The migration of Indo-European language in the Prose Edda

[Jainarayan]

From section V of the Prologue in the Prose Edda...

The Æsir took wives of the land for themselves, and some also for their sons; and these kindreds became many in number, so that throughout Saxland, and thence all over the region of the north, they spread out until their tongue, even the speech of the men of Asia, was the native tongue over all these lands. Therefore men think that they can perceive, from their forefathers' names which are written down, that those names belonged to this tongue, and that the Æsir brought the tongue hither into the northern region, into Norway and into Sweden, into Denmark and into Saxland. But in England there are ancient lists of land-names and place-names which may show that these names came from another tongue than this.

It would seem that even in the 12th century, it was known that the languages of Europe and Asia were related and spread from a single point. It also points out that there were unrelated languages being spoken in the regions IE migrated into. I find this interesting that the Edda states this in such a matter-of-fact way. This is stated 600 years before Ferdinand de Saussure and Sir William Jones perceived connections between the IE languages.

 

[Infinitum]

We still don't know with full certainty where Indo-European languages originated, despite the term we use for it. I'm no expert on the subject, but I have some sort of idea of the cultural influences flowing in to Scandinavia in the centuries when Vikings established a wide trade network reaching all the way to Constantinople. They not only were aware of the culture, but also adopted some elements and made them their own. One clear connection can be found between the alphabets, as the futhark is descended from European branches of the Etruscan alphabet.

The way I see it there are two likely possibilities: 1) the writer(s) of the Prose Edda wanted to tie in the Scandinavian origins with the more prestigious Asian roots. This was very common back in the days and is in my opinion the most likely option, or 2) it is a lucky speculation from the writer(s)'s part, since there aren't that many continents where the language could have came from. Germanic languages have relatively few obvious ties to their Asian contemporaries. It would be interesting to hear what scholars have thought about the quote.

 

[Jainarayan]

I thought about the coincidence, or lucky guess angle too. Some linguists don't think Germanic languages are IE at all. One of them Joseph F. Foster, Ph.D. (I think he's retired now) said it's possible that the Germanics were not IE peoples, but spoke the IE languages that came into the region, with "one hell of an accent" as he used to put it. I don't think he subscribed to the non-IE Germanic theory, but he used to say that. If Germanic is truly not IE, then it adopted a lot of IE features, like nominal inflection. Or it had its own system and there was a lot of word borrowing, and sound shifting. In beginning to delve into the runes, specifically futhark, I also saw a reference to Etruscan, which itself (iirc) derives from Phoenician, as the Latin alphabet ultimately does. Sure, lots of cross-pollination. :yes:

 

[Infinitum]

Damn. I was supposed to say Phoenician and not Etruscan, but on the other hand both are true because according to Wikipedia, the European ones really do start from Etruscan. Glad you noticed so it isn't left hanging there to cause confusion to someone.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yeah, you're right. The Latin alphabet is influenced by Etruscan. The Latin alphabet is an amalgam... aw heck, it's a mutt.

 

[Sees]

I think runes and the Phoenician alphabet are related to these symbols, which coincidentally are much older than Phoenician alphabet.

7000+ years old from Danube-Old Europe Vinča culture

Edit --

Compared to the Phoenician alphabet (only 3,000 years old) to make it easier

 

[Sees]

I think these are Indo-European religious symbols/proto-writing as the research suggests. The idea they come from the Middle East is typical of the past...to make it seem like only very primitive folks were in Europe before the Greek and Roman civilizations blossomed and they received the blessings of Middle Eastern culture/religion.

 

[Jainarayan]

It could very well be the other way around too. The Phoenicians were sailors, and the Hittites were all over the place too. They could have ventured far to the north and west and picked up inspiration from indigenous tribes there. Who knows... ? I could be making this up as I go along, too. But the Etruscans were not so primitive; it seems so only because they were completely overrun by the Romans. Mycenaean civilization 1600 -1100 BCE flourished before the so-called Dorian "invasion" (I prefer "migration"), c. 1200 BCE. The point being that I don't think there were any primitive peoples in Eurasia. We know that history is written by the victors.

 

[Infinitum]

We know that history is written by the victors.

Lucky for us archaeology isn't. I'm constantly amazed over how far the trade networks reached as far as in the stone age. They had people travelling all over Europe, bringing cultural influences with them. One that comes to mind is the Beaker culture from the late Neolithic and onwards. Just look at this map showing where we've found traces of them! (The arrows are the direction they, or their influence, moved over time.)

 

[Jainarayan]

I like the map. I say over and over again how people get around, talk and cross-pollinate. Our ancestors were not the idiots some historians would make them out to be.

For that reason I do not think

 

[Sees]

It could very well be the other way around too. The Phoenicians were sailors, and the Hittites were all over the place too. They could have ventured far to the north and west and picked up inspiration from indigenous tribes there. Who knows... ? I could be making this up as I go along, too. But the Etruscans were not so primitive; it seems so only because they were completely overrun by the Romans. Mycenaean civilization 1600 -1100 BCE flourished before the so-called Dorian "invasion" (I prefer "migration"), c. 1200 BCE. The point being that I don't think there were any primitive peoples in Eurasia. We know that history is written by the victors.

The strange thing is why people are still hesitant to change the old song and dance when today secularism is strong and religious bias in academia is much lower.

Compare those symbols/alphabet also with Egyptian hieroglyphs, which are not older than the Danube-Old Europe Vinča symbols, and think which Phoenician, Etruscan, Latin, Greek, etc. resembles more. For me personally, it doesn't seem possible let alone likely that the Egyptian > Phoenician > Europe theory is true history.

Generally if they find _____ in location A 1,000 years ago, and in B location 2,000 years ago, they won't say B people learned about/how to _____ from A peoples. There is an overwhelming necessity where this stuff is concerned though

 

[Jainarayan]

People are reluctant to let go of what they were taught and hold near and dear. Change in thinking is scary for a lot of people. Especially when it comes to cultures.