From: george knysh
Message: 66370
Date: 2010-07-25
> --- On Sun, 7/25/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Obviously the word [darraþ-/daruþ GK]must have
> been taken over after
> > the Grimm-shift. That took place during the expansion
> of the Suevi
> > under Ariovistus and followers.
>
> Ie. taken over by the sociological group who set the trend
> of Grimm-shifting.
>
> ****GK: This is your postulate, and does not reflect the
> position of Kuhn you cite below (which position is itself
> not wholly coherent).*****
>
> > GK: Some time ago Piotr had said that he would comment
> on this
> > particular time frame as a possibility for the
> Grimm-shift. I'm not
> > sure your position is anything more solid than a
> simple postulated
> > assertion.
>
> That position is from Kuhn, so it seems I'll have to
> translate for your benefit what I quoted already in
> http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65723
> Vor- und frühgermanische Ortsnamen in Norddeutschland
> und den Niederlanden (Pre-Germanic and Early Germanic Place
> Names in North Germany and the Netherlands)
>
> "Rome in general paid no attention to such matters. On the
> other hand stand strong arguments of various kinds which
> speak for continued existence of pre-Germanic dialects until
> at least far into the Roman times.
>
> *****GK: The non-completion of the Grimm shift is hardly
> sufficient for the claim that "pre-Germanic dialects"
> continued to exist. An otherwise Germanic dialect in which
> only the "transition of PIE k- to h-(ch-) in anlaut" was
> lacking should not be so described. It's misleading.*****
>
> The first clue is provided by the transition of PIE k- to
> h-(ch-) in anlaut. That was probably the last act of the
> Grimm-shift.
>
> *****GK: NB. "The last act" implies prior "acts". If a
> dialect has these prior shifts and lacks "the last act"
> would it still be described as "pre-Germanic"? I suppose
> some might do this (e.g. Kuhn, yourself). But not all.
> Especially in situation where the dialect would be ambiguous
> (i.e. retaining non-shifted elements of this "last act"
> along with shifted ones. Kuhn himself gives examples.
>
> The unwavering writing of C- in the name of the Cimbri and
> then in Pliny in Sinus Codanus and mare Cronium, which all
> correspond to a Germanic H-, led me early on to the
> conclusion that said shift had not yet penetrated fully
>
> ****GK: Again. "Not penetrated fully" (=lacking the last
> act) is not at all the same as not penetrated at all. It
> also explains why the Romans would not bother to see this
> minor discrepancy as an indicator that these populations
> were somehow "not Germanic"...*****
>
> in the North in the lifetime of Christ (Namn och Bygd
> 29,112 f. [here 28]). The situation would have been similar
> in the Low Countries and on the Lower Rhine. The K- of the
> name of the tribe of Cannine-fates, testified from Pliny on,
> is still pre-Germanic (cf. p. 36). Although it is believed
> that its first part lives on - with a preserved K- - in
> Kennemerland (Nordholland, old Kinnehem Kinhem), but its
> real Germanic form would appear in the inscriptional
> Mercurio Channini- (from the Eifel) and further in the place
> name Hennen (on the Ruhr, old Hennene, from *Hannin-), a
> neighbor to Villigst, which seems to contain the name of the
> Belgae people. The situation is similar with the Cugerni
> (left of the Rhine by Neuß and Xanten) beside the later
> Frankish Hugones. A forest in the vicinity of Essen, which
> later is called Heissi Hesiwald, is still called silva
> Caesia by Tacitus. Heerlen, east of Maastricht, is
> documented as Coriovallum in Roman times,
> Herven, east of Nijmegen, as Carvium (cf. L. Weisgerber,
> Bonner Jbb. 154, 98 and 101). These names are pre-Germanic,
> and yet their K-, also in Coriovallum which is far from the
> Rhine, has been shifted, and so is the K- of many Belgian
> names of these layers, as Harendre, location unknown,
> probably north of Brussels (-andr name), and Harveng, south
> of Mons, 868 Harvinium, probably closely related to
> Carvium/Herven (I owe these names to M. Gysseling). In the
> South on the other hand the new H- is attested already in
> the second century BCE [55 BCE according to Markey]
>
> *****GK: I don't think Markey's date for this is
> certain.*****
>
>
> Harigasti (Negau helmet) and in the first BCE in Harudes
> (Caesar). The much later Grimm-shift on the lower Rhine is
> much more comprehensible if the spread of it had to
> circumvent the North West Block, that is if that, or at
> least a large part of it, at that time did not yet speak
> Germanic. Also in that direction point the fact that
> although most k- have been shifted â€" tribe names as
> Chamavi, Cherusci and Chatti, mountain names as Hümmling,
> Hils and Harz, place names as Harste, Heerse etc â€"
> still all manners of old k- have come through unshifted
> â€" thus in the place namea Kaldern and Callendoorn and
> the appellatives knoll besides hnoll, Kotten [cot] beside
> Hütte [hut], Kumme Kumpf (cf. Greek kúmbos "bowl")
> beside Humpen, kring- (cf. Umbrian cring-) beside hring-
> "ring", Krippe [crib] (cf. Latin corbis) beside ON hrip
> "basket", OHG clinga "ravine" beside OE hlinc, and klingen
> (cf. Latin clangere) beside ON hlakka "scream" â€". If
> the conclusions above are correct, then these last names
> and words can hardly have become Germanic before the Roman
> period."
>
> *****GK: I see no problem with a Germanic dialect
> containing many instances of "incomplete grimm-shifts". In
> any case Kuhn hardly provides evidence for associating the
> Grimm-shift as a total process with Ariovistus and his
> campaign******
>
> >
> >
> > I assume therefore that the word was introduced with
> the object
> > itself by that elite which came to power in Przeworsk
> just before
> > that.
> >
> > GK: I still don't see
> > (1)how one can connect Ariovistus with the Przeworsk
> culture people
> > as his peculiar people
>
> Part of it, by conquest,
>
> *****GK: We have no evidence of that. Only of
> "invitations". Ariovistus' "people", with whom he had been
> active "away from home" for 14 years as of 58 BCE, seems to
> have consisted of about 15,000 warriors. A Suebian sub-tribe
> (we don't know their name: perhaps the Gubin Yastorf
> group?).******
>
> and for some of the peoples (eg. the Nemetes
> http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/58325
> ) by signing up to his cause of further conquest. They
> can't all have been equally committed, since Caesar left the
> Nemetes, Triboci and Vangiones to settle on left bank of the
> Rhine, in spite of his stated policy of driving all Germani
> back across the Rhine.
>
> *****GK: I agree. They might even have turned on Ariovistus
> during the rout, as some historians suggest.*****
>
> > and
> > (2)what was the nature and identity of this new elite
>
>
> Invaders from the east, the invading area being peopled by
> a pre-Grimm-shift speaking layer from Jastorf
>
> ****GK: Where is the evidence for the last phase of the
> Grimm shift not yet being in place here as compared to
> further west?*****
>
>
>
> and by a Slavic-speaking layer (Charudes).
> http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/58326
>
> *****GK: There is no proof for this. We know nothing of any
> "invaders from the east" either historically or
> archaeologically for this time frame. The theory of Slavs in
> Przeworsk is antiquated.*****
>
> > (the discussion about "inhumations" seems to have
> petered out...).
>
> And?
>
> ****GK: That seemed to be your main argument for "invaders
> from the east" (:=)))*****
>
> > as to (1). I would argue that Ariovistus was a Suebian
> (as that term
> > was understood in Caesar's time, i.e. before it
> acquired an expanded
> > significance in Strabo and even more in Tacitus). We
> don't know its
> > early unit references, though possibly/probably the
> Semnones were
> > already "in" (not yet the Hermunduri: cf. Pliny NH
> IV.100, or the
> > Marcomanni).When Suebian pressure was at its height,
> in the
> > immediate generations after Caesar, the best
> geographer of the times
> > (Strabo) did not identify the area of Przeworsk with
> them but rather
> > with the Lugii (cf. G. 7.1.3: the Lugii are not yet
> "Suebians" in
> > Strabo as they are in Tacitus).
>
> That is explained if we see the Suebi as 'those who
> followed Ariovistus'; by defintion then there would be none
> of them left in Przeworsk after Ariovistus moved on.
>
> *****GK: This explains nothing. For in that case "Suebi"
> would be a label applicable to all those who fought at
> Vesontio on his side. But they have their own labels, unlike
> the "Suebi" heading for the Rhine (why should they be more
> "followers of Ariovistus" than the ones already in Gaul?),
> and those of Ariovistus (the original 15,000).*****
>
> > We do have archaeological evidence that Przeworsk
> people
> > participated in the Suebian pressure
>
> That must be the evidence I translated for you that
> Ariovistus can be traced from Przeworsk to Wetterau. Cf.
> http://tinyurl.com/38cho2g
> 'Much circumstantial evidence points to the participation
> of Germanic people from Polish lands in the events that took
> place in the first half of 1st century BC and found their
> culmination in Gaul in 58 BC, as related in Caesar's
> Commentarii de Bello Gallico. At the time of the Suebi
> tribal confederation led by Ariovistus arrival in Gaul, a
> rapid decrease of settlement density can be observed in the
> areas of the upper and middle Oder River basin. In fact the
> Gubin group of the Jastorf culture disappeared then
> entirely, which may indicate this group's identity with one
> of the Suebi tribes.
>
> *****GK: As indicated above, this might (perhaps) be
> applicable to Ariovistus, since the historical Suebi stem
> from Yastorf.*****
>
> The western regions of the Przeworsk culture were also
> vacated (Lower Silesia, Lubusz Land and western Greater
> Poland), which is where the tribes accompanying the Suebi
> tribes must have come from
>
> ****GK: Which indicates that the Przeworskers were not
> Suebi. This agrees with Strabo.*****
>
>
> . Burial sites and artifacts characteristic of the
> Przeworsk culture have been found in Saxony, Thuringia and
> Hesse, on the route of the Suebi offensive. The above
> mentioned regions of western Poland had not become
> repopulated and economically developed again until in 2nd
> century AD.'
>
> > (though it's unclear whether this already began with
> Ariovistus:
>
> No, it isn't; see above. Don't try to confuse the issue.
>
> ****GK: Cf. the citation you yourself give
> http://tinyurl.com/38cho2g
>
> which indicates that the Przeworsk tribes accompanied the
> Suebi, but were not themselves Suebi.****
>
> > if it did, then the Marcomanni
> > might be candidates for "Przeworsk migrants", as they
> were on the
> > Main (where Przeworsk items were identified for the
> second half of
> > the 1rst c BCE) before Maroboduus took them to
> Bohemia).
>
> You could say that, if by 'Przeworsk' you mean 'the
> Przeworsk culture after Ariovistus left'.
>
> ****GK: I am talking about the Przeworsk culture on the
> Main. That is whence the Marcomanni migrated to
> Bohemia.*****
>
> > The elite would have been the first to Grimm-shift.
> >
> > GK: Why would a secondary group accompanying the
> Suebians do
> > that, if that is indeed the right time frame anyway
> (waiting for
> > Piotr
>
> I can't answer an argument that call an elite secondary. By
> definition, an elite, at least in times of happiness or at
> least happy anticipation, is something which is emulated by
> the rest of society.
>
>
> ****GK: But I disagree with your postulate. I think the
> evidence points to Ariovistus being a Suebian and to the
> Przeworskers not being Suebians at that time.*****
>
> > The question now is: why from Greek?
> >
> > ****GK: Might this itself suggest an earlier time
> frame?*****
>
> The time of the Grimm-shift is a terminus post quem.
>
> Here's another fact:
> http://bartoszkontny.pradzieje.pl/index_pl.php?content=time_of_war_03
> 'The standardization is manifested also by the forms of
> some artifacts: shaft weapon heads, which are a particularly
> individual element of grave goods, become more uniform in
> the analysed phase (especially types VI-VIII according to
> Kaczanowski (1995). Moreover, the shaft weapon heads allow
> to draw some conclusions about the fighting techniques. This
> is connected with the well known opinion that in the case of
> occurrence of two shaft weapon heads in one burial, one was
> considered as an element of a lance and the other, of a
> javelin (spear). The lance would serve in hand-to-hand
> combat whereas the javelin was used for throwing. The
> possibility of distinguishing such two kinds of shaft
> weapons has been already discussed for a considerable length
> of time (e.g., Nadolski 1951, p. 150; 1954, p. 51;
> Wołągiewiczowie 1963, p. 11; Godłowski 1977, p.
> 52; Fogel 1979, p. 88; 1982, p. 97; Kaczanowski 1995, p. 9).
>
> To clarify this issue for the Przeworsk culture the author
> studied the changes in frequency of burials equipped in more
> than one head in the Late Pre-Roman Period and in the Roman
> Period (Diagram 3)[23]. A following picture of changes has
> been obtained: more than one head can be found already in
> burials of phase A1, but in this and the following phase
> they are very scarce. From phase A3 the discussed
> combination grows in importance and the increasing role of
> javelins is supported also by the appearance of barbed
> spearheads in the grave furnishing (see DÄ…browska 1988,
> p. 43-44)[24]. The upward trend continues in the following
> periods to achieve culmination in phase B2b (more than 70%
> of weapon graves contained more than one shaft weapon head).
> Afterwards the importance of such assemblages in grave goods
> declines and they are finally absent in phases C2-D[25]'
>
> In other words, with phase A3, the phase of my postuled
> invasion, a burial set with two sets of shaft weapon heads,
> of which one is that of a javelin, ie a darrað (OE
> daroð "leichter wurfspeer", ie "javelin". It seem very
> likely that this javelin was called, by the people who
> introduced them into Przeworsk, by the Greek words
> δό�υ, dóru and
> δο��ατ-, dóurat-. Why would the
> elite call them that, if they were indigenous to Przeworsk?
>
> *****GK: They could have picked up the term through trade,
> or from the Getans. You still lack evidence for an invasion
> from the east.*****
>
> Torsten
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>