Re: Another tamga mark?

From: Torsten
Message: 66374
Date: 2010-07-25

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

That is my proposal, yes.

> and does not reflect the position of Kuhn you cite below

No, because it is my proposal.

> (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.

All my positions and proposals are postulated. So are yours.

> That position is from Kuhn, so it seems I'll have to translate for
> your benefit what I quoted already in
> 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.

Proto-Germanic is defined as the common ancestor of all attested Germanic languages. Grimm's law has applied fully in all of them, and therefore it has also been applied in the common ancestor Proto-Germanic. That is the way Proto-Germanic is defined.

> An otherwise Germanic dialect in which only the "transition of PIE
> k- to h-(ch-) in anlaut" was lacking should not be so described.

That's the way it is. Sorry.

> It's misleading.*****

I am sorry to hear that you have been misled.

> 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"?

Properly, it would be described as 'the/a stage before Proto-Germanic, or (ad hoc) Proto-Proto-Germanic'; the term pre-Germanic should be reserved for unrelated (non-Germanic/non-IE) languages replaced by (and becoming substrates of) Germanic.

> I suppose some might do this (e.g. Kuhn, yourself).

Most do.

> But not all.

True, the use is somewhat lax.

> 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.

Your point being?

> 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.

You got it, Sherlock.

> It also explains why the Romans would not bother to see this minor
> discrepancy as an indicator that these populations were somehow "not
> Germanic"...*****

That is correct. Kuhn mentions the example of the non-Germanic one-element-plus-suffix name of Segestes versus the Germanic two-element name Segimerus in the same family as evidence of an ongoing Germanification of the Cherusci.

> 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 Neu߸
> 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.*****

Advance arguments for that, or I'll ignore that line.

> 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 - tribe names as Chamavi,
> Cherusci and Chatti, mountain names as Hümmling, Hils and Harz,
> place names as Harste, Heerse etc - still all manners of old k- have
> come through unshifted - 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" -. 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".

1) Linguists do.
2) Those words may not even be Indo-European, cf. Uralic kumpa "wave; small hill", Latin cumulus "hill", ON kumbl "mound", German kuppe "rounded hilltop" and Finno-Ugric *kule- "hear; ear", Yukagir xol- "voice", Proto-Turkic *qulγaq "ear", Estonian kell- "bell".

> In any case Kuhn hardly
> provides evidence for associating the Grimm-shift as a total process
> with Ariovistus and his campaign******

That's not his proposal, but mine. So are you also saying that this guy
is unrelated to Napoleon Bonaparte and his campaign against Russia?

> > 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.

It's a proposal. Do you want to disprove it?

> 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 perhaps not.

> and for some of the peoples (eg. the Nemetes
> ) 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.*****

Why would they?

> > 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?*****

Possibly Przeginia, if cognate with Germanic ferguni and Celtic Hercunia.
On the other hand the river Tanew might point to Grimm being in operation there.

> and by a Slavic-speaking layer (Charudes).
> *****GK: There is no proof for this.

I don't need to 'prove' it. All I have is to defeat the contending theories, which is made up of a suggestion that the Greek(?) javelin word darrað etc was loaned to the Przeworskers by Thracian(?) javelin sellers. But who knows, maybe the Dardanians
were spear people.

> We know nothing of any "invaders from the east" either historically

It's a prehistoric area, and you know it.

> or archaeologically

There is plenty of evidence for something new entering Przeworsk in phase A3.

> for this time frame. The theory of Slavs in Przeworsk is
> antiquated.*****

No argument. Ignored.

> > (the discussion about "inhumations" seems to have petered out...).
> And?
> ****GK: That seemed to be your main argument for "invaders from the
> east" (:=)))*****

And now I have one more.

> > 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).

They were not any more Suebians in the ally sense, as Ariovistus' alliance had collapsed with his death.

> 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).*****

Operation Barbarossa
included Finnish, Italian, Rumanian, Croatian and Hungarian troops. Therefore the attacking army was not German?

> > 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.
> '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.*****

Your proposal is that they stem from Jastorf.

> 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.*****

Which means the Finnish, Italian, Rumanian, Croatian and Hungarian troops in 1941 were not German. What is your point?

> . 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


> 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.*****

Your point being?

> > 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.*****

I think you as best you can are trying to preserve the divion of the peoples of Europe in to the Good Race, the Bad Race, and the Race that is too dumb to know any better, and that is why you are so insistent on non-identity of Suebian (evil Jastorf) and Przworsk (too dumb etc).

> > 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:
> '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 Dąbrowska 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 δόρυ,
> dóru and δούρατ-, dóurat-. Why would the elite call them that, if
> they were indigenous to Przeworsk?
> *****GK: They could have picked up the term through trade,

The javelin trade? You don't trade weapons with your neighbor. You arm yourself.

> or from the Getans.

Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprachresten (which list all potentially interestting words in that area) knows it as a word for pear tree in Albanian.

> You still lack evidence for an invasion from the east.*****

You lack evidence for trade in weapons with the Getans, who were preparing to go to war.