149 ecenzijos / e iews
wiLLiaM . schMaLs ieg
he Pennsyl ania s a e uni e si y
ields o esea ch: indo-eu opean s udies, bal ic, especially old
P ussian, sla ic languages.
eugenijus jo aiša
aisčiai. kiLMė
Vilnius: edukologija, Lie u os mokslų akademija, 2012, 380 p.
isbn 978-9955-20-779-5
his ex ao dina ily imp essi e olume consis s o he ollowing pa s: in oduc-
ion (pp. 7–17); chap e i – he bal s in Li huanian his o y (pp. 19–28); chap e
ii – Polye hnici y in he bal ic wo ld (pp. 31–40); chap e iii – bal s and sla s
(pp. 43–55); chap e iV – bal s and aes ians (pp. 57–78); chap e V – he begin-
nings o he bal s and ais ians (pp. 81–88); chap e Vi – go hs in he hea o
ais ian cul u e (pp. 91–121); chap e Vii – he o igin o ais ians and he e i-
o y inhabi ed by hem (pp. 123–142); chap e Viii – he go hic-gepid, o
wielba k, cul u e and i s cha ac e is ics (pp. 145–157); chap e ix – he g ea
sp ead o he ais ians (pp. 159–169); chap e x – he g ea sp ead o he ais ians
on he maps (pp. 171–203); chap e xi – he g ea sp ead o he ais ians in
Li huanian a chaeological ma e ial (pp. 205–244); chap e xii – on he ack o
he g ea sp ead o he ais ians (pp. 247–276); chap e xiii – ais ians in he old
i on age (10–450 yea s a.d.) (pp. 279–293); Li huanian summa y (pp. 295–306);
english summa y (pp. 307–320); ge man summa y (pp. 321–334); ussian sum-
ma y (pp. 335–348); sou ces (pp. 349–361); ex e e ences o pe sonal names
(pp. 363–369); ex e e ences o place names (pp. 370–379). he e is also a as
numbe o maps, d awings, diag ams and pic u es o a chaeological indings.
in he in oduc ion jo aiša (p. 7) w i es ha kazimie as būga said ha he P us-
sians and Li huanians, La ians, semigalians, selonians, and cu onians a e o be
called as ians. o he schola s ha e said ha ais ians is a g oup name because
aci us w o e „aes io um gen es“, i.e., he ais ian peoples. i is di icul o know
who he ais ian peoples migh ha e been a he ime when aci us was w i ing.
one migh belie e ha aci us had in mind he mou h o he Vis ula, sambian
and Li huanian coas al ais ians because i is jus hose coas s ha a e iches in
ambe , he collec ion o which aci us conside ed an impo an dis inguishing
ea u e o he ais ians.
in an e o o es ablish he a ea inhabi ed by he ais ians o wes bal s one
150
wiLLiaM . schMaLs ieg
ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXVIII
mee s wi h a numbe o complica ed elemen s. his o ical adi ion is limi ed, one
is led as ay by he explana ions and lack he eo o bal ic-ge manic and bal ic-
sla ic ela ionships in he ea lies imes. di icul ies o bal ic, ge manic and sla ic
e hnoch onology play a ole as well as he con empo a y cul u al adi ion. con-
empo a y a cheological hough shows wha his o ical adi ion means in he ligh
o he his o y o he ais ian peoples (p. 9).
he wes e n bounda y o he e i o y asc ibed o he ais ians is de ined by
he sambian peninsula and he Masu ian lake dis ic , i.e., he cul u es asc ibed
o he bo de o wes e n bal ic sambia-no anga and galindia which has been
enamed he bogače cul u e. hus he mou h and lowe eaches o he Vis ula
a e no included in he ais ian e i o y. a he same ime ge man schola s o he
ou h decade o he wen ie h cen u y, de ining he bounda y o he wes bal ic
bu ial mounds do no doub he bal ic na u e o he uppe eaches o he Vis ula.
he mou h and he uppe eaches o Vis ula i e ha e become he go dian kno .
(p. 9) con empo a y a chaeological hinking has assigned hem o go hic his o y.
h ough he e o s o Polish, and ussian a chaeologis s and a chaeologis s o
o he na ionali ies he ea ly imes o he his o y o he go hs, who a e no men-
ioned in any o he w i en sou ce han jo danes’ legend o he no he n o igin o
he go hs, ha e been iden i ied wi h he his o y o he people o he wielba k
cul u e. (p. 9) he bi h o he wielba k go hic cul u e is cons uc ed in he mou h
o he Vis ula, he pa h o he go hic mig a ion om he mou h o he Vis ula o
he wes owa ds Pama is, bu la e e u ning o he mou h o he Vis ula and
passing o he igh bank o he Vis ula owa ds he black sea me ging in o he
de elopmen o he če niacho cul u al de elopmen which was o med in he
second decade o he hi d cen u y. he wielba k cul u e and he his o y o i s
people is au hen ic, bu he go hic bu den heaped on hem is oo hea y o
c i ical analysis when one compa es he w i en sou ces, a chaeology and linguis-
ic his o y (p. 9).
he e has been hen disag eemen among he his o ians, linguis s and a chae-
ologis s and wo ch onologies, he ch onology o he o ma ion o he language
and he ch onology o he ma e ial cul u e o he people using he language. among
he language his o ians he e ha e been many opinions abou he ime and bi h
place o he bal ic, sla ic and ge manic languages. and a a ious imes a chae-
ologis s ha e deepened his bo omless pi o opinions by o e ing coun less and
equen ly con adic o y heo ies abou he place o o igin o hese peoples and
he ch onology o he s ages o hei de elopmen . (p. 9) his is pa icula ly ue
in he a chaeological sou ces abou he sla ic peoples. be ween he wo disciplines –
language his o y and a chaelogy – he e has been a ha dly su moun able di ide,
especially when in o de o suppo a ious heo ies a a ious pe iods he e ap-
eugenijus jo aiša. Aisčiai. Kilmė
151 ecenzijos / e iews
pea ed ideological equi emen s. his was pa icula ly no iceable du ing nazi and
so ie imes. (p. 9) al hough linguis ics and a chaeology a ained g ea successes,
he ideological esea ches o he ge man and sla ic dis an pas ga e a lack o
objec i i y in esea ching, e.g., wes e n bal ic his o y. (p. 9)
he con empo a y cul u al adi ion which sugges s ha one decides e hnic
ques ions wi h ca e when a cheological cul u e is in es iga ed is in i s way co ec .
in he inhabi ed places and on he bu ial monumen s he e a e no insc ip ions
which would pe mi he asce ainmen o hei e hnic o igin. (p. 9)
Ma ija gimbu ienes’ asc ip ion o he P zewo sk cul u e o he sla s is no
ema kable he e. (p. 10–11) he a cheologis s o so ie imes did ha . now his
cul u e is unanimously iden i ied wi h he ge mans. i is so easy. (p. 11) Pe haps
i would be jus as easy o e u n he wielba k cul u e o he bal s? jo aiša’s e-
quen e e ence o he poli ical aspec s o he opinions o o he schola s begs he
ques ion as o whe he he has a poli ical aim in inding bal ic e hnici y whe e i
was no ound be o e. i ha e no opinion abou many o hese ques ions. i do be-
lie e, howe e , ha scien i ic heo ies a e social mo emen s simila o eligions
and ha hey change om gene a ion o gene a ion. whe he a heo y is co ec
o no is decided me ely by a majo i y o e o he expe s. and i is well known
ha in he cou se o ime pa adigms change (kuhn 1970: 66–91).
he in oduc ion (p. 15) also explains ha he olume e iewed he e Kilmė
‘o igin’ is only he i s olume o a ilogy, he second olume o be en i led
Kapai i žmonės ‘g a es and people’ and he hi d A cheologo už ašai ‘an a cheolo-
gis ’s no es’ (p. 15).
he au ho w i es ha i is gene ally accep ed ha bal s we e c ea ed abou
2200–2000 b.c. (p. 20) he a ibu es o algi das gi ininkas he no ion ha he
sou ces o he bal ic cul u e we e o med al eady in he Vi–V cen u ies b.c. (p.
20). he w i es u he ha he wo ld’s linguis s ag ee ha he P ussian and Li hu-
anian languages belong o he oldes laye o he indo-eu opean languages. (p. 21)
he no ion o age wi h ega d o language is a he icky. i is be e o use he
e m ‘conse a i e’ o deno e he e en ion o ancien ea u es. i we say ha eng-
lish and Li huanian a e bo h indo-eu opean languages one assumes ha hey bo h
e en ually de i e om he same p o o-language. P esumably he e is a succession
o gene a ions speaking each language and ha english and Li huanian ha e he
same age, i.e., he same numbe o yea s sepa a e he common P o o-indo-eu o-
pean language om con empo a y english and Li huanian. english, howe e , has
appa en ly changed mo e han Li huanian. e.g., an o iginal indo-euopean *d- in
he wo d dešim is mo e o iginal han he - in i s english cogna e en. we assume
ha he d- is o iginal since he majo i y o he o he indo-eu opean languages
ha e an ini ial d- in he cogna e wo d (c . La in decem, g eek δέκα (déka), sansk i
152
wiLLiaM . schMaLs ieg
ac a Linguis ica Li huanica LXVIII
daśa e c. o cou se, i one de elops a su icien ly complex heo y one could sup-
pose ha he english - is o iginal (c . he a menian cogna e asn) and ha he
d- in he o he languages de i es om a la e oicing.
Many linguis s a oid his ques ion and adhe e o he bal o-sla ic heo y and
say ha „ he bal ic and he sla ic languages we e o iginally one language and so
o m one g oup“ (beekes 1995 22). see also Ma ine 1986: 73–79, wa kins 29,
1998). i don’ hink ha one could claim ha a du ch man, a ench man and an
ame ican would ha e any poli ical in e es in ha . i pe sonally hink he bal o-
sla ic p oblem is insoluble, since wha e e common changes he bal ic and sla -
ic may ha e could jus as well be asc ibed o pa allel de elopmen .
in conclusion i would say ha jo aiša’s ho ough examina ion o he e idence
and he asc ip ion o he a chaeological si es in he Vis ula a ea o he bal ic
peoples (ais ians) seems co ec e en o a non-Li huanian. he de ailed s udy and
he e udi ion displayed a e mos admi able.
e e ences
beekes obe s. P. 1995: Compa a i e Indo-Eu opean Linguis ics, An In oduc ion .
ams e dam and Philadelphia: john benjamins.
kuhn homas s. 1970: The S uc u e o Scien i ic Re olu ions. 2nd ed. chicago: uni-
e si y o chicago P ess.
Ma ine and é 1986: Des s eppes aux océans: l’indo-eu opéen e les indo-eu opéens .
Pa is: Payo .
wa k ins cal e 1998: P o o-indo-eu opean: compa ison and econs uc ion. – anna
giacalone ama , Paulo ama , eds. The Indo-Eu opean Languages. London and new yo k:
ou ledge, 25–73.
Į eik a 2013 m. ko o 1 d.
wiLLiaM . schMaLs ieg
The Pennsyl ania S a e Uni e si y
Uni e si y Pa k, Pa. 16802
[email p o ec ed]