(Offtopic) Ethnic identity of ancient Alpine peoples

[Aberdeen]

i was talking about ancient script

So was I. Here's a site where you can read about the various alphabets that have been used around the world.

www.ancientscripts.com/ws_atoz.html

It may seem as if there are a fair number of alphabets, but that list is for the entire world. And many alphabets are based on other alphabets. For example, the ancient Greeks tried to use a modified version of Linear A to write in Greek (Linear B) but that didn't work very well because of differences between Greek and whatever language was the basis for Linear A. So the Greeks then adapted the Phoenician alphabet in order to create the Greek alphabet. The Etruscans then adapted the Euboean version of the Greek alphabet in order to create an Etruscan alphabet and the Roman adapted the Etruscan alphabet in order to create the Roman alphabet. And many different linguistic groups who lived near the Etruscans and Romans wrote in their own languages using some version of the Etruscan or Roman alphabet. So just because some group wrote something using the Etruscan alphabet doesn't necessarily mean they spoke Etruscan, or even that the language they were writing in was Etruscan. It just means they were using the Etruscan alphabet, or some version thereof.

 

[Sile]

Actually, the comparison makes every sense because, as you demonstrate in your post before that, you clearly do not understand what difference between a script and a language is:



As I said, you claim that because the people in the Alps use the same alphabet (a variant of the Etruscan alphabet), they must have spoken the same language. In reality they did not, as Lepontic, (Bolzano-)Raetian and Venetic were obviously different languages. Therefor my comparison with the modern world makes absolutely sense.



Wow. So Raetic became a Semitic language over night while nobody was watching...

I'm sure you can provide us with examples of how to interprete Raetic inscriptions using Hebrew or Arabic...

According to Brunner, Rhaetic was a Semitic language spoken in Central Europe and left traces in ca. 200+300 inscriptions
and in several hundreds of place names in Switzerland and Northern Italy (Brunner and Toth 19
87; Toth and Brunner 2007). In Toth (2008), it was argued that Rhaetic is either Amorit
ic or a very close relative of it. Already in Brunner (1987), the close relationship between Rhae
tic and Akkadian had been shown in hundreds of cognates. In Toth (2006a, b) I have fur
thermore shown that Rhaetic words also survived in Hungarian, which proves that the Sumeri
an ancestors of the Hungarians must have left Mesopotamia before the Rhaetic exodus, i.
e. before the Sea Wars (13./12. c. b.C.)
Therefore, by showing that there are sound+laws which describe in a consistent manner the phonetic change
s between the Sumerian/Akkadian/Rhaetic and the Hungarian consonants (and partly th
e vowels), we have shown that there can be no doubt that a certain percentage of Rhaeti
c words have survived in Hungarian. Our study thus confirms the results obtained in Toth (2
006a and 2006b). These few Akkadian and Raetic etymologies point,


Take your arguement to the linguistist noted above.

This deflection does not change anything, the raetic ( which I noted previously was said by historians to be liburnian/illyrian ) where conquered by the Romans in 15BC the raetia land was split between rhaetia prima and rhaetia secunda (vindelicia) and then in ~100AD the name vindelici was used instead of Rhaetia Secunda ( for vindelicia). The celtic terms you used was for celts going south from central germany in the early iron-age and having an influence on the "german" raetic people.
The ancient name of lake constance was lacus Veneticus by historian P.Mela, referring to the raetic/illyrian people of the area as also noted by Herodotus and Strabo.

I do agree that the parts of the alps became celtinized in the iron-age, but that a change of customs, language and ideas...the people where not celts ( again noted by ancient historians)

 

[Sile]

So was I. Here's a site where you can read about the various alphabets that have been used around the world.

www.ancientscripts.com/ws_atoz.html

It may seem as if there are a fair number of alphabets, but that list is for the entire world. And many alphabets are based on other alphabets. For example, the ancient Greeks tried to use a modified version of Linear A to write in Greek (Linear B) but that didn't work very well because of differences between Greek and whatever language was the basis for Linear A. So the Greeks then adapted the Phoenician alphabet in order to create the Greek alphabet. The Etruscans then adapted the Euboean version of the Greek alphabet in order to create an Etruscan alphabet and the Roman adapted the Etruscan alphabet in order to create the Roman alphabet. And many different linguistic groups who lived near the Etruscans and Romans wrote in their own languages using some version of the Etruscan or Roman alphabet. So just because some group wrote something using the Etruscan alphabet doesn't necessarily mean they spoke Etruscan, or even that the language they were writing in was Etruscan. It just means they were using the Etruscan alphabet, or some version thereof.

thanks

a quick browse gives me more than the modern 2 or 3 for europe ............even if I do not include linea A and linea B from crete ( a language 1000 years older than ancient greek)

 

[Aberdeen]

thanks

a quick browse gives me more than the modern 2 or 3 for europe ............even if I do not include linea A and linea B from crete ( a language 1000 years older than ancient greek)

You're very good at missing the point. My point was that people can and do write their own language using alphabets that were originally created for other languages. For example, we're writing in English, using the Classical Roman alphabet. So the fact that a certain group of people used the Etruscan alphabet in their writings doesn't prove that they spoke Etruscan.

 

[Aberdeen]

According to Brunner, Rhaetic was a Semitic language spoken in Central Europe and left traces in ca. 200+300 inscriptions
and in several hundreds of place names in Switzerland and Northern Italy (Brunner and Toth 19
87; Toth and Brunner 2007). In Toth (2008), it was argued that Rhaetic is either Amorit
ic or a very close relative of it. Already in Brunner (1987), the close relationship between Rhae
tic and Akkadian had been shown in hundreds of cognates. In Toth (2006a, b) I have fur
thermore shown that Rhaetic words also survived in Hungarian, which proves that the Sumeri
an ancestors of the Hungarians must have left Mesopotamia before the Rhaetic exodus, i.
e. before the Sea Wars (13./12. c. b.C.)
Therefore, by showing that there are sound+laws which describe in a consistent manner the phonetic change
s between the Sumerian/Akkadian/Rhaetic and the Hungarian consonants (and partly th
e vowels), we have shown that there can be no doubt that a certain percentage of Rhaeti
c words have survived in Hungarian. Our study thus confirms the results obtained in Toth (2
006a and 2006b). These few Akkadian and Raetic etymologies point,


Take your arguement to the linguistist noted above.

This deflection does not change anything, the raetic ( which I noted previously was said by historians to be liburnian/illyrian ) where conquered by the Romans in 15BC the raetia land was split between rhaetia prima and rhaetia secunda (vindelicia) and then in ~100AD the name vindelici was used instead of Rhaetia Secunda ( for vindelicia). The celtic terms you used was for celts going south from central germany in the early iron-age and having an influence on the "german" raetic people.
The ancient name of lake constance was lacus Veneticus by historian P.Mela, referring to the raetic/illyrian people of the area as also noted by Herodotus and Strabo.

I do agree that the parts of the alps became celtinized in the iron-age, but that a change of customs, language and ideas...the people where not celts ( again noted by ancient historians)

I'm not familiar with Brunner, and I'm certainly no linguist. Nevertheless, if Brunner thinks that Rhaetic is a Semetic language related to Hungarian, Akkadian and Sumerian, I have to wonder when the poor soul stopped taking his medication.

 

[Sile]

You're very good at missing the point. My point was that people can and do write their own language using alphabets that were originally created for other languages. For example, we're writing in English, using the Classical Roman alphabet. So the fact that a certain group of people used the Etruscan alphabet in their writings doesn't prove that they spoke Etruscan.

sorry, but that's my point, the raetic have different variants as per my link many posts ago, camunic, venetic, etruscan etc .......while celtic was different and came later. the etruscan once settled in etruria did not have or we do not know of any celtic relationships with their language

EDIT : are you confusing me with Nobody, because i keep getting drawn into a deeper linguistic conversation which is not what i am aiming for. linguistics is minor in relevance in regards to who people where...........in the roman period, most spoke latin, but they where not Romans

 

[Aberdeen]

sorry, but that's my point, the raetic have different variants as per my link many posts ago, camunic, venetic, etruscan etc .......while celtic was different and came later. the etruscan once settled in etruria did not have or we do not know of any celtic relationships with their language

EDIT : are you confusing me with Nobody, because i keep getting drawn into a deeper linguistic conversation which is not what i am aiming for. linguistics is minor in relevance in regards to who people where...........in the roman period, most spoke latin, but they where not Romans

Again, you seem to be missing the point, which is that there's a difference between language and script. The Raetic script was really just a variation on the Etruscan script, in other words the Raetics used the Etruscan alphabet to write their language, but that doesn't automatically mean there's a connection between the Raetic and Etruscan languages. The reason that English is written in the Roman alphabet is not because Latin and English are related but merely because Latin was in use and its alphabet was what was being used for writing throughout western Europe at the time the English language was developing. Similarity in languages does make it easier for one group to adopt the alphabet of another group, but linguistic differences can be got around in many cases, so unless you can show in some other way that the two languages are related, we have to assume that they're not, even if they use the same alphabet. And the reason the Celts wrote in a script based on the Roman rather than the Etruscan style of writing is precisely because the Celts came along later, rather than because of the relationship or lack of relationship between Celtic and Etruscan languages. If there are huge differences between two languages, that could make it difficult to adapt one alphabet for use in writing the other language, but if the Etruscans were able to adapt the Greek alphabet, the Celts would have been able to adapt the Etruscan alphabet, and probably would have if the Etruscan style of writing had still been popular when the Celts arrived, but by that time Roman writing was dominant.

 

[Sile]

Again, you seem to be missing the point, which is that there's a difference between language and script. The Raetic script was really just a variation on the Etruscan script, in other words the Raetics used the Etruscan alphabet to write their language, but that doesn't automatically mean there's a connection between the Raetic and Etruscan languages. The reason that English is written in the Roman alphabet is not because Latin and English are related but merely because Latin was in use and its alphabet was what was being used for writing throughout western Europe at the time the English language was developing. Similarity in languages does make it easier for one group to adopt the alphabet of another group, but linguistic differences can be got around in many cases, so unless you can show in some other way that the two languages are related, we have to assume that they're not, even if they use the same alphabet. And the reason the Celts wrote in a script based on the Roman rather than the Etruscan style of writing is precisely because the Celts came along later, rather than because of the relationship or lack of relationship between Celtic and Etruscan languages. If there are huge differences between two languages, that could make it difficult to adapt one alphabet for use in writing the other language, but if the Etruscans were able to adapt the Greek alphabet, the Celts would have been able to adapt the Etruscan alphabet, and probably would have if the Etruscan style of writing had still been popular when the Celts arrived, but by that time Roman writing was dominant.

You have it backwards, if geneticists last year stated etruscans came from the northern alps, then etruscans came from the raeti people and not the raeti came from etruscans. that being the case, etruscan script came from raetic script..........your just following the propaganda of Roman historians to glorify Rome......

correct the celts came down from central germany later.

Latin was not enforced on any people, it just that roman authories would only converse in Latin for anything and everything, people had to learn Latin to communicate with the Romans, it was not forced upon them like languages of nations are forced upon its citizens today. This is why Latin did not last as a dominant language and was replaced by the nobility at the peace of westphalia in 1648 by french as the lingua franca

who are these glorifiers?...name them.
Etruscans traded with greeks and phoenicians and picked up some changes of their script from this. they traded iron to the greeks and phoenicians for vases and other commodities. In fact the iron smeltering sitting on the coast in tuscany was so plentiful that around ~1900 the Italian government had private companies re work all the slag of this area and extract iron from it. The running battle with archeologists at this time was noted as a lot of ancient etruscan goods, burial sites etc where fought over for preservation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populonia
note the ONLY etruscan coastal town and as stated by historians a clear indication that etruscans did not arrive by sea

Piazza who did a study of etruscan dna in the mid 2000s from 1500 tuscan people with only tuscan surnames and a 400 continuous existence in tuscany was gathered...and IIRC no union with anatolia or euboea was concluded.

language and script...matters little to this debate, logic states ....if the script is the same, then it came from the same place

besides, what's this got to do with raeti and vindelic, venetic and illyrian in the alps?

 

[Aberdeen]

You have it backwards, if geneticists last year stated etruscans came from the northern alps, then etruscans came from the raeti people and not the raeti came from etruscans. that being the case, etruscan script came from raetic script..........your just following the propaganda of Roman historians to glorify Rome......

correct the celts came down from central germany later.

Latin was not enforced on any people, it just that roman authories would only converse in Latin for anything and everything, people had to learn Latin to communicate with the Romans, it was not forced upon them like languages of nations are forced upon its citizens today. This is why Latin did not last as a dominant language and was replaced by the nobility at the peace of westphalia in 1648 by french as the lingua franca

who are these glorifiers?...name them.
Etruscans traded with greeks and phoenicians and picked up some changes of their script from this. they traded iron to the greeks and phoenicians for vases and other commodities. In fact the iron smeltering sitting on the coast in tuscany was so plentiful that around ~1900 the Italian government had private companies re work all the slag of this area and extract iron from it. The running battle with archeologists at this time was noted as a lot of ancient etruscan goods, burial sites etc where fought over for preservation.
Piazza who did a study of etruscan dna in the mid 2000s from 1500 tuscan people with only tuscan surnames and a 400 continuous existence in tuscany was gathered...and IIRC no union with anatolia or euboea was concluded.

language and script...matters little to this debate, logic states ....if the script is the same, then it came from the same place

besides, what's this got to do with raeti and vindelic, venetic and illyrian in the alps?

What my comment has to do with Raetic, Vindelic, Venetic and Illyrian is the fact that you can't tell what language is related to another language simply by looking at what kind of alphabet someone uses. But I've made my point, and if you still don't get it, I don't think I want to bother repeating myself endlessly. And some of your views on which ethnic and linguistic groups are related to one another are, well, to put it politely, rather unique, IMO.

 

[Sile]

What my comment has to do with Raetic, Vindelic, Venetic and Illyrian is the fact that you can't tell what language is related to another language simply by looking at what kind of alphabet someone uses. But I've made my point, and if you still don't get it, I don't think I want to bother repeating myself endlessly. And some of your views on which ethnic and linguistic groups are related to one another are, well, to put it politely, rather unique, IMO.

fine, I know where you are coming from, you are accepting "modern" versions of history taught to you by teachers who are instructed to teach you what they want you to know to "save" their nation.............. when in a vast number of cases its shown that genetics conclusion support a lot of ancient historians who modern historians have said where wrong. Now a lot of modern historians are found wanting and are wrong due to genetic discoveries and national authorities do not like to accept the facts.

 

[Nobody1]

i was talking about ancient script

The ancient scripts are very useful in determining the zones, influence and affiliation (tribes) of the recorded inscriptions but not the language itself - that is solely determined by the content of that inscription;

Lejeune 1971 - Alpine and Cisalpine zones of the Etruscan-alphabet variants

Lepontic-script = Lugano-alphabet / Camunic-script = Sondrio-alphabet
W-Raetic-script = Bozen-alphabet / E-Raetic-script = Magre-alphabet
Venetic-script = Este-alphabet

For example the Todi inscription is Cisalpine-Gaulish but found in Umbria (~100BC) however it is written [1.2/1.4] in the Lepontic-script/Lugano-alphabet; Hence it must have been Gauls from the zone of Lugano (in which also all other Cisalpine-Gaulish inscr. are found) i.e. the Saluvii/Salyes (Keltoligyes) and the Vertamocorii (Vocontii);

Another example would be the Negau- helmet which has a Germanic inscription (3rd-2nd cen BC) Harigasti teiwa\\\il but written in the E-Raetic-script/Magre-alphabet; That is a clear case separation of a script and a language; Obviously the Germanic presence in the Alps (Iron-age) were influenced and in contact with the tribes of the Magre-zone and thus adopted their script; Which of course brings us to the topic itself and that is how substantial was the Germanic presence in the Alps during the Iron-age; I will post a few points on that later;

 

[Taranis]

Another example would be the Negau- helmet which has a Germanic inscription (3rd-2nd cen BC) Harigasti teiwa\\\il but written in the E-Raetic-script/Magre-alphabet; That is a clear case separation of a script and a language; Obviously the Germanic presence in the Alps (Iron-age) were influenced and in contact with the tribes of the Magre-zone and thus adopted their script; Which of course brings us to the topic itself and that is how substantial was the Germanic presence in the Alps during the Iron-age; I will post a few points on that later;

Ah, the Negau helmet. It's certainly interesting because this oldest attestation of Grimm's Law: *Hari- as in Gothic 'harjiz', German 'Heer', but not as in Gallic 'Corio-' or Old Irish 'cuire'. As far as the Germanic presence during the iron age was, I find it doubtful that there was anything in the way of Germanic settlements. My case for that is simple: there is zero evidence for Germanic settlements south of the Danube before the Migration Period (anybody who is of a different opinion, convince me of the opposite!), and the local (Celtic, Latin, etc.) toponyms that there are are affected by the High German consonant shift, but not by Grimm's Law. That does not mean, of course, that there was no Germanic presence at all, the Negau helmet shows the very opposite.

EDIT: one interesting point to make about these north italic scripts: one of them - no doubt - was also the basis for the runic alphabet used by the Germanic peoples.

 

[Sile]

The ancient scripts are very useful in determining the zones, influence and affiliation (tribes) of the recorded inscriptions but not the language itself - that is solely determined by the content of that inscription;

Lejeune 1971 - Alpine and Cisalpine zones of the Etruscan-alphabet variants

Lepontic-script = Lugano-alphabet / Camunic-script = Sondrio-alphabet
W-Raetic-script = Bozen-alphabet / E-Raetic-script = Magre-alphabet
Venetic-script = Este-alphabet

For example the Todi inscription is Cisalpine-Gaulish but found in Umbria (~100BC) however it is written [1.2/1.4] in the Lepontic-script/Lugano-alphabet; Hence it must have been Gauls from the zone of Lugano (in which also all other Cisalpine-Gaulish inscr. are found) i.e. the Saluvii/Salyes (Keltoligyes) and the Vertamocorii (Vocontii);

Another example would be the Negau- helmet which has a Germanic inscription (3rd-2nd cen BC) Harigasti teiwa\\\il but written in the E-Raetic-script/Magre-alphabet; That is a clear case separation of a script and a language; Obviously the Germanic presence in the Alps (Iron-age) were influenced and in contact with the tribes of the Magre-zone and thus adopted their script; Which of course brings us to the topic itself and that is how substantial was the Germanic presence in the Alps during the Iron-age; I will post a few points on that later;

thanks...and with this , we can clearly agree there origin as alpine and script slightly varied from the same origin and from the same race/peoples ( bronze-age)

If we where to extend your map and place scripts further south in emilia-romagna and lower we would see?

 

[Nobody1]

thanks...and with this , we can clearly agree there origin as alpine and script slightly varied from the same origin and from the same race/peoples ( bronze-age)
If we where to extend your map and place scripts further south in emilia-romagna and lower we would see?

The script/alphabet most def. had a common origin in that it ultimately descended from the Greek Euboean alphabet; Adopted first by the Etruscans in the 7th cen BC and than later by those in the close vicinity or having close contact/trade from the Etruscans earliest in 6th cen BC onwards; The Raeti for example adopted the alphabet/script during the 5th cen BC;

Cup of Nestor - Euboean Greek [late 8th cen BC] from Euboean colony Pithekoussai - South Italy;

Etruscan - adoption/inscription;

Essentially all variants stem from the same/common ancestral alphabet but adopted in diff. times by diff. cultures/socities with diff. languages;

 

[Nobody1]

Ah, the Negau helmet. It's certainly interesting because this oldest attestation of Grimm's Law: *Hari- as in Gothic 'harjiz', German 'Heer', but not as in Gallic 'Corio-' or Old Irish 'cuire'. As far as the Germanic presence during the iron age was, I find it doubtful that there was anything in the way of Germanic settlements.

The Negau- helmet itself stems from the 5th cen BC (Nedoma 1995) with the inscription being dated to the 3rd/2nd cen BC (Smith 2009/Cambridge Uni.); The interesting part of Negau- is that it was found along with 25 other helmets and another one of them Negau-[A] had a Keltic (4line) inscription with some Raetic influence (Macleod 2006) siragu turbi and dubni banuobi are Keltic while the title eisvi is supposed to be the Reatic equivalent of the Germanic teiwa; The inscription itself manifests a Germanic presence and its meaning and the fact its on a helmet clearly signalise the reason for this Germanic presence in a Keltic zone (Pannonia/Noricum border); The fact however that it was along with a Keltic helmet and that all 26 helmets are of the same type and buried in the same (ritual) site and collectively adopted the same Raetic-script reveals however a common (non-hostile) scenario; I will point some points out in the next post;

Inscription of Negau-[A] / Inscription and Helmet Negau-

 

[Sile]

The script/alphabet most def. had a common origin in that it ultimately descended from the Greek Euboean alphabet; Adopted first by the Etruscans in the 7th cen BC and than later by those in the close vicinity or having close contact/trade from the Etruscans earliest in 6th cen BC onwards; The Raeti for example adopted the alphabet/script during the 5th cen BC;

Cup of Nestor - Euboean Greek [late 8th cen BC] from Euboean colony Pithekoussai - South Italy;

Etruscan - adoption/inscription;

Essentially all variants stem from the same/common ancestral alphabet but adopted in diff. times by diff. cultures/socities with diff. languages;

So, you are basically stating that these alpine script are only from 8th century, then what do we assume that the venetics spoke around ~1150BC in the Veneto. A time when archeologist Elisa Perego has confirmed cremations and other archeological items found in the Veneto , made by Venetics. ( or are the euganei goods)
Granted, IMO, Veneti just adopted the Euganei script and I doubt very much they brought the script with them from the east and then taught everyone else this script in the alpine areas

 

[Nobody1]

As far as the Germanic presence during the iron age was, I find it doubtful that there was anything in the way of Germanic settlements. My case for that is simple: there is zero evidence for Germanic settlements south of the Danube before the Migration Period (anybody who is of a different opinion, convince me of the opposite!), and the local (Celtic, Latin, etc.) toponyms that there are are affected by the High German consonant shift, but not by Grimm's Law. That does not mean, of course, that there was no Germanic presence at all, the Negau helmet shows the very opposite.

Exactly - thats the point;
The Germanic presence outside of the traditional boundaries (Iron-age) is def. not justified or recorded by settlements or distinct tribal areas; It is however attested by the Negau- helmet - and most prob. justified by groups of mercenaries/war-bands employed by the Gauls (see also Ariovistus 1st cen BC) during the rich/dominant phase and expansions of LaTene; And such a scenario is not only justified but also manifested (as such) with the Gaesatae;

The Gaesatae are described by both Polybius (II/XXII), Plutarch (Marc./III) and Orosius (IV/XIII) as mercenaries (war-bands) and not a tribe - something that also the name [GAESATAE] itself reflects as it stems from the Keltic [Old Irish gai/gae = Spear] and also Germanic *gaizaz (=Spear) and thus simply means spearmen; In battle the Gaesatae fought naked wearing only the golden-torc (an elite symbol) and the fact that these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) even possesed such golden-torcs signalises that they were upmost elite (high merit/ranked) mercenaries; And these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) are specifically referred to as GERMANI on the Fasti Triumphales of Augustus and also Livius (XXI/XXXVIII) records the 'gentes Semigermanae' of the 3rd cen BC in an Alpine part which corresponds to the Gaesatae of Aneroëstus (Polybius II/XXII) i.e. Pennine Alps/Wallis/source of the Rhone; The Germanic presence outside of the traditional (Iron-age) boundaries are essentially these Gaesatae (Spearmen/Mercenaries) of the 'gentes Semigermanae';

Fasti Triumphales - ad­­ an 531.
M. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus an. DXX[XI] Cos. de Galleis Insubribus et Germ[an(eis)] K. Mart.
Isque spolia opima rettu[lit] duce hostium Virdumaro ad Clastid[ium interfecto]

Gaesatae warrior (with torc) -
other representations of the Gaesatae are the Temple-reliefs of Civitalba and pos. the Amendola Sarcophagus;

 

[Taranis]

Exactly - thats the point;
The Germanic presence outside of the traditional boundaries (Iron-age) is def. not justified or recorded by settlements or distinct tribal areas; It is however attested by the Negau- helmet - and most prob. justified by groups of mercenaries/war-bands employed by the Gauls (see also Ariovistus 1st cen BC) during the rich/dominant phase and expansions of LaTene; And such a scenario is not only justified but also manifested (as such) with the Gaesatae;

The Gaesatae are described by both Polybius (II/XXII), Plutarch (Marc./III) and Orosius (IV/XIII) as mercenaries (war-bands) and not a tribe - something that also the name [GAESATAE] itself reflects as it stems from the Keltic [Old Irish gai/gae = Spear] and also Germanic *gaizaz (=Spear) and thus simply means spearmen; In battle the Gaesatae fought naked wearing only the golden-torc (an elite symbol) and the fact that these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) even possesed such golden-torcs signalises that they were upmost elite (high merit/ranked) mercenaries; And these mercenaries (Gaesatae/Spearmen) are specifically referred to as GERMANI on the Fasti Triumphales of Augustus and also Livius (XXI/XXXVIII) records the 'gentes Semigermanae' of the 3rd cen BC in an Alpine part which corresponds to the Gaesatae of Aneroëstus (Polybius II/XXII) i.e. Pennine Alps/Wallis/source of the Rhone; The Germanic presence outside of the traditional (Iron-age) boundaries are essentially these Gaesatae (Spearmen/Mercenaries) of the 'gentes Semigermanae';

Fasti Triumphales - ad­­ an 531.
M. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus an. DXX[XI] Cos. de Galleis Insubribus et Germ[an(eis)] K. Mart.
Isque spolia opima rettu[lit] duce hostium Virdumaro ad Clastid[ium interfecto]

Gaesatae warrior (with torc) -
other representations of the Gaesatae are the Temple-reliefs of Civitalba and pos. the Amendola Sarcophagus;

Here I actually would agree unanimously, and I have very little to add to your assessment.

1) First is that while I agree with your assessment regarding the Gaesates, I'd like to point out that the supposed etymology (sometimes brought up, not by you, but by others on this board in the past) of the ethnic name "Germani" as 'spear men' (or 'gar men' ) is certainly false: the word would have been *gaizaz in Proto-Germanic, and the *z > *r rhotacism occured only in the West Germanic (both Insular and Continental) and North Germanic (Old Norse and its descendants), but not in East Germanic (think of the Vandalic king 'Geiserich') or in Proto-Germanic. So if the term was borrowed from there, we'd expect 'Gaisamani' or something similar. As we discussed - I think - in the other thread, the origin from a Celtic source is far more probable (as 'neighbours', or more literally 'Near Ones' - compare with Irish 'gearr', meaning 'short', and Welsh 'ger', meaning 'near').

2) I don't know how big the extend of Germanic mercenaries genuinely was (Ariovistus is a good point though), but the name "Harigasti" itself may be a piece of information: in modern German, the name would be literally rendered as "Heergast" ('army guest'), which could be a good circumscription for the term 'mercenary'.

 

[Sile]

more on semetic language being etruscan and raetic
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/LemnianLanguage.html

If etruscan script was lemnian and was in central italy for , some say 1000 years, why did it not spread to its neighbours?

- If reatic script was lemnian and in the alps why did it spread to its neighbours ?....................conclusion, because raetic is older in the area of italy and the alps.

It clearly had time to establish itself from the 8th century BC............clearly it must have had at least 3 centuries of "purity" of its script before mixing with the encroaching Celts from the north

One issue is lepontic, was it raetic/lemnian script or did it have some gallic script

 

[Taranis]

more on semetic language being etruscan and raetic
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/LemnianLanguage.html

Sile, you are still continuing to confuse "script" (writing system) and "language", even in the very link you gave us there:

Writing system
The inscriptions are in an alphabet similar to that used to write the Etruscan language and the older Phrygian inscriptions, all derived from Euboean scripts (Western Greek alphabet, alphabets of Asia Minor). These scripts are ultimately of West Semitic origin and were adapted by various peoples from the 8th century. Characters similar to those used in Lemnos Stele inscription are also found on some pottery fragments on Lemnos.

Nowhere does the article say that Raetian or Etruscan are Semitic languages, what the article says is (correctly) that the Etruscan writing system was based off a variant of the Greek alphabet (Euboean or Western), which in turn is 'of West Semitic origin'. What they mean is "was originally used to write West Semitic languages", which means the Phoenician alphabet (which, as we said, was the basis for the Greek alphabet).

I might add that Lemnian is written in a variant of the Greek alphabet, not in the Etruscan one.

Please don't take it personal, but as long as you don't understand what the difference between a writing system and a language written in that writing system is, I think a further dicussion with you is pointless.