Re: Schöffe I (a few details on OHG)

From: Torsten
Message: 67448
Date: 2011-05-01

>
> >Some facts point in that direction, eg the later presence of
> >Swabians across the Rhine from where Ariovistus' Suebi were
> >defeated by Caesar.
>
> Thus (for the record): according to your theory "Suebian = Schwabe".
> Right?

According to standard theory. But otherwise: yes.


> > > If you can't do that, then Ariovist's Germanic subjects are
> > > of no higher relevance than any other Germanic populations
> > > in the following 5-6 centuries after Ariovits's era. The
> > > territory where High German is spoken wasn't Germanized in
> > > the 1st c. BCE in spite of the presence of some Germanic
> > > groups in the upper Rhine valley.

> >Ariovistus' brother-in-law was king Voccio of Noricum
>
> These words in the 1st sentence of a paragraph you put as a reply
> to my remark on the importance of Germanic continuity in South
> Germany between Ariovists's years and the start of the real
> Germanic colonization of South Germany (5th/6th century):
>
> as nonsequitur and as off-topic as they come!

I wanted to make it clear why it's likely that it was Ariovistus who undertook the cleansing of Southern Germany of Celts, since traditional history, based on Caesar's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico
has him operate in Gaul alone, west of the Rhine.


> >The fact that they were, is shown by the matching non-Germanic
> >words in p- in Low German and pf- in High German.
>
> Why? Do you know of any of the Elbe & Vistula area Germanic tribes
> to have spoken Germanic dialects having this weird phonem [pf]???

Yes. They all do ;-) Now at least.
More seriously: I think there has been Low German / High German
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diglossia
in northern Germany, like there is now, ever since the arrival of the Bastarnae upper class in the mid 1st century BCE, and that the co-presence of Early High German in Northern Germany is the reason why it belongs to a separate political entity than the Netherlands.


> > > > As a result of the consequent Roman efforts to subjugate all
> > > > of Germania, the member tribes of the Suebi alliance became
> > > > displaced, moved east, conquered the Celtic tribes that stood
> > > > in their way and settled, the Quadi in Moravia, and the
> > > > Marcomanni in Bohemia.
> > >
> > > With some probability that they later on were called Bogoarii
> > > or Baiuvari, who started Germanization of Southern Germany in
> > > the 6th-7th c. (And there are theories that they were mixed
> > > with some populations from the Caucasus region, perhaps some
> > > Alanic populations.)

> >Or much earlier. This has also to do with the destruction of the
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum_of_Manching
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum_of_Manching#The_end_of_the_oppidum
> >Ščukin speculates that it might have been destroyed by Ariovistus.
>
> What the heck "earlier"?! Don't you understand that some centuries
> afterwards (and prior to the real German colonization) has to be
> left to be filled in with the history of the Roman Empire in
> that area? You've written all the time of Ariovist's epoch and
> the late, real German epoch, as though between them there had
> been mere 2-3 decades and not 6-7-8 centuries! By doing so, you
> obstruct any discussion whatsoever.

There was no Roman empire north of the Danube and the Limes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Limes_and_borders.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Limes_Germanicus_2nd_c.png

As for what happened south of it, the Germanization of that area has always been a mystery, AFAIK. Fortunately for my scenario, it is immune to that question, since it supposes a two-way Bastarnization, one going south with Ariovistus, one going west.


> >so Suebians might have hidden here.
>
> <OMG>
>
> >Yes. They were the people who lived in Southern Germany before
> >Ariovistus arrived.
>
> Where was the mass of Germanic population afterwards, in the
> 6 centuries to come, in the same southern Germany?

I don't know. As I said, AFAIK that question has not been solved. I corrected part of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agri_decumates
'According to Tacitus, the region had originally been populated by the Celtic tribe of the Helvetii but soon Germanic Suebi[4], possibly under Ariovistus, settled there before migrating, around 9 BCE, to Boiohaemum (modern day Bohemia). After the Suebi left, the area was again inhabited by Gauls. Later on, the region was to become part of the Roman Empire.'
but I didn't delete the sentence of the return of the Gauls, which AFAIK is without foundation in archaeology.


> >And irrelevant, since they were Celts.
>
> So, no pre-German proto-Germans there in S-Germany in the centuries
> between the 1st c. BCE and the 6th c. CE.

What's a pre-German proto-German?


> >True. Some claim there are Slavic toponyms in Graubünden.
>
> <Jessasmariaunjosef>
>
> >All of them. I propose that simultaneously with Ariovistus'
> >expedition south (perhaps lured by a offer from Caesar),
> >Bastarnian infiltrated and took over the whole
> >Germanic-speaking area, including Western Germania and
> >Scandinavia.
>
> On what do you base your parallel proposal?

On archaeology; the new homogeneous upper class spread out over all the heterogeneous Germanic peoples in Przeworsk and Jastorf.


> >Don't forget that the description of the 'Südsiedlung' includes
> >fights with native peoples.
>
> Native peoples were Celtic and Romance (hence Wallis, Waals, Walch
> and not because of the stultitiously assumed "Slavic" thingamajig).

Elegant way of avoiding saying 'stupidly' which would require you to argue for your point of view.
And:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg
Frankish conquest of
Swabia 502. Swabia was Celtic and Romance?
Southern Thuringia 774. Thuringia was Celtic and Romance?
Bavaria 788. Bavaria was Celtic and Romance?


> >Okay. First you give me a short (say, 20-21 lines) description of
> >all the details of how Prussians took over Germany in the years
> >following 1871.
>
> Wenn ich mit der Muffe jepufft wäre, dann täte ich's. :-)

You don't see the parallel?


> >I need critical input.
>
> No, you need admiration, praize, elogious Blubber...

Mmmm, that would be nice.


> >And besides, no one else has anything to offer for the period in
> >question.
>
> You are not able to understand the objections raised by "no one
> else" to certain aspects of your "proposal" (esp. the ones
> regarding chronologies).

I was talking of alternative scenarios. No one has them, at least for part of the stretch my scenario covers.


> >All they offer is attempts at censorship
>
> <Jessasmariaunjosef>
>
> >I wouldn't get so much qualified criticism in a blog.
>
> But you anyway give a darn on qualified criticism.

I would love to hear qualified criticism.


> >The dialects which retain *Å« have nothing in common besides
> >being conservative;
>
> Yes of course, but how come that this conservativeness coincides
> with the historic "inroads" of the northern/western Germanic
> groups, in contrast with the "Bastarnian" south-German area.
> (Besides, English is not a good example: although it has many
> features of Low German, it's [au] shift is as clear and broad
> as it is in the "Bastarnian" area (cf. house, mouse etc. in
> contrast with regional German u:s, u:t, Hu:s, Mu:s & Netherlandish
> [üjt] etc.), from Augsburg to the Balaton lake in Hungary.
> A second curious feature in common with the "Bastarnians",
> after "-ham".)

I've noticed myself that there is a certain 'tone' common to Dutch and Swiss German, although I can't put a finger on what it is. Perhaps it's part of an old Verkehrsgemeinschaft on the Rhine.


> >Possibly Italic.
>
> In the sense that Venetix spoke a Romance or language or one
> related to Messapian/Yapygian? Or one related to Etruscan?

No, to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellic
(Oscan/Umbrian). Douglas and I managed to fix a connection between the language of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabines
which is an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbrian_language
and the Latin sociolect of the 'mots populaires' (should actually be 'mots sacrés et populaires').


> >>On topic is your own theory, esp. the part of it dealing with
> >>the history of the penetration by the "Bastarnian noble ones"
> >>of other Germanic "Pfalz" dwellers.
> >
> >OK.
>
> Why don't you elaborate on this? Coz it is this that's the
> gist of your theory, and not merely the "start" of your story
> (Ariovist)!!! Can't you see that? Or you were in need of a
> nudge?

Because it is not crucial to my scenario, which accommodate both those sub-scenarios, the one with Bastarnianized Swebians staying in place in Swabia and the one in which they are 'supplemented' with Bastarnianized North German peoples. But you are free to make such a theory yourself.


> >Check Georgian dances on Youtube. Some of the costumes look
> >very Medieval European nobility.
>
> <OMG>
>

> >>Yes-yes, but... *why*. Only because of the later spreading of
> >>that type of deutsche Sprache one calls "Hochdeutsch"? If only
> >>because of this, then it is very thin: the spreading might have
> >>had various different (and later) causes (esp. the way *how*
> >>and *where* Church centers & monasteries developed better and
> >>in higher numbers).
> >
> >No, because of archaeology: the new upper class in the finds in
> >those years is spread evenly and homogeneously over all of
> >heterogeneous Germany (Przeworsk and Jastorf).
>
> And archeologues also find whole lotta recording tapes. BTW,
> are the tapes made by Grundig or Telefunken? Or did they find
> disks? Made by Decca? :)

Oh, scathing sarcasm! Actually, this *is* my evidence of a Bastarnian presence in Northern Germany. If you disregard it, I'll have to mention it again later.


> >>If Sueui > Suebians.
> >
> >Yes.
>
> So, for the record, Torsten's theory is also based on the
> precondition that ancient Suebians were related to the later
> Schwaben because Sueui = Suebians.

Well that's a standard assumption, but, yes.


> >>So let's retain that your theory says Vangiones, Triboci and
> >>Nemetes weren't important within the link Bastarnae ->
> >>Hochdeutsch.
> >
> >Yes.
>
> So, for the record: let's forget about Triboci+Vangiones+Nemetes.
> Among those scattered Germanic groups, only Suebians played the
> later role of participants in "reforming" the language.

I forgot two tribes in Ariovistus' army. Here's the full battle line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariovistus#The_battle
'Harudes, Marcomanni, Triboci, Vangiones, Nemetes, Sedusii and Suebi'
No one knows anything of the Sedusii. The Marcomanni reappear in Bohemia. Note that the Triboci, Vangiones and Nemetes are in the middle and Ariovistus' own peoples, the Suebi and the Harudes are on the wings, where you would expect auxilliaries and allies to be. What that fact means, I don't know.

>
> >Immediately north of the Limes. No way.

> No way thousand and 1-2-3 hundred years later on?!? You gotta be
> kidding.

I don't understand what you mean.


> >You have a thing with the Franks I don't share.
>
> Too bad for your theory: it's its only chance.

To win your approval. I think I see the contour of your idea of Southern Germany: it was Roman and German-free up until the very dark ages where the nasty Germans attacked and conquered you. That doesn't match the facts, I'm afraid.


> > > >If I were you, I'd take a look at what that supposed event
> > > >is based on.
> > >
> > > You yourself should do that, coz, otherwise, the entire
> > > community of historians will laugh at you (provided that
> > > they's pay attention to your theory -oops- dogma). It stands
> > > as the "amen" in the church (as the "Bastarnian" sayin goes)
> > > that the massive Germanic colonization was several centuries
> > > earlier in the area of major former Roman settlements (above
> > > all Colonia Agrippinensis = Cologne) and the massive
> > > colonization of the southern former Celtic and former
> > > Romanized territories in the 5th-6th-7th centuries.

> >No one doubts the Germanic invasions south of the former Roman
> >border. It's the supposed invasion north of it I doubt.
>
> Nobody has talked about that. I was talking of the Ostsiedlung
> that occurred after Anno ab incarnationem Domini 1,000, i.e. in
> the SECOND millennium! I wasn't even talking of the Frankish
> Carolingian conquests (in the 8th-9th-10th centuries)!

No you weren't, as can be seen from the previous exchange which I have reinserted. You were talking of 'the massive colonization of the southern former Celtic and former Romanized territories in the 5th-6th-7th centuries'. Seriously, George, get a grip. I think you should delete what you deem excess material *after* you write your answer, not before.


> >>not my invention, this is common standard stuff taught as
> >>such for centuries now here, where the vernacular
> >>neo-"Bastarnian" is spoken (and where the last "Bastarnian"
> >>empire started, that of "Dolfi" 78 years ago :)).
> >
> > It sounds a bit fuzzy to me.
>
> "neo-Bastarnian" = Oberdeutsch. "the last 'Bastarnian' empire"
> = das Dritte Reich. (And I add: the whole Germanic bullshit
> was in the 3rd Reich sort of a state dogma/religion. Had
> have Bastarnians played a role, then Himmler himself would
> have issued some dogma mentioning them.)

I think that if Bavaria's famous son, SS-Heini, had gotten that idea in the first place, he might have had another scapegoat to blame for Germany's lack of success and popularity among its supposed ethnic family than the one he did choose.


> >No, as I said, the Ariovistus campaign and the Bastarnization of
> >Northern Germania were two parallel, but separate events. The
> >Bastarnization of the Franks possibly a third one.
>
> Wait a minute: do you imply that the low-German area was
> high-Germanized? :-)

Yes, I think there was diglossia ther from the arrival of the Bastarnian refugees and ever after.

> >???
>
> You forget what you've said a few paragraphs earlier?!?
> You told me I should develop a theory referring to a
> Bastarnization of Franks. (And in this post, to which I'm
> replying at this moment, you reiterated that. Look it up
> yourself.)
>

Yes, frankly, reconstructing the contexts you delete is tedious work. Could you repeat the question?


> > Archaeologically it is clear that Ariovistus or whoever did a
> > thorough job of removing the Helvetii from the area.
>
> But to what avail this forever mentioning ad nauseam Ariovist
> and his impact in South-Western Germany, since you yourself
> state that the Bastarnians had a D I F F E R E N T impact,
> namely in Northern Germany?? (See above.)

And? Both expansions were Bastarnian.


> So, Ariovist has to be discarded in a junkbin, since the
> hochdeutschization of Souther Germany was the deed of some
> other configuration.

I don't know what you conclude that from, but, as I said, to my scenario it doesn't matter, since it can accommodate both sub-scenarios.


> >Good point.
>
> Of course, since I pay heed to chronology, logic etc. And, as soon
> as new facts, aspects, insights pop up, my approach automatically
> adapts. (I'm not at all an adept of Procruste's bed, as you are. :))

If no one else wants to praise your work, you can always do it yourself.


> >As I said, some evidence points to continued presence of Germani in
> >the area, other evidence says the area was only populated again
> >after immigration from the north.
>
> Hehe, but... *w________h____________e____________________n*!!!
>

No idea.


> >is an old memory of slaver raids in the south, with Ariovistus as
> >Wotan (Croatian voda "army detachment", thus *wodin- would be
> >a titel similar to *vožd- "(military) leader".
>
> This one is much more interesting than the (unproductive)
> Bastarnian speculation.

Glad you like it. One of the Wild Hunt myths says that the leader is a nobleman who rebelled against his king. That might be relevant for the relationship between Ariovistus and the establishment in Przeworsk where he came from. Also note that people who meet the wild hunt disappear. You would have heard he same in Africa.


Torsten