LL-L "History" 2007.09.22 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L List]

L O W L A N D S - L  -  22 September 2007 - Volume 01
Song Contest: lowlands-l.net/contest/ (- 31 Dec. 2007)
=========================================================================

From: Mike Wintzer <k9mw at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language death" 2007.09.21 (01) [E]

Ron, you wrote:

 Some of the migrating bands moved into the then largely vacated regions,
though personally I would not be surprised to find that they absorbed
remnants of East Germanic populations.

I would not be surprised if the Völkerwanderung only concerned the elite,
Probably many common people, craftsmen, farmers... stayed put.
Can anyone shed more light on this?

Mike Wintzer

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: History

I have no idea, Mike, and I would be surprised if anyone knew, because all
records about the Lowlands parts of the Great Migration and the nations
involved in it come from second- or third-hand Greek and Roman references.
The way we refer to the Great Migration and early times thereafter these
days tends to be of the type of "The X moved to Y and conquered Z," as
though all X were involved. This may have been the case with small, "minor"
band, most of which we may not even know anything about these days. I find
it unlikely to be the case where whole regions were supposed vacated and
then repopulated. An example are the Saxons a large portion of which
migrated to Britain, while the rest stayed put, probably absorbing others
and finally being overwhelmed by the Franks and their vassals. Why, even the
Goths, vacating their largely flooded land in Southern Scandinavia, probably
left behind relatives, considering apparent similarities between Old Gutnish
(of southeastern Gothland (Gotland) and Fårö in Sweden) and Gothic. (Perhaps
our Arthur can tell us more about that.)

Theoretically speaking, it would have been the desperate that left, such as
those fleeing from natural catastrophes, enemy invasions or land shortages.
Though there may always have been some young bloods that banded together to
search for better fortunes even when back home times weren't all that bad,
perhaps motivated by what they had seen during their raids of other folks'
settlements. Such may have been the case with Saxons haunting the North Sea
coast (from Flanders to Northern Britain) for a long time. This may also
apply to "exploring" early Swedes that colonized parts of what are now
Russia and Ukraine and there came to make up the early ruling class, which
doesn't really say anything about their social states back in their
homelands. Obviously, those that struck out successfully had power by virtue
of mobility, weaponry and battle technique. However, why would aristocrats
leave their homelands if in them they own land and dominated people? They
probably wouldn't unless there were reasons for everyone to leave, or they
ran out of people to dominate because the ordinary people left.

Just musing and mumbling to myself here ...

Reinhard/Ron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20070922/3a4daed8/attachment.htm>