Langobard study has S1194, U106, P312 migrating from Sth Baltic to Italy in 600AD.

[CopperAxe]

A good friend of mine has recently written an article (about the legendary Frisian king Redbad) that gives some insight in also the Lombardic roots. The Germanization during migration time/ early middle ages of big parts of Europe were initiated by Germanic tribes situates in nowadays Schleswig-Holstein and Southern Jutland.

Otto S. Knottnerus and Han Nijdam, Koning voor eens en altijd Inleiding op het thema Redbad (De Vrije Fries 2020), google translate, key-quotes:

"The Frisian kings were newcomers to the area, apparently descendants of Saxon and / or Anglo-Saxon warlords who came sailing with their followers in several waves from the Elbe area and southern Jutland with their followers in the fifth and early sixth centuries. We are only sparsely informed about their regions of origin. Around 730, the English chronicler Beda Venerabilis retrospectively describes the immigrants as Saxons, Angels and Juten. That has since become a benchmark. Whether these groups were known as such in ancient times, however, is doubtful. The Widsith not only situates Seaxnum, Ongle and Ytum here, but also tribal groups such as Eowum, Sycgum, Wernum, Myrgingum, Swæfum and Rondingum that have left few traces. The classical sources know these areas as the residential areas of Chauci, Aviones, Sigulones, Varni, Suevi, Angeli, Reudigni, Charudes and Eudoses.
...

Most of them, according to Tacitus, belonged to a ritual covenant that worshiped the mother goddess Nerthus. That makes it likely that they spoke a Northwest Germanic dialect that was different from the dialects in Scandinavia. There is uncertainty about the Saxons and Jutes. The name of the Jutes cannot be derived from their ancestors, the Eudoses or Eudusii, who previously lived in North Jutland. The Saxones and their islands are first established around 150 AD. Mentioned in writings by Claudius Ptolemy, but that may be a mistake for Aviones, the coastal inhabitants of today's Schleswig-Holstein (* aujo- "river bank, island").

There is more to say about some tribal groups. The Chauken are situated in Lower Saxony. The Sueven mostly in Holstein: their name returns in the place name Schwabstedt and they could possibly be identical to the Myrgingen. The latter name occurs exclusively in Anglo-Saxon sources. The myth of Offa's victory over one of the English neighboring kingdoms was apparently projected back onto the motherland. Since Offa was regarded as ancestor of the kings of Mercia (Miercna), his native soil could be described as the land of the Myrgingen; because both names mean "border residents".
....

The emergence of such warlords in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia was primarily a response to the growing influence of the Roman Empire, which led to a militarization of existing tribal groups. Successful military entrepreneurs - often after careers in Roman service - use of weapons, prestige goods, new knowledge and techniques to bind their supporters to themselves and to burn their neighbors, whether or not on behalf of third parties. The pursuit of wealth and prestige became the driver of a free market centered on violence and intimidation. We may assume that the Frisian kings were descendants of such Kleinkönige from the migration period.

This violence race also continued at sea. Chauci pirates regularly raided the Roman frontier provinces from the middle of the first century. From the middle of the third century onwards this role was taken over by groups of Franks, then by Saxons, sometimes accompanied by Frisians, Danes, Jutes (Euciis, Euthio) and / or Sueven (Suevi, Norsavi). The invaders first appeared in the Dutch river area around the middle of the fourth century, then also in France and then in England.

The identification of these groups is often difficult. New tribal names such as Saxons, Franks, Salians and Alamanen seem to be mainly targeted by itinerant military entrepreneurs who put their combat experience and group loyalty at the service of successful rulers."

Why did I read the name as Otto Snotneus?

Article seems cool, I'll try to look for it on the web.

[Ryukendo]

A good friend of mine has recently written an article (about the legendary Frisian king Redbad) that gives some insight in also the Lombardic roots. The Germanization during migration time/ early middle ages of big parts of Europe were initiated by Germanic tribes situates in nowadays Schleswig-Holstein and Southern Jutland.

Otto S. Knottnerus and Han Nijdam, Koning voor eens en altijd Inleiding op het thema Redbad (De Vrije Fries 2020), google translate, key-quotes:

"The Frisian kings were newcomers to the area, apparently descendants of Saxon and / or Anglo-Saxon warlords who came sailing with their followers in several waves from the Elbe area and southern Jutland with their followers in the fifth and early sixth centuries. We are only sparsely informed about their regions of origin. Around 730, the English chronicler Beda Venerabilis retrospectively describes the immigrants as Saxons, Angels and Juten. That has since become a benchmark. Whether these groups were known as such in ancient times, however, is doubtful. The Widsith not only situates Seaxnum, Ongle and Ytum here, but also tribal groups such as Eowum, Sycgum, Wernum, Myrgingum, Swæfum and Rondingum that have left few traces. The classical sources know these areas as the residential areas of Chauci, Aviones, Sigulones, Varni, Suevi, Angeli, Reudigni, Charudes and Eudoses.
...

Most of them, according to Tacitus, belonged to a ritual covenant that worshiped the mother goddess Nerthus. That makes it likely that they spoke a Northwest Germanic dialect that was different from the dialects in Scandinavia. There is uncertainty about the Saxons and Jutes. The name of the Jutes cannot be derived from their ancestors, the Eudoses or Eudusii, who previously lived in North Jutland. The Saxones and their islands are first established around 150 AD. Mentioned in writings by Claudius Ptolemy, but that may be a mistake for Aviones, the coastal inhabitants of today's Schleswig-Holstein (* aujo- "river bank, island").

There is more to say about some tribal groups. The Chauken are situated in Lower Saxony. The Sueven mostly in Holstein: their name returns in the place name Schwabstedt and they could possibly be identical to the Myrgingen. The latter name occurs exclusively in Anglo-Saxon sources. The myth of Offa's victory over one of the English neighboring kingdoms was apparently projected back onto the motherland. Since Offa was regarded as ancestor of the kings of Mercia (Miercna), his native soil could be described as the land of the Myrgingen; because both names mean "border residents".
....

The emergence of such warlords in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia was primarily a response to the growing influence of the Roman Empire, which led to a militarization of existing tribal groups. Successful military entrepreneurs - often after careers in Roman service - use of weapons, prestige goods, new knowledge and techniques to bind their supporters to themselves and to burn their neighbors, whether or not on behalf of third parties. The pursuit of wealth and prestige became the driver of a free market centered on violence and intimidation. We may assume that the Frisian kings were descendants of such Kleinkönige from the migration period.

This violence race also continued at sea. Chauci pirates regularly raided the Roman frontier provinces from the middle of the first century. From the middle of the third century onwards this role was taken over by groups of Franks, then by Saxons, sometimes accompanied by Frisians, Danes, Jutes (Euciis, Euthio) and / or Sueven (Suevi, Norsavi). The invaders first appeared in the Dutch river area around the middle of the fourth century, then also in France and then in England.

The identification of these groups is often difficult. New tribal names such as Saxons, Franks, Salians and Alamanen seem to be mainly targeted by itinerant military entrepreneurs who put their combat experience and group loyalty at the service of successful rulers."

Hmm, do we have archaeological evidence of these military entrpreneurs who went from Southern Scandinavia/N Germany to serve in the Roman armies, and then back to their homeland? Do you know what the basis is of this statement from your friend? From what I understand this phenomenon was limited to the marches around the Rhine and South Germany. If there was in fact long-distance transmission of Roman military techniques with individuals that were travelling so far, who catalysed the development of social complexity in the Germanic heartlands quite a distance from Rome, thats super interesting.

[Bygdedweller]

Hmm, do we have archaeological evidence of these military entrpreneurs who went from Southern Scandinavia/N Germany to serve in the Roman armies, and then back to their homeland? Do you know what the basis is of this statement from your friend? From what I understand this phenomenon was limited to the marches around the Rhine and South Germany. If there was in fact long-distance transmission of Roman military techniques with individuals that were travelling so far, who catalysed the development of social complexity in the Germanic heartlands quite a distance from Rome, thats super interesting.

Perhaps this is only tangentially related, but there's some archaeological evidence that points to distant connections from Rome and its northern frontier even as far as to the Norwegian interior:
https://www.academia.edu/1970096/Wea...rway_1_550_AD_
(thanks to Riverman for tipping me off to this article)

Relevant sections:

Some of these cemeteries have a very large percentage of weapon graves, as have districts like Hadeland and Valdres in Norway (Kolník 1980; Droberjar 2006). As U.-H. Voss (2007) argues about the cemetery of Hagenow, five or six generations of an elite manifest rank and status through burial rites, using weapons and military equipment, as well as other artefacts stemming from participation both in Roman military service and Germanic retinues. Early Germanic kingdoms like Maroboduus’, which were consciously modelled on the Roman system, would give ample opportunities for the barbarian elite in this respect. It seems only natural to interpret the “cauldron burials” in Opplandene in this light.

There seems to be a mutual relationship between this military organisation in Opplandene and the Germanic armies pushing against the Roman Empire’s northern frontier on the upper and middle Danube in the late second century, or indeed the Roman armies defending the frontier. Discussing the Illerup “A” find, Pauli Jensen et al suggest that the similarities between “the Germanics who fought on the Roman side in the Marcoman Wars and later on served as mercenaries in the period after Marcus Aurelius, have brought home with them their knowledge of the Roman military structure” (Jensen, Jørgensen, Lund Hansen 2003, s. 325). Poignant examples from east Norway in this respect are a handful of weapon graves with spurs and three or mores pears, in the fashion of Roman cavalrymen (for instance C28980 from Hunn, Fredrikstad and C3109 from Vesten, Fredrikstad) (cf. Kontny 2008:118,Hyland 1993)

These weapon graves and archaeological finds are clearly related to contact with continental Germanics, and the spread of Germanic tribes in Scandinavia. But they seem to be an indicative of a trend, around the time of the Germanic iron age there was also a sudden explosion in the construction of hillforts around Eastern Norway.

[Riverman]

A good friend of mine has recently written an article (about the legendary Frisian king Redbad) that gives some insight in also the Lombardic roots. The Germanization during migration time/ early middle ages of big parts of Europe were initiated by Germanic tribes situates in nowadays Schleswig-Holstein and Southern Jutland.

Yes, basically it was a North -> South shift, so a lot of tribes moved Southward. This is also evident with the Danish later. That doesn't mean that South of them were no Germanics at that time, but those too moved South. Similar to the situation in the East, where retreating Germanics were followed by Slavs, in this case one Germanic tribe was followed by another.

The emergence of such warlords in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia was primarily a response to the growing influence of the Roman Empire, which led to a militarization of existing tribal groups

I thought so too in the past, and still think the Roman influence was immensely important, no doubt. But there was also the late La Tene influence which really transformed Germanic culture before and this process was still going on in Roman times. If you compare the rather less stratified and more egalitarian Jastorf culture and some Northern fringe groups were even more poor, you get an impression of what happened. And much of the influence was coming up when two things happened, the Central German regions of unknown, more conservative groupings which eaten up by Jastorf Germanics and La Tene Celts alike, while in the East Germanic groups expanded and made contacts with Celts, Thracians and Iranians there.
A lot of the influences came from Goths in Eastern Central and later Eastern Europe almost directly to the North. We now know, and this is what the Viking paper also shows, that Germanic tribes were not just leaving and never looked back, but many kept contacts to Northern Germany, Denmark and Scandinavia. Some clans and tribal groups, some mixed descendants of Germanic fathers even came back. This is very, very important for what's going on in the North. Because it wasn't just Romans, not at all. Germanic speaking relatives came back or traded too, and they brought ideas from a new Gothic aristocratic, elite warrior societies up to Sweden and Norway.
At first Germanics had no direct contact to La Tene Celts, because of the intermediate groups of unknown background (unknown Centum IE, "Para-Celtic" groups?) were between them and later they first adopted the innovations and changes only reluctantly. It was the second or third influence, coming from the more mixed Eastern groups, which lived close by to old Lusatian, Celtic, Thracian and Iranian people, which really rolled things up again. The Goths were really the avantgarde for the Germanic cultural revolution from a very egalitarian, materially more simple people to a hierarchic, elite warrior society.

The Romans picked that up and multiplied the effects, but a lot of the changes came from within, which is also evident in the art and customs. They didn't just changed in a Roman direction, but also in a similar way as early La Tene and with new (Iranian?) steppe influences. However important that was, what we should always keep in mind is that the Germanic sphere did communicate and there were migrations within its "world". Gothic traders, specialists and warriors could migrate to Sweden and vice versa.

Perhaps this is only tangentially related, but there's some archaeological evidence that points to distant connections from Rome and its northern frontier even as far as to the Norwegian interior:
https://www.academia.edu/1970096/Wea...rway_1_550_AD_
(thanks to Riverman for tipping me off to this article)

Relevant sections:

These weapon graves and archaeological finds are clearly related to contact with continental Germanics, and the spread of Germanic tribes in Scandinavia. But they seem to be an indicative of a trend, around the time of the Germanic iron age there was also a sudden explosion in the construction of hillforts around Eastern Norway.

The whole Germanic sphere did constantly communicate, like described above. If Western Germanic groups learned something from the Romans, or the Goths from the Celts and Iranians, people, ideas and materials did migrate within it and changed the people on the other end of this sphere. What's quite typical is that some parts of Scandinavia were always behind the main groups on the continent and on Denmark. Its like they were always lagging behind. To give an example, they started with a specific sort of cremation burial, which was the latest fashion for central Germanic groups generations ago, when those central groups did begin to leave it behind and changed again. I think that some more remote parts of Scandinavia were for the longest time sinks, not sources. Which means elites and groups which were behind did retreat to this places, kind of a refuge area. This really did change big time with the Vikings, when the Germanics to their South became Christians, while the most developed heathen tribal Germanic culture had spread in all of Southern Scandinavia. This really changed the balance of power in favour of the North big time, because the tribal Germanic way was, with higher level weapon production, which they achieved, overall superior militarily and demographically, especially with the mobility of the sea.
But in the times before, I don't think the situation was always the same and some Scandinavian regions seem to have been often rather in the defence.

Ancient DNA will help a great deal to tell us who was dominant in which region and at which time, because the dominant groups will also dominate the elite graves. I'm not saying I know for every time what happened, but I expect big surprises.

The story of the late Celtic La Tene and eastern steppe influences being really totally underestimated for the Germanic cultural evolution and their dominant role in the migration period in my opinion. Part of the reason for the late La Tene Celtic influence is of course that whole Celtic fringe groups in the East in particular were overtaken and assimilated by the Germanics on their way South and East.

Concerning Germanic mercenaries and their importance, we just have to look at later sources about Vikings in Byzantine and Rus service, and how young warriors moved out with almost nothing but their sword, but came back as rich and important man to their communities. Obviously sometimes with allies, probably even sons from a wive from the East and so on. I think it wasn't any different in earlier, Roman Age Germanic times. The Germanic were extremely mobile and adventurous, that was a big part of their success story. And obviously, they brought not just goods and wives back, but also ideas and knowledge, new ways of thinking and adapting.

[Piquerobi]

Paul the Deacon mentions a Lombard King taking an Anglo-Saxon wife:

King Cunincpert indeed took to wife Hermelinda, of the race of the Anglo-Saxons.

It looks like, even after some time of the wanderings, memories of a shared heritage were still present. Deor, an old English poem, cites Eormanric, King of the Goths: "We have learned of the wolfish mentality of Eormanric. Far and wide he ruled the people of the Gothic kingdom". Widsith, another old English poem, lists several Germanic tribes, including the Langobards and the East Germanic ones.

Beowulf, another famous Anglo-Saxon literary work, which actually takes place in Denmark and Southern Sweden, makes reference to the Langobards too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sceafa.

Frederick Rebsamen wrote the following in his introduction to Beowulf: "Anglo-Saxon audiences loved to hear tales of the early North Germanic peoples like the Danes, Swedes, and Geats of the sixth century, just as we enjoy books and movies about Henry VIII and Sir Thomas More, Henry's many wives and his daughter Elizabeth and all the battles and courtly intrigues of the sixteenth century".

[Ryukendo]

Perhaps this is only tangentially related, but there's some archaeological evidence that points to distant connections from Rome and its northern frontier even as far as to the Norwegian interior:
https://www.academia.edu/1970096/Wea...rway_1_550_AD_
(thanks to Riverman for tipping me off to this article)

Relevant sections:




These weapon graves and archaeological finds are clearly related to contact with continental Germanics, and the spread of Germanic tribes in Scandinavia. But they seem to be an indicative of a trend, around the time of the Germanic iron age there was also a sudden explosion in the construction of hillforts around Eastern Norway.

No not at all! This paper hits the nail on the head. Thanks Bygdedweller and Riverman!

I quote from it:

Several of the third century weapon types occur-ring regularly in the Opplandene region of eastern Norway, have close parallels in a south-eastern zone stretching through Gotland, Bornholm, Funen,Southern Jutland, Mecklenburg, western Prussia,Silesia and Bohemia, while they are comparatively rare both in western Scandinavia and north-westernparts of the Continent (Grieg 1926:91). A long time ago, Haakon Shetelig pointed out that these types probably represents the weapons used by Roman supporting troops, auxiliarii (Shetelig quoted in:Grieg 1926, s. 91; c.: Albrethsen 1997).... Others have been more sceptical...

Still, the distribution pattern of the weapon graves in Opplandene seems to me to give support to Shetelig’s ideas, in the very least to a variety of his hypothesis. Three different questions have to be answered: Why do the weapon types and weapon combinations in Scandinavian graves adjust to changing conditions in the Roman army with little or no delay? How do we interpret the particular pattern of distribution of weapon graves in areas like Opplandene; meaning not only the characteristic clusters in smaller districts like Hadeland, butalso the way the different types of weapon combi-nations are distributed? The distribution pattern does not fit well neither with the idea of individual warriors returning from service on the European continent, nor with a farming population utilising martial symbolism simply as a status marker. It is a whole system we seem to be dealing with, and thisstrongly suggests that what we have for instance in Hadeland, is either a local or regional military organisation, or/and a larger group of warriors re-turning home or settling in a new area...

Discussing the Illerup “A” find, Pauli Jensen et al suggest that the similarities between “the Germanics who fought on the Roman side in the Marcoman Wars and later on served as mercenaries in the period after Marcus Aurelius, have brought home with them their knowledge of the Roman military structure ” (Jensen,Jørgensen, Lund Hansen 2003, s. 325). Poignant examples from east Norway in this respect are a handful of weapon graves with spurs and three or more spears, in the fashion of Roman cavalrymen (for in-stance C28980 from Hunn, Fredrikstad and C3109 from Vesten, Fredrikstad) (cf. Kontny 2008:118,Hyland 1993).It is not only a question of transferring knowl-edge, however. Many o the weapon graves in Opplandene contain weapons which are not only based on Roman models, but are in fact Roman products. These are double-edged swords, some of them with figure inlays (Rygge 1970; Ilkjær,Carnap-Bornheim 1999; 2000).

Very interesting indeed! It seems like people similar to Arminus (serving under Rome then going back home and building large coalitions who fought effectively against the Romans) existed even up into Norway, and were prominent as local elites. And not only individuals similar to him but entire groups who probably served together in some way... This is quite a different picture of Rome's influence on the social development of such a faraway place like Norway than I had imagined, there were probably cultural and social-organisational effects here too.

[alexfritz]

I looked again at the supplementary information on the Szolad and Collegno samples.
Most of the Szolad samples with NW European (or predominanantly NW European origins) had a small "Finnish" component (1K GENOMES FINNISH) in bar chart B and the same "Finnish" element was present in a minority of the Collegno samples from NW Italy (bar chart C).

Even setting aside the myths and legends from Paul the Deacon and others, a Scandinavian provenance of the original Langobards must be true given the genetic evidence in the supplementary information.

this is an arch. map i guess pre MP

 

the Longobards would be on the lower Elbe as rec. during the 1st AD/CE by V.Paterculus, Strabon and Tacitus (~100AD/CE); what follows post the Marcomannic wars (a mention in 166AD/CE) is a ~300 year absence of anyone mentioning the Longobards (maybe part of a broader confederation ?Saxons ?Thuringians) until they appear again as vassals of the (H)Eruli ~500AD/CE in the post-Hun period

 

when talking about MP groups we are essentially talking about new identities, self determined self forged (endonym) identities; sticking with the Longobards and a link to Scandinavia there are examples (from sampled sites) that show alink via the early 'Nydam-style' from examples as early as the Tullnerfeld period (C14 510-550AD/CE) to the arrival in *NE Italy (*the selected farae of Gisulf)

Maria Ponsee

 

Cividale

 

if sampled maybe these specific tombs can reveal DNAwise if and what link to Scandinavia there was within the Longobard identity; maybe there are hints at Szolad and Collegno already with PAA (the ADMIXTURE is too basic, my opinion) but with f stats. shared drift with Scandinavia in comparison to Baiuvarii, Poprad or Agnlo-Saxons and maybe this has to be done with single samples rather than a whole group; by the looks of it there will be more paper(s) and samples

[Finn]

Hmm, do we have archaeological evidence of these military entrpreneurs who went from Southern Scandinavia/N Germany to serve in the Roman armies, and then back to their homeland? Do you know what the basis is of this statement from your friend? From what I understand this phenomenon was limited to the marches around the Rhine and South Germany. If there was in fact long-distance transmission of Roman military techniques with individuals that were travelling so far, who catalysed the development of social complexity in the Germanic heartlands quite a distance from Rome, thats super interesting.

Yes indeed a lot of sources. It's well known that Germanic people were foederati in the Roman army. And in the very late Antique there were lots of "non-Romans" including Germanic that played a part in the Roman military. Even nowadays York was under Septimus Severus the 'centre' of the Roman world (begin third century). I would even say without Romans no use of Germanic, 'Germanic' is a Roman 'invention'.

[Finn]

Yes, basically it was a North -> South shift, so a lot of tribes moved Southward. This is also evident with the Danish later. That doesn't mean that South of them were no Germanics at that time, but those too moved South. Similar to the situation in the East, where retreating Germanics were followed by Slavs, in this case one Germanic tribe was followed by another.

I'm convinced that a 'civilization' ('Germanic', 'La Tene', 'Jastorf') approach is more an invention afterwards. Germanic was a Roman invention for a tribe just left (!) of the Rhine, the tribe became forgotten and the label became used for the people right side the Rhine. But just a label, no sense of unity, in language, culture, genetics. (Afterwards Germans used it for example to justify political unity claims, but that's more 'ideological').

So be my guest to label the old (Roman era) Frisians (for example) as Germanic. Actually the influx of the tribes with roots in 'Schleswig-Holstein' were decisive. This occurred in the fifth century. But in the sixth century it was followed by most probably small, elite of more Northern Jutes. The Frisian language is more Jutish influenced than Saxon-like.

See:Elmar Seebold, ‘Die Herkunft der Franken, Friesen und Sachsen’, in: Ernst Taayke et al. (red.), Essays on the Early Franks (Eelde 2003), 24-34 (available on google).

Like in the Iceland case I guess, but that's in some sense still unclear, I guess the 'Gefolgschaften' settled down in the new area's. What was the destiny of the 'indigenous' population? Some kind of serfdom? Or the old song, indigenous woman taken by the new invaders? One thing looks clear the new comers had most probably better survival rates (Iceland 70% Norwegian like and 30% Isles like) and left a big genetic foot print....but of course free to discuss.

(By the way you mention the 'Goths' that is intriguing for me because my mother got a severe shot 'gothic' and that's a puzzle because her ancestry is from just beneath the coastal North Dutch area. She is mostly influenced by the "Schleswig-Holstein" tribes, just like my more coastal Dad but there is also something 'eastern Germanic'/ Mecklenburg-Vorpommern like. So even the Goths may have settle in the North Dutch area, all unclear to me yet.)

[Riverman]

I'm convinced that an 'civilization' ('Germanic', 'La Tene', 'Jastorf') approach is more an invention afterwards. Germanic was a Roman invention for a tribe just left (!) of the Rhine, the tribe became forgotten and the label became used for the people right side the Rhine. But just a label, no sense of unity, in language, culture, genetics.

I just want to give some hints with respect to the sense of unity and what I would call the Germanic sphere.
First of all, there is the language and a common language creates a dynamic of its own. We see that people did communicate within the Germanic sphere from one end to the other, that people, materials and ideas were floating around at a higher rate than expected if there was no such sphere at all. I mean all the Germanic tribes did also communicate with their non-Germanic neighbours and sometimes even people further away, but the active connections between Germanic tribes is actually quite astonishing. The same applies to the La Tene Celts. You see huge active networks from the Alpine zone to Britain. Its actually the collapse of the Gaul centre which resulted the downfall or at least downgrade of many communities to the East as well. That's really visible archaeologically, for example by minting and money flow breaking down. We also know from the historical sources, how alliances between Celts and even sometimes Germanics were build up, over wide distances, by intermediaries, by people which knew each other.
Some people think of the Celts and Germanics, or even the earlier people of the Bronze Age, as if they were isolated farmers or pastoralists which had no ideas about what's going on, but that's not true. There were wide ranging networks and communication channels. The real issue came when newcomers, like from the steppe, which were not part of these established networks, broke into it. That brought everything in complete disarray.

Related to the language is the material culture, the actual production and trade of objects, like weapons and pieces of art, status symbols, even daily goods, like belt buckles. And again we see more flow within the Germanic sphere than we would expect otherwise, going far beyond the usual neighbour influences neighbour standard. Quite similar, yet not as developed, like in La Tene Celts.

Ideology and religion is another very important aspect. We know of religious cults which extended far beyond a single tribe and there are many hints for religious centres, cult places which were known even beyond the usual religious cult group of a macro-region. So there seems to be a lot of exchange of ideas and idols going on within the Germanic speech community.

The next is, like already mentioned, marriage and followers (Gefolgschaften). Its just that the Germanic elites knew each other, communicated with each other, married among each other and if there was peace in one bigger region, so "no work to do" for elite warriors, to gain wealth, wives, honour and glory, they looked for "a job" elsewhere. And since there was a constant communication between the various Germanic groups, if one tribe would have moved out or a big leader had a campaign planned, young as well as experienced warriors from other groups might have followed. So its exactly this kind of a more elaborated culture, which was no long that strictly clan based, egalitarian, segmentarian, which led to even more exchange I'd say. And the marriages and movements of people just prove that. Another hint are the tales and saga of the Germanics, which provide us with numerous occasions in which people from one end of the Germanic world got knowledge of what happened elsewhere, called for help, for an alliance, or just exchanged stories.

This was far more than "Romans giving unknown people just a name". There are some historians in the traditions of the 1960's which deny all of that, sometimes even with absolutely ridiculous claims about "migrating, constructed identities", which had no serious ethnic-genetic base at all, but were just the inventions of later times. I had my debates with these and I know why they argue the way they do. Some even changed their opinion, at least somewhat, since the genetic results came out. Others never will and prefer to distort ancient DNA results with their political spin if being involved, with "special iinterviews" to the press, and to keep their decades old theories and interpretations alive, against all the evidence. Some of them argued even with modern ethnic minorities, claiming that no specific genetic identity would have survived, because of the constant mixture with the neighbours. They were proven wrong numerous times, since that's not always true at all, even on the contrary, but keep saying it to young students.

Like in the Iceland case I guess, but that's in some sense still unclear, I guess the 'Gefolschaften' settled down in the new area's.

Even though the Bavarians, Franks and Normans appeared in later times, I don't think the pattern was that much different. Of course, in some cases whole groups of such warriors would have settled down, becoming the local, ruling elite and most of the time, they would have a higher reproductive rate. In some cases these Gefolgschaften would have included non-Germanics obviously, sometimes even clans and whole tribes I guess, like in the case of various groups of Sarmatians and Alans.

(By the way you mention the 'Goths' that is intriguing for me because my mother got a severe shot 'gothic' and that's a puzzle because her ancestry is from just beneath the coastal North Dutch area. She is mostly influence by the "Schleswig-Holstein" tribes, just like my more coastal Dad but there is also something 'eastern Germanic'/ Mecklenburg-Vorpommern like. So even the Goths may have settle in the North Dutch area, all unclear to me yet.)

You take some tests too seriously and conclude from your family on (pre-) historical patterns which might be a little bit too much at times. The only thing which comparisons like these show to you is exactly that there was a core Germanic ancestry, which, with various kinds of regional admixture, could resemble modern populations at the other end of the Germanic world. Like a 3/4 Germanic Lombard with 1/4 Roman provincial could resemble Austrians on a PCA.