[gothic-l] Re: The Scandinavian Origin of the Goths and Other Germanic Peoples

Wed Nov 1 09:16:17 UTC 2000

Hi Keth,
these are very interesting points. You said that 'a kind of 
Scandinavian (I suppose you mean Proto-Germanic) language was spoken 
around 2000 BC in Sweden. That may well be the case. A Swedish 
linguist (Prof. Elert) wrote the following:

"According to models proposed by M. Nuñez and P. Dolukhanov
speakers of a Proto-Uralic language populated the land that was laid 
bare along the periglacial line after the Ice Age, from the Rhine and 
eastward (eventually also Scandinavia),. See Figure 1. As a result of 
conquest or demographic efficiency the Proto-Uralic language and 
possibly population were replaced by speakers of a (Proto-) Germanic 
language.  

Common features in the word prosody of the languages in the Baltic 
area have been explained as substrate or contact phenomena (Wiik 
1995). As for the Saamis, recent DNA research confirms that 
genetically they differ sharply from the other population in 
Scandinavia and Finland (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Sajantila et al. 
1995). The coincidence of genetic distance between the Saami and 
Finnish populations and a comparatively close relationship between 
their languages leads up to the traditional thought of a language 
replacement. This does not contradict (nor support) a later rise of 
Saami ethnicity among hunters/gatherers. 

On archeological, genetic and linguistic grounds the late Bronze Age 
language in Scandinavia could have been a Finnic or Baltic language 
(or both). However, from what can be inferred from  parallels in 
history or ethnolinguistics a more complicated and varied language 
situation is the most likely one in  subglacial Europe at the end of 
the Ice Age. "

Thus Prof. Elert proposes that Finnic or Baltic (or both) as the 
late Bronze Age languages in Scandinavia. But he admits that the 
picture was more complex. I suppose it is possible that
Proto-Germanic speakers had already appeard as well.

Keth, you also write that Gotland is the ideal place for the 
development of the Germanic language. Personally I think that would
be to narrow, and is not really reconcileable with the overall 
movement of Proto-Germanic People as I understand it.

Your point that language change  does not necessarily mean 
population change is of course very valid and the above citation 
supports this argument with respect to the Saamis and Finns.

Personally I think that any claim of origin for the Germanic people
is  inevitably incorrect. The whole procesess took place dynamically
over time and space and my comment was targeted against claims that 
the Germanic people originated in Scandinavia which is just as wrong 
as the claim the the Germanic people originated in today's Germany.

Dirk

--- In gothic-l at egroups.com, keth at o... wrote:
> Dirk wrote:
> 
> >Hi Bertil,
> >
> >Denmark is strictly speaking not Scandinavia. There can be no doubt
> >that
> >Jutland was settled by Germanic people much earlier, before they
> >spread
> >out across the sea to the Danish islands and than Sweden. As for
> >quotes,
> >there are so many that I don't know were to begin. For a linguistic
> >approach Cleas Elert said: " The absence of any great dialect
split 
in
> >the Germanic language spoken in Scandinavia and northern Germany at
> >the
> >time of the earliest written sources (ca. 200-500 A.D.) indicates
> >strongly that a Germanic language has been spoken over such a large
> >area
> >for only a short time. The late Bronze Age (ca. 700 B.C.) was a 
time
> >of
> >cultural change { in Scandinavia} when the language(s) spoken 
earlier
> >may have been replaced by the Germanic language." Reference op. 
cit..
> >
> >Findeisens proposition is well supported by the cited literature. 
If
> >Germanic people spreading out from what is now central Germany had
> >arrived in Jutland by 2000 BC it might have taken them another few
> >hundered years to feel the need to move further on (population
> >pressure
> 
> Dirk, I feel you fail to differentiate here between Indo European 
and
> Germanic here. That Germanic is a relatively young Indo European
> language ( perhaps 700 BC) does not sound unlikely, though it is not
> known where its centre of initial development lay (it may have been 
in
> Scandinavia or somewhere in Germany/Poland or somewhere else).
> 
> However, quite independent of the question of the origin of 
Germanic,
> I think there are indications that a kind of Indo European language
> was spoken in Scandinavia already at the end of the Stone Age, say
> around 2000 BC. At the same time it also seems to me that more than
> one language may have been spoken there. e.g. something akin to 
Finish
> or Saami.
> 
> In Germany the "default" opinion seems to be that Germanic must have
> arisen in Germany -- what could be more logical! That also gives an
> excuse for looking at Scandinavia as an area that it is legitimate 
to
> colonize\ cf. what was done with Low German, that it was defined
> as a dialect og High German.
> 
> What about the idea then, that a "new" language needs to arise
> in relative isolation? -- It needs a period of incubation.
> And what could be more ideal for such, than an island?
> Gotland for example   ;)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >argument). In any case this settlement process was likely gradual 
and
> >the population balance in Sweden may not have shifted in favour of 
the
> >newcomers before around 1000 BC, which does not exclude the
> >propability
> 
> Also remember that population replacement is not the only possible
> mechanism of language change. In Northern Norway you see, for 
example,
> how many people changed their language without really changing their
> identity nor their culture.
> 
> 
> >that Germanic settleres had started coming in a few centuries 
earlier.
> 
> So what I mean is that it doesn't have to have been the same 
scenario
> as in North America, where the language change occurred by replacing
> the original native Indian population by Germanic settlers.
> 
> Best regards
> Keth
> 
> 
> >There is always a give and take of a couple of hundred years in 
that.
> >The important thing is that all the evidence discounts older 
theories
> >and propositions which still are in circulation that 'the Germanic
> >people' originated some 5000 to 4000 years ago in Scandinavia.
> >
> >Dirk

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/8/_/3398/_/973070182/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html