[gothic-l] Germanic language and Goths to George

[george knysh]

--- faltin2001 <dirk at smra.co.uk> wrote:
> > *****GK: We must be very careful here. There is no
> > doubt that as time went on Wielbark acquired
> > substantial numbers of Germanic speakers. There is
> no
> > doubt that the only "Gothic" language known to us
> is
> > an East Germanic dialect. But there is also little
> > doubt that the Oksywie culture carriers and the
> > original Wielbark culture carriers (they occupied
> the
> > same space; this was before Wielbark began to
> > expand)did not speak a Germanic language.
>
>
>
> (DF)How do you know that?

*****GK: Because the Lusatian and East Pomeranian
cultures which were the foundation of the autochtonous
Oksywie culture have nothing about them which can be
interpreted as "Germanic", esp. the place names and
hydronyms of the area which are "ancient" (unlike e.g.
Oksywie itself). There are many ancient Baltic names
here, and Indo-European ones which cannot be safely
attributed to any known language.******

(DF) Clearly, Przeworsk was
> linguistically mainly
> Germanic.

*****GK: This depends on the time and the place. We
know that Olbia was attacked sometime prior to 200 BC
by allied Skiri and Galati. So early Przeworsk had
both Germanic and Celtic groups, clearly identified.
The "Przeworsk" people who moved into Western Ukraine
(Galicia and Volynia) in the late 1rst c. BC are
clearly distinguishable from other such in Poland
whose Germanic identity is practically secure. They
must therefore represent that (slightly Celticized)
"element X" (Pomeranian developed into Przeworsk)
whose ethnic status has not yet been determined. The
Przeworsk burials in Western Ukraine of the late 2nd
and early 3rd c. are certainly Vandalic, therefore
Germanic. On that there is consensus.*****

 (DF)The Oksywie culture is closely related to
> Przeworsk

*****GK: But not identical. It did not incorporate as
many Yastorf elements. In this it is similar to the
Zarubynetska culture of the early historical "Venedi"
(a mixture of Pomeranian, Milohrad/Pidhirtseve,
Northern Scythian, plus a smattering of Yastorf). I
used to think that the whole of this Zarubynetska
culture (basin of the Pripet plus Middle Dnipro) was
proto-Slavic, but now am inclined to think that it
also was polyethnic and that only the eastern
components (Milohrad/Pidhirtseve + Northern Scythian)
developed into proto-Slavs.*****

 (DF) and all
> the peoples that emerged out off Wielbark and
> Przeworsk cultures were
> nothing but Germanic speaking.

*****GK: That is not correct. The Zubrytska culture in
Western Ukraine (1rst-3rd c.) was of Przeworsk origin
yet it was not Germanic (it was also polyethnic, both
Dacian and "element X"). The Chernyakhiv culture was
just as polyethnic as its polyethnic Wielbark
component. Not "all" but "some" of the people that
emerged etc..(as you stated above).*****

 (DF)When the Goths are
> mentioned by
> Tacitus, they are seen as Germanic, also when they
> had their dealings
> with the Markomanni in the first decades of the
> first century AD
> there is little to suggest that they were not
> Germanic like the
> Markomanni, and the Wielbark culture starts only in
> the first century
> BC.

*****GK: This at least indicates that their leading
elements were "Germanic". Note by the way that the
expansion of Wielbark southward in the earlier 1rst c.
AD has been linked (by Wolongiewicz, Nowakowski and
others) with the appearance of Scandinavian
archaeological elements. So that by the time of
Tacitus it is arguable that a new (and unusual by
Germanic standards) ruling class had arrived. I'm not
saying that this is completely secure, but only that
it is arguable, and that the argument cannot be
dismissed out of hand. I agree that the name "Goths"
existed earlier even if Strabo's witness is a bit
garbled. In the 4th c. the Goths are also seen as
"Germanic" but we know for a fact that "Gothic"
society at that time had important Alanic and other
non-Germanic components.******
>
>
>
>
>
>(GK) Oksywie is
> > an offshoot of the Pomeranian culture (itself a
> > development of the Lusatian culture). We don't
> know
> > what languages these people spoke. Certainly
> > Indo-European, judging by ancient topo- and
> > hydronymics, but not proto-Germanic.
>
>
> (DF)I think linguistic differences between an
> 'unidentified Indo-
> European' and 'proto-Germanic' are almost impossible
> to draw clearly.

*****GK: Linguists don't seem to think so. There have
been attempts to see the place names of Poland as
"Illyrian" and even "Thracian". They are clearly not
Slavic or proto-Slavic, and, to repeat, cannot be
securely identified with any known group, including
Germanic.*****

>(DF) I picture this as a continuum, with some groups
> having completed the
> sound-shift earlier than others, leading to
> dialectual differences
> initially. I cannot imagine that anybody knows which
> language the
> carriers of the Pommeranian culture spoke, apart
> from Indo-European.
>
>
>
> (GK) Early Przeworsk
> > was a fusion of Pomeranian and Yastorf, and
> > historically came to be identified with the
> Vandals.
>
>
> (DF)That is correct, as far as I know.
>
>
>
> >(GK) But these Germanic speakers were not the whole
of
> the
> > Przeworsk culture. It also had that Pomeranian
> origin
> > element, very numerous, which cannot be assumed to
> > have been instantly germanized.
>
>
>(DF) When you say 'germanised' do you mean that they
> underwent the
> Germanic sound-shift?

*****GK: No I mean that they progressively adopted
Germanic dialects instead of the unknown IE language
they spoke before. And of course instead of the known
Celtic where this applied.******
>
>
>
>
>
> > (GK)It had at some point
> > Celtic speaking elements too, and historically
> > attested
>
>
> (DF)There is considerable agreement that parts of
the
> Przeworsk culture
> or of the contributors to this culture were Celts.
>
>
>
>
>
> (GK)I don't doubt
> > that as time went on, the Goths, Vandals etc. no
> > matter what the origin of their constituents,
> became
> > more and more obviously Germanic in speech, esp.
> as
> > their wanderings and reshufflings continued. But I
> > would not say that this was obvious at the
> beginning.
>
>
>
>(DF) I think we have to be clear what we mean by
becoming
> Germanic. I
> think that this means little more than participation
> in the first
> soundshift. Wolfram pointed out in 'Die Germanen'
> that the
> Germanisation of northern Europe was likely a very
> fast process,
> similar to the slavisation of half of Europe in the
> 6th/7th
> centuries.
>
> I like to hear more about that!

*****GK: I have a theory about the Lusatian population
of Poland in the period prior to the advance of the
Germanic Yastorf culture eastward. But it is only
that, and needs further thinking through. In the time
of Herodotus his Scythian and Pontic Greek informants
told him that to the north and northwest of Scythia
the population was "Neurian". This is usually taken to
refer to Balto-Slavs. But I believe that it included
the Lusatians. Since "Neuria" was located north of the
Transylvanian Carpathians and northwest of the source
of the Dnister river (as well as north of the Boh r.)
the indication is clear. We know that the Scythians
effectively dominated this "Neuria" for much of their
history, and it is only after the weakening of their
power in the late 4th c. BC that an opportunity arose
for Celts and Germanics to move in from the West and
in lesser measure for Balts to move in from the East).
I am speculating that the verified ancient
Germanic/Baltic/Slavic linguistic unity also involved
this Lusatian population. I am further speculating
that the closeness of Baltic and Slavic might have
been paralleled by a certain closeness between
Germanic and "Lusatian", or at least that their
language occupied an intermediary position between
Balto/Slavic and Germanic. Perhaps this closeness
facilitated a speedy Germanization (in my sense) just
as the Balto-Slavic one facilitated the Slavicization
of large comunities of Balts in the 1rst millennium
AD. Just possibly the name "Venedi" should be
associated with this intermediary population of
"Lusatia". We have an intimation in Ptolemy that at
one time (in the late 4th or early 3rd century) all or
part of this archaeologicaly Lusatian and then
Pomeranian population might have been so called. When
they moved eastward the appellation went with them,
and stayed for a while. All this is highly speculative
of course, but it is a way of dealing with the meager
but tantalizing evidence. I have some ideas about
these "Venedi" but enough for now. The "Goths" emerged
where the Venedi once were. Perhaps Ingemar's idea of
a cultic league is worth exploring. It might explain
the appearance of a name on the north shore of the
Baltic which is otherwise associated with areas
further north. And at first the name would have no
linguistic implications: i.e. the very early "Goths"
might have been "Venedic" speakers. If some form of
Germanic was a prestigious "ritual" language this
might help to explain subsequent language shifts here.
Who knows?*****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have to rush off to class, but I'll get back on
> this
> > very interesting topic later today. See you. And
> for
> > God's sake stop wasting your time with B.H.
> > (:=)))*****
>
>
> Good point!
>
> cheers
> Dirk
>
>
>
>
>



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
It's Easy. It's Fun. - Free Download.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BxtVhB/7XkDAA/_ZuFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/