Baltische Bestattungsrituale im Spiegel ihrer Bezeichnungen: litauisch „šermenys“ und „šarvójimas“, altpreußisch „sirmen“

ACTA LINGUISTICA LITHUANICA LIII (2005), 9–21 Baltic funerary rituals reflected in their designations: Lithuanian šẽrmenys and šarvójimas, Old Prussian sírmen BERND GLIWA Sargeliai The common etymology of Lith. šẽrmenys and OPr. sirmen ‘funeral rite, funeral feast’ relates them to šérti ‘feed’. This interpretation is rejected here. Lith. šérti is used for feeding animals and only metaphorically for children, old or sick persons; its use in a ritual context is not attested and seems unlikely. Feasting the guests is not the essence of funeral and other custom. There is no evidence to show that šẽrmenys was restricted to the funeral feast. New etymological connections are suggested here: (1) with Lith. šermuonėlis, Germ. Hermelin ‘ermine’, Lith. širvas, šir̃mas ‘white, whitish’, šármas, OPr. sirmes ‘washing lye made of ashes’ according to the colour which has been associated with death, (2) with Lat. cremāre, IE *kremH- ‘to burn, cremate’ and, perhaps, gr. κέραμος, 3.) with IE *kerH₂- ‘burst’ > ‘decay’ and gr. κήρ ‘death; goddess of death’. Lith. šarvojimas ‘laying-out of the dead’ is related to šarvaĩ, šárvas ‘(1a) discharge (after birth), (1b) menstruation, (1c) discharge (from the mouth of the dead), (2a) armament, (2b) soldier’s outfit, weapons and ammunition, (2c) carapace, (3a) dowry, (3b) burial object’, OPr. sarwis ‘weapon’. A former meaning ‘*physical sign and ritual equipment in a rite of passage’ is suggested. 1. PRELIMINARY REMARKS Death and the question of what comes “afterward” have preoccupied humanity since time immemorial. Beliefs about the afterlife and funerary ceremony are closely connected; burial is the ritual that ensures an optimal transition to the next stage of existence or nonexistence. The interests of the deceased (e.g., a rich life in the afterlife or rapid reincarnation) and those of the bereaved (no return of the deceased as a ghost, no harassment of or even vengeance against the living) may each take precedence. To broaden our understanding of the historical beliefs about the afterlife held by Lithuanians and their ancestors, “from the perspective of religious studies, even the names of family celebrations (baptism, wedding, funeral) and various kinship terms are illuminating” (Vėlius 1996: 92). On the other hand, the study of lexicon cannot be undertaken without knowledge of its content, since the associated terminology corresponds to the actions and things it 10 | BERND GLIWA denotes, insofar as essential properties or salient parts can prompt the naming of an object. The only exception here is loanwords, in which the relationship between sign and referent is obscured by cultural context. When an object, plant, or technology is imported, the associated term is very often adopted as well. This does not, however, put the original coinage of the word to rest; rather, it merely shifts it to the donor language, where the motivation is to be sought. Ideally, therefore, the study of lexicon would be accompanied by study of what each term denotes. With Lévi-Strauss (1997: 60), one regrets not being at the same time an ethnologist, mineralogist, botanist, zoologist, and astronomer. And since language encompasses every sphere of life, past and present, this list could be extended indefinitely. For only thorough knowledge of the subject matter prevents vague notions about a term from seeping into its etymology. 2. LITH. šērmenys ‘FUNERAL FEAST, FUNERAL VIGIL’ Alongside šērmenys (gen. šermenių / šermenų), the forms šērmenės, šērminės, šērmìnẏs, among others, are attested (LKŽXIV 657f.). The meaning ranges from 1. ‘funeral vigil with religious songs (giesmės) and laments (raudos)’ to 2. ‘burial’, 3. ‘funeral feast’, and 4. ‘pagan customs relating to burial’ (LKŽXIV 657). Szyrwid lists stypá / Parentalia orum. epulii funebre, šermenìs (SD³ 427). The anonymous Lexicon Lithuanicum (LEX 13a, 58) gives szermenys – Begrabniß and szermenys – Leichbegängniß. Obwohl LKŽXIV 657 šērmenys als Plurale tantum ausweist, findet sich die zu Grunde liegende singuläre Form šermuõ (konsonantische Deklination, n-Stamm) in den Bedeutungen 1. ‚Totenwache‘ und 2. ‚Totenmahl‘ (LKŽXIV 660). Das homophone šermuõ, gehörig als phonetische Variante zu šelmũo ‚Dachfirst‘, interessiert hier nicht weiter. Der dritten Bedeutung šermuõ und šermuonėlis ‚Hermelin, Mustela erminea‘ bzw. vilpišys ‚Wildkatze, Felis silvestris‘ stehen die Formen mit Wurzel-e: šermuonėlis, šermonis, šermonys, šermonėlis, šermunėlis, šermuonis (LKŽXIV 658–660), mit i: širmuonėlis, širmūnėlis (LKŽXIV 904) und mit a: šarmuonėlis, šarmuonis (LKŽXIV 524) zur Seite, alle in der Bedeutung ‚Hermelin, Mustela erminea‘; gelegentlich könnte auch der ähnliche žebenktštis ‚Wiesel, Mustela nivalis‘ damit gemeint sein. Ohne zunächst die inhaltliche Problematik zu erörtern, sei die These aufgestellt, dass šermuõ ‚Totenwache...‘ und šermuõ ‚Hermelin‘ nicht nur homophon, sondern auch etymologisch verwandt sind. Die herkömmliche Etymologie verknüpft šērmenys mit šérti ‚füttern‘, gebildet aus baltisch *šer- ‚mästen‘ < idg. *ker ‚dass.‘ mit Suffix *-men. Der Ansatz als idg. *ker- ‚ds.‘ (statt kēr-) erfolgt, um die Verbindung mit russ. korm ‚Futter‘ aufrechtzuerhalten, während gr. κορέννυμι ‚ich sättige‘ diesbezüglich indifferent ist (Mažiulis 1997: 114 und Lit., LEW 974). Rix et al. reconstruct the root as *kerh₂- ‘to sate, feed’ (LIV 329). As can readily be inferred from Sabaliauskas’s discussion (1994: 334), Lit. šerm enys, šarvojimas, ALTPREUSS. sirmen | 11 the meaning šerm enys ‘funeral feast’ has here been assumed to be the original one by way of circular reasoning. The semasiological comparison—that terms for funeral feasts in other languages likewise refer to concepts of eating—is nothing more than a circular argument, since this comparison is of course valid only if the assumption about the original meaning is correct. As for Old Prussian sirmen, the meaning given, ‘funeral feast’ (Mažiulis 1997: 114, citing Nesselmann 1873: 161f.), is somewhat misleading. The original attestation, Item czu der sirmen, die die Prewssen pflegen czu halden, sal uffs hogeste nicht me, denne eyne tonne bir getrunken werden... (Landesordnung 1427 in: BRMŠ 488), can certainly be understood as referring to a funeral, since weddings and christenings had been mentioned immediately beforehand. Yet a wedding, too, does not consist solely of eating and drinking, so restricting the term here to a funeral feast alone is unjustified. Moreover, one must not project present-day custom, whereby a funeral feast takes place only after the burial, back into the period under discussion. There is ample evidence that drinking took place even before the actual burial/cremation. Thus, the terms do not establish either that this was an event after the burial or that eating was its main feature. We will therefore continue to work from the more general meaning of sirmen, ‘burial’. Formally, there is nothing to object to in deriving it from šerti, but semantically this derivation from šerti ‘to feed’ is questionable. For it should be borne in mind that šerti is polysemous—apparently, distinct lines of development have merged here through homophony. I would summarize as follows the vast range of meanings that LKŽXIV 667–677) gives for šerti and its prefixed derivatives: (1.a) of livestock—to feed, fatten, breed; (1.b) of people—to nurse back to health (after illness), feed (children, the elderly), give food to (reluctantly or inadequately), bring up; 2. to beat, cut, whip, and also to rain heavily; 3. to molt, shed feathers, shed hair (cf. Lithuanian šeriaũ ‘bristles, hair’), change color through a change of fur; 4. generally, to stain, fade; and 5. to dry straw for threshing (by heating the jauja ‘grain-drying barn’). Let us therefore first consider how the derivation from *kerh3- ‘to feed, satiate’ can be justified semantically. The underlying idea is evidently that a large number of guests must be provided with food and drink, and that the funeral feast quickly turns into a drinking bout (cf. BRMŠ 46). Šerti ‘to feed, fatten’ is used predominantly in animal husbandry. When it refers to people, it contrasts with Lithuanian vaišinti ‘to entertain, feast’, myluoti ‘ditto’ and maintinti ‘to give food to, nourish’, inasmuch as šerti either 1. emphasizes the eater’s dependence (the elderly, children), or 2. describes the action as inadequate (due to scarcity) or reluctant, or 3. refers to nursing a sick person back to health and raising a child—possibly by analogy with the raising of livestock. Given the long-term nature of the action, however, this cannot be connected with the meaning ‘to entertain guests’, which is not otherwise attested either. The passage in Donelaitis, Nes dosnungas Dievs kiekvieną žino pasotint; Ale su pilnom saujoms mus vis šert nežadėjo, which Sabaliauskas (1994: 334) cites as evidence for the former use of šerti in reference to human nourishment, is not applicable in this way. 12 | BERND GLIWA For, first, in the relationship between God and humankind, the dominance of the former is set against the relative passivity of the latter, entirely in keeping with the trend noted above. Moreover, šérti occurs in a negative statement: God will specifically not feed people like infants or livestock (a clearly disparaging comparison); rather, people have been given the means to provide for themselves. Thus, šērmenys, ‘feeding of the guests’, would carry a disparaging connotation through its use of a term from animal husbandry, and therefore could not serve as a designation for a ceremonial act used by the people taking part in it. Balys (1948: 188) erklärt šērmenys in der engeren Bedeutung ‚Leichenschmaus nach der Bestattung‘ ebenfalls als Fütterung, und zwar nicht nur der Lebenden, sondern auch der Toten. Ob sich die Bewirtung der Seelen Verstorbener, die, so scheint es, mindestens eine gewisse Ehrfurcht vor selbigen voraussetzt mit dem Begriff der Fütterung zusammenbringen lässt, darf bezweifelt werden – auch, wenn hier die relative Unselbständigkeit der Seelen berücksichtigt wird. Zwar könnte man das ebenfalls an die Viehzucht angelehnte Sujet von Hirt (lat. pastor) und Schafherde, die zu hüten sei (vgl. lit. išganymas ‚Weiden, Hüten‘ und ‚Erlösung, Seligkeit‘), vergleichen. Hier fehlt auch der negative Beigeschmack, vermutlich, da es eindeutig als Metapher aufgefasst wird; allerdings bringt es überwiegend die Sicht der Hirten und nicht die der Schafe. Šērmenys *,Fütterung der Gäste‘ kann man dahingegen kaum als Metapher auffassen. Furthermore, even if one takes the drinking bout to be the semantic focal point in the formation of the term, the essential question remains: namely, the burial and honoring of the deceased. In addition, in such a case we would have every reason to expect similar designations for weddings and baptisms, both of which feature comparable drinking bouts (BRMŠ 487). With regard to souls, one must ask why all the other feasts at which the souls of the dead are ‘fed’—that is, seven days, 40 days, and one year after the burial, as well as various calendar feasts, among others—are not named accordingly. Neither in this sense nor in that one do we find šērmenys or its derivatives. One must of course consider the objection that the semantic shift of šérti toward ‘to feed’ may represent a specifically Baltic development, and that when šermuõ ‘funeral feast, etc.’ was formed, the reconstructed meaning *kerh- ‘to satiate, feed’ may still have existed in the sense ‘to entertain’. Less problematic is the comparison with Russian корм ‘feed’, for which Old Church Slavonic κρъма ‘τροφή’ is attested (REWIII 329). For even if this is compared with Lithuanian šérti, the fact that the Baltic languages show satem reflexes while the Slavic languages behave as centum languages still requires a solid explanation. A conjecture that “in the case of Slavic *kъrmъ we are apparently dealing with depalatalization of the initial velar before a syllabic *r” (R. H. Derksen, pers. communication) would require parallel cases and a detailed chronology as evidence. A similar correspondence, Lithuanian š: Slavic k, occurs in Lithuanian šeivikaulis ‘tibia’ vs. Serbo-Croatian cjevnica ‘ditto’ < Slavic *čěvb, though under different conditions and likewise unexplained. Lit. šermenys, šarvojimas, ALTPREUSS. sirmen | 13 Since a conclusive explanation is still lacking, an alternative interpretation of *kərmb should be preferred, namely a connection with Indo-European *(s)ker- ‘shear, scratch, cut off’ (for the root, cf. LIV 556). Accordingly, Slavic *kərma would be a designation meaning ‘something cut off, harvest (result)’, which may have been preceded by *‘mowing, harvest (process)’. This applies both to fodder for livestock—hay—and to grain for human consumption. In semasiological terms, and also formally, one could compare Lithuanian kirsti ‘fell, harvest grain’, since *(s)kert- ‘(cut) apart’ is regarded as an extension of the aforementioned *(s)ker- (LIV 566). A relationship between Slavic *kərma and Lithuanian šerti, šermenys is also rejected as unlikely by ESSJₓᵢᵢ 222. The suffix *-mōn/-men- is widespread. How does it relate to the ‘root extension’ -m-? It is likely that forms with *šerm- are derivatives of it, with a newly formed root resulting from resegmentation (a similar explanation suggests itself for the -m- in Slavic *kərma). Let us first consider šermuo ‘funeral feast, etc.’ and šermuo ‘ermine, Mustela erminea’. The ermine is white, at least in winter—only the tip of its tail remains dark. Hence the related words širmuonėlis ‘ermine’, širmuonis ‘fur cap made of ermine fur’: širmas, širmas ‘white, gray (of an animal); gray-haired (of a person)’, širmis ‘white, gray (of a horse and cow)’, širmelỹs ‘Gray One, gray horse’ (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 902f) and šarmuonėlis ‘ermine’, ‘ermine fur’ (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 524): šármas ‘ash infusion for whitening and washing; lye, alkali’, šármas, šármas, šarmà ‘frost; mold’, šarmuo ‘washing agent (made from ash)’ (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 520ff.) are not surprising. They all share the semantic component ‘white, gray’, so there can hardly be any doubt about their etymological relationship. In this connection, it is of interest that Old Prussian gaylux E 661 ‘ermine’ obviously belongs with gaylis E 459 ‘white’. Lithuanian gailùs ‘caustic, sharp; stinging, bitter; cold; angry’ in turn makes a semantic link to šarmas ‘frost; lye’, as may also be inferred from the explanation of šarmas—gailus nusistojęs pelenų plikinys (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 521). According to Kluge (1999: 371): German Hermelin < Old High German harmo < pre-language *kermōn < Indo-European *kormo- ‘frost, snow, hail’ in Lithuanian šarmas ‘frost, frozen dew’. The reduction to ‘frost, snow, hail’ cannot be accepted without reservation, particularly since the relationship and chronology of the formatives -m- vs. -men- suggest that this meaning is secondary. It may be possible to posit the basic meaning ‘that which is white, glaring, cold’. Adding the meanings given by ESSJᵢᵥ 68 for Indo-European *kerH-m- ‘sharp, stinging, caustic’ yields the more general form ‘glaring, sharp, caustic, cold; that which strongly stimulates the senses’ (for such semasiological transfers and combinations, cf. Urbutis 1972: 57–61, Gliwa 2004: 9–11). In this sense, however, the root *kerH- itself should already be understood this way, if one does not wish to regard the Baltic parallel developments šarmas/šerkšnas ‘frost’, širmas/širvas ‘white, gray’ as the result of interference between different lines of development. Also belonging here are Latvian sērksna ‘crust of snow’, sīrms ‘gray-haired, gray’, Old Church Slavonic srenъ ‘white’, Armenian sarň ‘ice’, among others (LEW 973f.). Furthermore, because of the acute accentuation of šármas ‘lye’ and širmas ‘white, gray’, a set-root *ḱerH- should be posited; circumflex variants are to be explained secondarily, 14 | B E R N D G L I W A particularly through metatony in nominalization and the further generalization of such forms. Old Prussian sirmen ‘burial’ and sirmes E 554 ‘lye’ do not formally preclude an etymological relationship, again on the basis of *sir-m- ‘ash; that which is white, gray’. There may have been a difference in meaning between pelenã ‘ash and embers’ and *sirm- ‘completely burned ash’, as one might infer from the designation Polengabia ‘goddess entrusted with kindling the fire’, mentioned by Lasicki (1969: 22, 42). It is immaterial here whether this refers to a goddess or a household implement (1969: 80). The fact that fire can be kindled from ash presupposes the existence of embers. On the other hand, an interpretation such as Polengabia ‘she who covers (the embers) with ash’ would, of course, also be possible. And ash is known to be a good heat insulator, so that the embers remain alight for a long time. Whether, however, gabija, zu gobti / gaubti ‘to cover’, can be understood in such a pragmatic way, or whether another interpretation would be preferable, must remain open. Aus Bügas (1961: 712) Ausführungen zu lit. šãrmas, lett. šãrms ‚weiße Lauge zum Waschen‘ wird deutlich, dass er Verwandtschaft mit einem unbelegten lettischen Verb *sėrt ‚weißen, bleichen‘ annimmt. Damit stünde šãrmas *,‚Waschmittel, Weißmacher‘ oben genanntem šėrti ‚4. ausbleichen, *bereifen‘ evtl. auch ‚3. mausern, federn, durch Pelzwechsel die Farbe wechseln, abfärben‘ nahe. Mažiulis (1997: 114f und Literatur) bemerkt, dass Büga mit dieser Auffassung alleine steht und schließt sich weitgehend dem üblichen Vergleich von altpr. sirmes mit dt. Harn an. Der Beschreibung von altpr. sirmes als *,‚eine dem Harn ähnliche Flüssigkeit‘ (Mažiulis 1997: 115) kann jedoch nicht zugestimmt werden. Die Farbe stimmt nicht überein, sirmes ‚Lauge‘ ist im Gegensatz zu Harn geruchsneutral, letzterer wiederum ist nicht ätzend und kann auch beim besten Willen nicht als Weißmacher bezeichnet werden. Wobei aber die ätzende Eigenschaft der Aschelauge recht moderat bleibt, denn traditionell wurde šãrmas auch im Badehaus zum Haarewaschen genutzt. Die Ähnlichkeit beschränkt sich also auf die Eigenschaft ‚flüssig‘ und dann sollte es erlaubt sein, auch beispielsweise ‚Wasser‘ und ‚Blut‘ als altpr. sirmes bzw. lit. šãrmas zu traktieren. Das ist mitnichten der Fall. Returning to šermenys. According to archaeological investigations, cremation was customary in the territory of the Baltic peoples during the period 1200 BC–0 and then from about 500–1400 AD, in some cases coexisting with other forms of burial (the dates should be understood as rough guides; for more precise information, see: Grigalavičienė 1995: 65, 95; Toporov 2000: 206), and including or followed by the cremation of captured crusaders (BRMŠ 42, 450). Even in the intervening period, when cremation was superseded by burial, fire played an important role in the ritual practices surrounding burial: many graves contain traces of ash and charred wood, apparently poured over the coffins (Stankus 1984: 64). In present-day Lithuania, burning candles are an indispensable part of the vigil for the dead and the funeral mass. Lit. šermėnys, šarvojimas, ALTPREUSS. sirmen | 15 Cremation produces ash. Just as šármas, on the basis of ash, becomes a designation for washing lye, šermėnys, likewise based on ash, may originally have designated cremation, that is, the burning of corpses. Baltic *šermōn ‘cremation’ would be comparable in word formation to Lithuanian armuō ‘plowing, plowed field’, rėmuō ‘heartburn’, sėmuō ‘sowing, seed’, pjūmuō ‘cut, harvest’, gelmuō ‘cold’ as nomina actionis (Skardžius 1996: 293–295, Ambrazas 1993: 55). The ritual acts immediately associated with it, such as prayer, song, and the consumption of food and intoxicating drinks, inherit this designation. The fact that the designation for cremation does not take account of the sememes ‘fire’ or ‘burn’ has parallels in German Einäscherung ‘turning into ash’, as well as in Latin cremāre ‘cremate, burn’: ignis ‘fire’. Latin cremāre is unique within Indo-European k(’)remH- ‘burn’ (LIV 368) and is compared with material from other languages only with reservations, for example Greek κέραμος ‘potter’s clay, brick, jug...’ (Walde 1910: 199). The Greek word, in turn, is cautiously compared with Lithuanian kárštas ‘hot’ and Old High German herd, while noting that a word with -(a)mo- from the semantic domain of technology could well be a borrowed cultural term (GEW 823f. and literature cited there). Semasiologically, the development would be ‘white’ > ‘making white’ > ‘turning into ash’ > ‘burning’. In a certain sense, this may be compared with Old Indic metaphorical designations for fire: kṛṣṇavartman, kṛṣṇagati ‘fire’, literally ‘having a black track’; kṛṣṇajanhās ‘having a dark path (fire)’ (Mylius 2001: 121). It is well known that in Lithuanian tradition the color white remained a symbol of death until the 20th century, and the deceased were generally dressed in white linen. When unmarried people died, they were dressed for burial as for a wedding and adorned with the customary wedding ornaments (Dunduliene 1999: 248, 262). As Gimbutiene notes, the color of bones completely freed of tissue and bleached white is the color of death (1996: 202). Excarnation and cremation produce white remains. By contrast, it is unsurprising that burial is associated with becoming earth, with black earth and humus, and that black becomes the symbolic color of death, with the inertia characteristic of symbols. Related Baltic terms referring to color have been borrowed into Finnic languages. These include Finnish harmaa ‘gray’, harmä ‘frost, thin layer of snow, beer foam’, and hermo ‘nerve’ (Liukkonen 1999: 37–39, 44). For the last-mentioned word, I would propose a somewhat different semasiological path—not via ‘gray muscle fiber, tendon’ as Liukkonen does, but via gray nervous tissue, ‘spinal cord, brain matter’. If šermėnys primarily designated cremation, comparison with cremāre from kremH- would be semantically very close. The difficulties are, first, the metathesis -re-: -er- and the nature of -m-. If cremāre is a denominal formation—a possibility Kummel explicitly allows (LIV 369)—then *ker-H-mōn- should be considered, with metathesis having taken place in Latin, especially if one wishes to connect carbō ‘coal’ with it (Walde 1910: 199; IEW 16 | BERND GLIWA 571f.) (vgl. z.B. die unterschiedlichen Reflexe der Ablautstufen in lat. crēvi perf. zu cerno ‚ich nehme wahr‘; cremāre wäre dann als Wort mit neuer Wurzel ausgehend von der Schwundstufe aufzufassen. Anders Schrijver (1991: 207f.), der ein schwundstufiges *kr-em- für cremāre ansetzt und mit lit. kùrti vergleicht, aber eine Sicht als nichtidg. Lehnwort bevorzugt). Andererseits würde ḱ- in primärem *ḱre-H-mōn, da lit. šr- im Anlaut ausschließlich in neueren Lehnworten, vorzugsweise Germanismen, erscheint, den Wandel zu š- nur in der Schwundstufe durchführen > šir-m-. Darauf könnte eine neue Ablautreihe mit širmas > šērmenys, šármas aufbauen. Ob darüber hinaus dann Formen mit nicht palatalem *kre-m- bestehen könnten, ggf. mit abweichender Bedeutung, ist eine offene Frage. Belege dafür gibt es keine. Man könnte erwägen, hier lit. šérti in der Bedeutung ‚Trocknen des Getreides, durch Heizen der Darre‘ anzuschließen – dann mit einer Bedeutung *,Feuer machen, brennen‘. An alternative approach is ḱer(h₂)-mōn- *‘the lying-in-state of the deceased immediately before burial or cremation; laying out the dead for tree burial, excarnation’. According to Wulfstan’s account (around 890), this lying-in-state (Lith. šarvojimas) could last as long as six months, depending on the rank of the deceased (BMRS 164–169; Toporov 2000: 222–234). The comparison with PIE *ḱerh₂- ‘break, shatter (intrans.)’ (LIV 327f.), and then presumably ‘fall apart, decay’, is obvious, especially since we may perhaps compare Greek κῆρ ‘death, ruin; goddess of death’ here (IEW 578, GEW 842–843). In this case, however, the comparison with the terms for hoarfrost, lye, and the corresponding colors must be abandoned. 3. SOME CULTURAL-HISTORICAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CREMATION Of course, the deceased is also laid out and honored before burial. The following discussion, however, is limited to cremation. Laying out the corpse before burning has not only a ritual but also a highly practical function. Burning is greatly facilitated because the dead person dries out, since the human body consists of as much as 60% water (Schenck, Kolb 1990: 456). This can be important when fuel is scarce. It would also be beneficial from a ritual perspective, since it thereby guarantees complete incineration. The bones to be collected must be free of tissue remnants (Gimbutienė 1996: 202). Gamkrelidze and Ivanov emphasize the need for a certain level of technology, such as that achieved with the introduction of pottery, in order to make cremation possible (1984: 830). The burning of corpses began among the Hittites around the 17th to 14th centuries BC (1984: 830); Homer’s Iliad speaks of ritual cremations. Zeus himself compelled Achilles to hand Hector’s body over to his father, so that he, King Priam of Troy, could cremate him in royal fashion. Gimbutienė (1996: 286) mentions graves containing cremated remains dating to around 4500 BC in present-day Hungary (1996: 240), as well as to around 2500 BC in Slovakia. LIT. šermenys, šarvojimas, ALTPREUSS. sirmen | 17 Wood, which is plentiful in densely forested areas, and mastery of fire are the only technological prerequisites. Indeed, simple pottery can be fired on this basis. As mentioned, Greek κέραμος ‘pottery, fired ware’, and also ‘potter’s clay’, could perhaps be placed alongside the group under consideration, around *kerH-m-. Note that the potters’ quarter Κεραμεικός had also been Athens’ public burial ground and cremation site for warriors who fell in battle since at least 491 BC (Benseler 1990: 431; Schnaufer 1970: 51–57, 177). Only the use of coal and ovens makes complete cremation possible, including of the bones. Longer lying-in-state of the corpse also requires knowledge of preservation and mummification. Wulfstan’s account, dating to around 890, already attests that the Balts possessed such knowledge (on this, see Toporov 2000: 223f.). 4. LITH. šarvojimas ‘LYING-IN-STATE’ Šarvojimas is an abstract formation from šarvóti ‘1. honor the deceased, 2. arm’, alongside šãrvoti ‘mow clumsily, badly’ (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 532). Honoring the deceased includes washing them, possibly shaving and grooming them, dressing them in their best clothes, and laying them out (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 532), or even seating the corpse, thus prepared, at the table (Lasicki 1969: 32, 50). Šarvóti itself should be assigned to šãrvas, šãrvas / šarvãi as a secondary verb. šarvãi ‘(1.a) discharge (after childbirth), (1.b) menstruation, (1.c) saliva flowing from the deceased’s mouth, (2.a) armor worn by warriors, (2.b) equipment of warriors, including clothing, weapons, and ammunition, (2.c) shells of insects, crabs, etc., (3.a) dowry, bridal trousseau, (3.b) grave goods, (3.c) wagon without side rails and ladder sides; floorboard’ (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 528–530). The wagon term may be a borrowing from Polish szaraban ‘old-fashioned wagon’ > Lithuanian šarabānai (LKA 90); the explanation pašarvoja numirėlį, t.y. paguldė ant šarvo ‘they lay out the corpse, i.e. place it on the floorboard of the wagon’ (LKŽₓᵢᵥ 530) may also involve a folk-etymological reinterpretation. Fraenkel tends to assume that Lith. šãrvas ‘cuirass, armor, arms’ and Old Prussian sarwis ‘weapons’ are native because of Lithuanian š, and cognate with Greek κόρυς ‘helmet’, κορύσσειν ‘arm’ (LEW 965). Frisk rejects the comparison between the Baltic and Greek words (GEW 826f, 921, 925f.). The relationship between MHG harnas, (<) Old French harnais and Gothic sarwa ‘weapons’, along with the Germanic-context forms OHG saro, gisawī, OE sierwan ‘plan, arm, etc.’ and Old Frisian sera ‘arm’, to one another and to the Baltic terms discussed here remains unclear (cf. LEW 966). However, the acute accentuation of Lith. šãrvas ‘cuirass, armor, arms’ (AP3) points to an inherited word. Fraenkel also assigns šãrvas ‘trousseau, dowry’ and šarvóti ‘lay out a dead person, adorn them for burial’ to the basic meaning ‘equip, arm’. Finally, Fraenkel also explains šãrvas ‘placenta, menstruation’ from the other meaning ‘armor’ or ‘adornment’, and in this connection cites in particular Ruhig’s rendering 18 BERND GLIWA by ‘the monthly bloom of maidens’ (LEW 966). Also not to be left unmentioned is Mažiulis’—non-committal—proposal to connect šarvai ‘women’s menses’ with the Old Prussian cognate sirmes and Lithuanian šarmas in the sense discussed above, ‘a fluid resembling urine’ (Mažiulis 1997: 115), although, in light of what has been said above, this cannot in any way be accepted, even though influence through contamination cannot, of course, be ruled out. Following Fraenkel, the basic meaning for the senses of šárvas, šarvai given above may be stated as ‘equipment, festive clothing, attire for special occasions, special distinguishing features’. Such a synthesis is not unproblematic and requires some discussion. The completion of the birth process is marked by the delivery of the afterbirth. The placenta was regarded as part of the newborn. The belief that what happened to it thereafter could influence the newborn’s fate led to the custom of burying the placenta (Paukštytė 1999: 57f.). In keeping with this tradition, for example, the Mažylis maternity hospital in Kaunas arranges for the burial of placentas, which would otherwise be a raw material for the cosmetics industry (Dr. Apanavičienė, pers. communication, 2001). It should therefore be permissible to regard the placenta as ‘equipment’ belonging to the newborn. Menstruation, in turn, is a sure sign of sexual maturity and marriageability. Attention should be drawn to the differing accounts, ‘women’s menses’ in Mažiulis (1997: 114), presumably following Mühlenbach, and ‘the monthly bloom of maidens’, as Fraenkel renders Ruhig’s words (LEW 966). The latter is clearly to be understood as the menstruation of virgins, that is, girls who are not yet married but have reached sexual maturity. If the interpretation presented here is correct, ‘women’s menses’ is a generalizing interpretation of the term. Finally, the saliva flowing from the deceased is a sure sign of death. Birth, marriage, and death are significant events whose ritual observance is beyond question. On the one hand, the signs that warrant the performance of the ritual are thus named. On the other hand, the semantic field of šárvas, šarvai includes the festive attire for the ceremony. One may speak of correlated groups of events, since the ritual is performed alongside or, usually, after the actual process of dying or giving birth. Death is followed by burial; birth is followed by baptism, the solemn reception of the infant into the community. The same applies to marriage: the celebration accompanies the event itself, which, without a festive, moral, and legal framework, would be reduced quite prosaically to defloration and sexual intercourse. The following table serves to illustrate this: Event physical evidence of a completed event Ritual ritual attire for solemnly marking this event Birth discharge (after birth), afterbirth burial of the placenta, ritual clothing and adornments for the infant’s baptism Lit. šermėnys, šarvojimas, ALTpreuss. sirmen | 19 Event physical evidence of a completed event Ritual ritual attire for solemnly marking this event Maturity (female) Menstruation (in many cultures, the physical prerequisite for marriage) First bread-baking, slap Öffentliche Verkostung des Brotes im Badehaus, Bekanntgabe der Mitgift (Šaknys 1996: 54–56) Maturity (male) Biological maturity Admission as a warrior Horse, armor, spurs Wedding Bleeding during first sexual intercourse Wedding Dowry, bridal trousseau Death Saliva flowing from the deceased’s mouth Wake and burial Lying in state, clothing and honoring of the deceased, grave goods The meaning of šarvai ‘armor, (knightly) armor,’ probably the most important in contemporary usage, has so far received no discussion. This meaning can readily be fitted into the present account. One may also recall military parades in more recent history and marches in preparation for war, victory parades and those marking anniversaries of victories, as well as ceremonial swearing-in ceremonies for soldiers. The construction of triumphal arches and the dismissal of recruits also have ritual elements. Even in Soviet times, conscripted recruits were at times accompanied by the entire village population to the place where they were to report for service (Juknaitė 1998: 274). Not least, the fact that most armies have a special parade uniform belongs here, as does the military’s participation in state receptions, where swords and sabres may also be crossed. These weapons have long had no military-technological function, but they do have a ritual one. The religious and ritual component of war is discussed in greater detail by Beresnevičius (1997: 12–63), and ritual music in war by Šeškauskaitė (2002). From this perspective, it might perhaps be possible to reconsider the etymological connection between šarvai, etc., and Greek κόρη ‘maiden, girl, daughter’ and κούρητες ‘young men fit for military service, young warriors,’ rejected by Frisk (GEW 920f.). There is little doubt, even from a formal point of view, about the relationship between širmas, širvas ‘gray, white’ and šarmas, šarvas—where -v- derives from the suffix -u-, used primarily to form adjectives, as in gyvas, kreivas, šyvas—while -m- derives from nominal formation. If šarvas originally meant ‘white, gray,’ then šarvóti would be etymologically related to it (iteratively, duratively) as ‘to be white,’ as in gyvas: gyvóti. 20 | BERND GLIWA Interestingly, natural languages have the property of being polysemous. Thus, the possible interpretations here, which do not necessarily have to contradict one another, have not been exhausted. ABBREVIATIONS OF THE SOURCES BRMŠ – N. Vėlius, ed., Sources of Baltic Religion and Mythology I. Vilnius: Institute of Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias, 1996. ESSJ – O. N. Trubačev, ed., Etymological Dictionary of the Slavic Languages IV, XIII. Moscow: Nauka, 1979, 1987. GEW – HJ. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I. Heidelberg: Winter, 1960. IEW – J. Pokorny, Indo-European Etymological Dictionary I. Tübingen–Basel: Francke, 1994. LIV = H. Rix et al., Lexicon of Indo-European Verbs. 2nd expanded ed. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001. LEW – E. Fraenkel, Lithuanian Etymological Dictionary II. Heidelberg–Göttingen: Winter, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965. LEX – Lexicon Lithuanicum. Facsimile in: V. Drotvinas, ed., Lexicon Lithuanicum. A handwritten 17th-century German-Lithuanian dictionary. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987. LKA – K. Morkūnas, Hrsg., Lietuvių kalbos atlasas I Leksika. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1977. LKŽ – Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language I–XX Vilnius: Mintis, Mokslas, Institute of Publishing of Science and Encyclopedias, 1956–2002. REW – M. Vasmer, Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language II. Translated from German and supplemented by O. N. Trubačev. Moscow: Progress, 1986. SD³ – K. Szyrwid, Dictionary of Three Languages 1642. Facsimile in: A. Lyberis, ed., The First Lithuanian Dictionary. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1979. OTHER LITERATURE Ambrazas, S. 1993: Daiktavardžių darybos raida. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas Balys, J. 1948: Lietuvių tautosakos skaitymai. Teil 2. Tübingen: Patria. Benseler, [G. E.] 1990: Benselers Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, bearbeitet von A Kaegi (17. Auflage – unveränderter Nachdruck der 15. Auflage, 1931). Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Beresnevičius, G. 1990: Dausos. Vilnius: Taura. Beresnevičius, G. 1997: Sakralinis karo matmuo. In Kultūros istorijos tyrinėjimai 3, Vilnius: Gervelė, 12–63. Būga, K. 1961: Rinktiniai raštai 3. Sudarė Z. Zinkevičius. Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla. Dundurienė, P. 1999: Senieji lietuvių šeimos papročiai. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Gamkrelidze, T.V., Ivanov, V.V. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy 2. Tbilisi: Izdatel’stvo Tbilisskogo universiteta Gimbutienė, M. 1996: Senoji Europa. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Gliwa, B. 2003: Die Hexe und der Junge (AT 327F) und Der Junge im Sack der Hexe (AT 327C). Ein kulturgeschichtlicher Deutungsversuch litauischer Märchen. Fabula 44 (3/4), 272–291. Gliwa, B. 2004: Baltiškieji pirties pavadinimai. Onomasiology Online 5: 1–14. Grიგalavičienė, E. 1995: Žalvario ir ankstyvasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Juknaitė, V. 1998: Vieškelis į niekur. In: V. Maciekus e. a., Hrsg., Obeliai – Kriaunos, Vilnius: Versmė, 270–280. Lit. šermėnys, šarvojimas, altpreuss. sirmen | 21 Kluge, F. 1999: Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 23. Auflage, bearbeitet von Elmar Seebold. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter Lasick, J. 1615 [1969]: De diis Samagitearum..., herausgegeben und kommentiert von Juozas Jurginis. Vilnius: Vaga. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1997: Laukinis mastymas. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Liukkonen, K. 1999: Baltisches im Finnischen. Helsinki: Finnisch-Ugrische Gesellschaft. Mažiulis, V. 1997: Prūsų kalbos etimologinis žodynas, IV. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas. Mylius, K. 2001: Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Sanskrit-Deutsch. Berlin et al.: Langenscheidt. Paukštytė, R. 1999: Gimtuves ir krikštynos Lietuvos kaimo gyvenime. Vilnius: Diemedis. Sabaliauskas, A. 1994: Iš kur jie? Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Schenck, M., Kolb, E. 1990: Grundriß der physiologischen Chemie. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag. Schnäufer, A. 1970: Frühgriechischer Totenglaube. Untersuchungen zum Totenglauben der mykenischen und homerischen Zeit. Dissertation Universität Tübingen. Schrijver, P. 1991: The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam–Atlanta: Rodopi. Skardžius, Pr. 1996: Lietuvių kalbos žodžių daryba. In: ders, Rinktiniai raštai 1: 1–768 (unveränderter Nachdruck der Originalausgabe 1943). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Stankus, J. 1984: Kairenėlių plokštinis kapinynas. Lietuvos archeologija 3. Vilnius: Mokslas, 63–78. Šaknys, Ž. B. 1996: Jaunimo brandos apeigos Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Pradai. Šeškauskaitė, D. 2002: Apeigos karo sutartinėse. In: Nuo kulto iki simbolio (= Senovės baltų kultūra 6). Vilnius: KFMl, 226–246 Toporov, V. 2000: Baltų mitologijos ir ritualo tyrimai. Vilnius: Aidai. Urbutis, V. 1972: La. spalgs reikšmės ir kilmė. Baltistica 8 (1): 57–61. Vėlius, N. 1983: Senovės baltų pasaulėžiūra. Vilnius: Mintis. Vėlius, N. 1996: Einführung in die Quellenkunde.. In: BRMS, 79–112. Walde, A. 1910: Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2. Aufl. Heidelberg: Winter Bernd Gliwa Sargeliai LT-60433 Žaiginys [email protected]