mercenaries for the Romans (cf.
> the Golden Cementery), Latin.
>
> ****GK: All this is fantasy. The inhumations of Przeworsk do not
> intimate Iranic or Latin speech or any linkage to Kuban area
> culture. Cf. above.****

Yes, do cf. above.

>
> The candidates for the title of ancestor of the Przeworsk language
> are:
>
> 1) Jastorf
> 2) Some previously existing language in the Przeworsk area.
>
> ***GK: One thing archaeologists have demonstrated is that the local
> Pomeranian culture was not instrumental in the development of the
> Przeworsk culture in its initial phases. Which suggests that there
> is very little backing, if any, for hypothesis (b). On the other
> hand, the archaeology of Zarubinia suggests a rather important role
> for the Pomeranians (with Yastorf and La Tene playing second fiddle
> here). It is my view that in Przeworsk, Poeneshti-lukashovka, and
> Zarubinia there was a period of functioning multilingualism at the
> top: Germano-Celtic in Przeworsk and Poeneshti-Lukashovka (the
> latter, Bastarnian, would explain some of the comments of Polybius
> and esp. Livy, as well as the Protogenes statement), and Venedic-
> Germanic-Celtic in Zarubinia.****

Most linguists see an early contact phase with Italic in the past of both Germanic (Kuhn) and Slavic (Gol/a,b), the cognates involved however turn out mostly to be in the 'mots populaires' layer of Latin. It is tempting to assign that set of words to Venetic. But given that contact (including words without Italic correspondence) there must have been some early contact between Germani and Slavs, within Przeworsk and Zarubinia.


Torsten