From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1999 #206 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Saturday, July 24 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 206 ane re: Cimmerians and Gordium ane FWD: EAA99: Registration Deadline ane Cimmerians and Gordium Re: ane Cimmerians and Gordium ane Ancient Gods ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:55:05 -0000 From: "Rex H. McTyeire" Subject: ane re: Cimmerians and Gordium Well..we are narrowing and getting closer. What do you mean by: >A pretty little dispute.. A. The discussion is "cute"? B. There is little difference in our positions? C. or...all our points are worthless:-) Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I think we agree that elements of what were or became "Phrygians" were already in place at Hittite collapse? I am not sure where we stand on the issue of mixed Hittite/Phrygian strata at Gordium (and elsewhere) and the related point of the actual relationship over time of the Phrygians and (Western) Hittites..as well as your position on Phrygian composition and entry into Anatolia..to avoid misunderstanding, would you summarize your position in a couple of paragraphs specific to those points? We definitely are opposed on the points of ethnogenesis of the Romanian population, and the composition of the language. We are closer than appears though..essentially you are giving more Moesi influence..and I Geto-Daci. The two being regional neighbors. I agree that Slavic influence has had the strongest post Roman impact on the language, but stop way short of 60%. You don't think the 170+ Geto-Daci words can be confirmed as Non-Moesi. Is that a fair summary? (We need a linguist who has looked at it closely!) I agree with most of your comments on the evolution of the state, except the degree of impact and change. The Byzantine presence left a predominant "outward" affiliation with the Orthodox church, but did not excise the underlying (and remnant) Roman influence. Most of the leadership has been foreign imposed through a succession of powers, but usually in the form of a transient elite...with little linguistic and population change overall. (Transylvania a possible exception from the Hungarian side.) The Costobocs are still evident in the Moldavian region and are distinctly Dacian...varying from the overall population in that the same physical degree of latinization did not occur. Slav physical morphological influence is stronger than the Latin there, but the language is still more Latin than Slav, but perhaps with more localized Slavic influence. Turkic intrusion has been constant and goes back to pre-Roman steppe nomads making in-roads in small groups, but has never been dominant culturally, linguistically, religiously, or physically, nor did that change under the Ottomans. The Mongol impact would be a focus of our differences. Again I don't think extermination occurred regionally. I think you are suggesting that a Moesi/Latin base has been swallowed by Slav and Mongol events, to be replaced by a southern and even more Moesi population. That would have erased the Latin base of the language, (which remains, stronger than in the other Romance languages). The extreme Roman colonization, that was pushed in Dacia, but not in Moesia (to provide a buffer state against the northeastern unknowns)...would no longer be evident. It is. The local perception is that Geto-Daci is less remnant in Transylvania because of Hungarian activities; but most dominant in Moldavia with less Getae and Latin influence (closer to distinct Dacian via Costoboc{a daughter tribe to Dacians, whereas Getae was a sister tribe}). The Costoboc (north) area receiving Geto-Daci influx fleeing the Romans, while centrally (Wallacia) remained and remains Geto-Daci/Latin. I think the institution that prevented the Slavic linguistic influence from even crossing 50% was the Roman church, very well established here and surviving in the face of Orthodox confusion, and remained classical Latin linguistically, reinforcing and even changing the post Roman Vulgar Latin. Stronger Slavic linguistic impact began in the Ninth and tenth centuries AD, however, but the Danubian Latin had already evolved into Romaneste. Most of the (alleged) Geto-Daci words offered as surviving from pre-Roman times are basic village, home, food, family and body part words, indicative of ethnic identity; such as Buza (lip), Baiat (boy), catun (village) mazare (peas) and vatra (hearth). I must concede that I am not capable of distinguishing them from wider Thracian use,or specific Moesi. But I think a Moesi influx as significant as you suggest would have replaced them..unless the Geto-Daci never existed as distinct from Moesi, or the words were used Thrace wide and not Geto-Daci specific. Our perspectives, differing as if we were viewing the same Eastern Danube scene from opposite river banks..can only be resolved by sourcing the majority of these resilient vocabulary elements as (1) non-conclusively Thracian wide, or (2) conclusively either Moesi or Geto-Daci. Intelege? Da, sau Nu? La Revedere; Rex H. McTyeire Bucharest, Romania ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:17:07 -0500 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane FWD: EAA99: Registration Deadline Forwarded on behalf of the undersigned, to whom responses and inquiries should be directed. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: Eileen Wilkes ************************** Fifth Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists 14 - 19 September 1999, Bournemouth University, UK ************************** Don't miss your opportunity to attend this exciting and interesting event in the world archaeological calendar. The deadline for registrations is Friday 30 July. Hundreds of delegates are already registered from around the world. Full details and a registration form are available from the meeting web site at: http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/eaa99/ The meeting schedule now boasts 65 academic sessions covering a wide variety of themes and topics from the archaeological discipline. An opening ceremony, wine reception, dinner-dance, and annual party are among the many social activities planned. There will be a public open afternoon, a large exhibition of archaeological organizations, labs, equipment suppliers, publishers, etc, and a range of excursions to archaeological sites in the south of England. Eileen Wilkes EAA99 Co-ordinator - -------------------------- WG22, School of Conservation Sciences, Bournemouth University, Talbot Campus, Fern Barrow, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK Tel: +44(0)1202 595058 Fax: +44(0)1202 595478 email1: ewilkes@bournemouth.ac.uk email2: eaa99@bournemouth.ac.uk www: http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/eaa99/ - -------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:19:05 +0200 From: Banyai@t-online.de (Banyai) Subject: ane Cimmerians and Gordium Dear Rex, I am pleased to answer your points. > Correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I think we > agree that elements of what were or became "Phrygians" > were already in place at Hittite collapse? Not only in place but they were who probably sacked Hattusa and took controll in consequence over Anatolia. > to avoid misunderstanding, > would you summarize your position in a > couple of paragraphs specific to those points? 1. the expansion of the Mysi and Trojans over Thracia is (as the oldest element of Greek memory) to be dated into the MB II period shortly during the eclypse of Hettite power after the break of the old Hettite empire. It is the expansion of gray minian ceramics over the Balcan and mainland Greece except the Pelopones. They formed a loosely knitted confederation, offering for the first time a statal organisation to the theritory of Thrace. Which soon after began to erode under the pressure of the Arzawa and arriving Achaians. During this time was created the first Thraco-Mysian koine, periodically later reunited under Phrygian or Dacian lead. One could compare it to the similar minoan-mycenian koine. The Minoan state being later simply inherited by the Mycenians. 2. the Anatolian parts of the confederation went during the LB to Arzawa. This is an explanation why the Wilusans so welcomed the Hettite under Mursilis, as the later conquered Arzawa. 3. The Wilusan tried later to play the Achaian card aginst the Hittites, so long till they found themself abandoned by the Achaians. As next they invited their "brethren" Phrygians to Anatolia (see Homer and the mentioned Hittite letter written by a great king - not the one of Achiawa - reclaiming for himself Assuwa ). The only great kings we could look after in this part of Anatolia are those of Achiawa and of Phrygia. > We definitely are opposed on the points of ethnogenesis > of the Romanian population, and the composition of the language. > We are closer than appears though..essentially you are giving > more Moesi influence..and I Geto-Daci. The two being regional neighbors. I > agree that Slavic influence has had the strongest post Roman impact on the > language, but stop way short of 60%. You don't think the 170+ Geto-Daci > words can be confirmed as Non-Moesi. Is that a fair summary? (We need a > linguist who has looked at it closely!) Exactly. I think the Romanian/Walachian language was born south of the Danube and owes little to none to the short episode of Roman ocupation of Dacia. (Even shorter than the ocupation of Britania) Roman is the name the Walachians gave to themselves and it is hardly to assume the legionares in Dacia were real romans or callled themselves so (BTW many of them were jews). But romans was the name the Bisantines gave to themselves as a contrast to the heleni, the pagans, and so also any population living under their dominion. It is unclear why the free Daci in Moldavia should have choosed this name to design themselves too. The romanians were called first by the slavs Walachi to make a difference between them and the Bisantine Greeks, who were calling themselves also Romans. The name Walach is actually "wilkürlich" because it designated in fact celtic peoples, Wales/Walis and so on, what the romanian are surely not. A further problem are the representative groups of native romanians, the so called macedo-romini, still living south of the Danube. There is no combination conceivable by which the Romanian language could have germinated on both sides of the Danube before 1200, or by which the Romanian may have spread from the north to the south. So it is left just the possibility of a post cca 1200 spread of Romanian to the north, as the first realy Walachian states appear. I find it difficult to state which Balcan language or languages these 170 + words represent, since the Thracian/Moesian Thesaurum is far smaller. But since the only other non-slavic name except Romanian by which the Romanian designated ever themselves is Moesian=Motz or tzara motzilor for the land of the motzi/moesi... Nobody can rule out a Dacian ethnic component. But it is simply undemonstrable. > The extreme Roman > colonization, that was pushed in Dacia, but not in Moesia (to provide a > buffer state against the northeastern unknowns)...would no longer be > evident. It is. The shortliving buffer state in Dacia, that was mainly the garnisons, which Aurelianus withdrew (probably to Moesia - the new buffer state to the northeastern unknowns). There is no ground why the free Dacians in Moldova should have ever learnt latin so becoming the genitors of present-day latinised Moldavians. Take the example of Britania. Have the picts begun to speak latin after the Romans withdrew? > Most of the (alleged) Geto-Daci words offered as surviving from pre-Roman > times are basic village, home, food, family and body part words, indicative > of ethnic identity; such as Buza (lip), Baiat (boy), catun (village) mazare > (peas) and vatra (hearth). I must concede that I am not capable of > distinguishing them from wider Thracian use,or specific Moesi. Me too. I think those Romanian historians, who told they were Thracian, as well. I take it for granted they are a pre-roman. > Our perspectives, > differing as if we were viewing the same Eastern Danube scene from opposite > river banks..can only be resolved by sourcing the majority of these > resilient vocabulary elements as (1) non-conclusively Thracian wide, or (2) > conclusively either Moesi or Geto-Daci. Intelege? Da, sau Nu? I believe, dear Rex, this is not in our reach. I don´t even know if a clear distinction between Moesian and Thracian exists at this time point. But please take the name the Motzi labeled on themselves as significant. Best regards, Banyai Michael Leonberg Banyai@t-online.de ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 10:45:13 +1200 From: "Don Mills" Subject: Re: ane Cimmerians and Gordium Stepping into an arena in which, generally speaking, I have zilch relevant information ... Banyai wrote, « The romanians were called first by the slavs Walachi to make a difference between them and the Bisantine Greeks, who were calling themselves also Romans. The name Walach is actually "wilkürlich" because it designated in fact celtic peoples, Wales/Walis and so on, what the romanian are surely not. » I've always assumed (never looked it up till now!) that "Walach", simply meant "foreigner" in Germanic languages, which was my understanding of "Welsh" and "Walloon" (and the surname "Wallace") . Now that I *have* looked it up, I see I was probably right -- it doesn't necessarily designate specifically Celtic peoples, but foreigners in general. My source is the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (with abbreviations expanded, angle brackets identifying italicised words, and asterisk identifying unrecorded forms): WALLACHIAN, WALACHIAN -- pertaining to Wal(l)achia, area of SE Europe whose inhabitants speak a Romance language ... from medLatin , from Slavonic forms representing German <*Walh-> (compare WELSH) ... WALLOON -- one of a people of Gaulish origin and speaking a dialect of French inhabiting south-eastern Belgium ... Adoption of French from medLatin foreign. WELSH -- pertaining to the native British population as opposed to the Anglo-Saxons, (hence) pertaining to Wales. Old English (Anglian, Kentish) , ... corresponding to Old High German ... (German , ) ...; all derived from Germanic <*walXaz> foreign (Celtic or Roman) ... from Latin name of a Celtic people, of unknown origin. Compare WALACH, VLACH. VLACH -- Wallachian, Rumanian. From Bulgarian, Serbian = Old Slavonic Rumanian, Italian, Czech, Italian, Russian , etc., adoption of Germanic (OHG) (compare Old English ) foreigner, whence also mediaeval Greek . So although it's origin was with a Celtic tribe, the word in Germanic usage, and hence in derivative use in Slavonic languages, meant "foreigner" in general. A minor point. Nice to be able to make a contribution. Regards Don Mills Wellington New Zealand ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1999 08:09:10 +0200 From: "Rasmus" Subject: ane Ancient Gods As ANE seems to indulge in speculation I wonder if someone could answer me, either privately or here, regarding a possibility which has been on my mind now for some time. We usually look at ancients as worshipping Gods which have identity. These Gods have certain characters and are personified in various manners. Did the ancients really look at these Gods in that fashion? What I am asking is, does any evidence exist which may indicate that these Gods were forces and physical manifestations instead of personalities? Could for example Ra have been looked on as the life giving force, perceived by the ancients much as we see the life giving qualities of the sun today? Is there any evidence that a "Marduk" was that force which seperates the planets and keeps them apart? (Gravity) That Baal or Dumuzi was nothing more than the seasonal changes and the worship was not much more than a "spring festival" that celebrated the return of the growing season? Could the tales of these Gods have been but allegories similar to the tales of a "Santa Claus" representing the generosity of mankind today? Sincerely Rasmus http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2818/ The father is the past. The past is that source of information from which the holy spirit creates the "son" from "now". The son is that future which is created by the holy spirit from the holy existance "now". The holy spirit is that which perceives, it is that which exist "now" and creates the "son" continually. ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1999 #206 **************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html