Again, we have this:Originally Posted by Frostwulf
IIRC, the Aravisci were Celts with a Celtic culture. And Tacitus says that the Osians are Germani, but have the same customs and laws as the Aravisci. Therefore, if what I recall is correct, then the Osians had a Celtic culture, as opposed to (what you call) a "German culture."Originally Posted by Tacitus
Note Old Prussian (a Baltic, not Germanic language) glesis, "amber" - which, along with PGmc *glasō both potentially fit with Tacitus' word. It's undeniable that they're cognates - but the question is, which one loaned the word to the other at this stage - early Baltic tongues or early Germanic tongues? (To make myself clear - I am not suggesting that Old Prussian was spoken at this time)Originally Posted by Frostwulf
According to Tacitus, the Aestii were the primary harvesters of glaesum/amber - and the Aestii inhabited the area known as East Prussia (now part of Lithuania) - the primary area where Old Prussian was spoken (and was the dominant language until its Germanization). To me, it seems more reasonable to assume that the Aestii spoke a Baltic language, as opposed to a Germanic one, than the opposite.
Bookmarks