Page 5 of 55 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 543

Thread: How far has Central European Bronze and Iron Ages pushed to the North?

  1. #41
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,890
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    I guess that obsession is due to my old history teacher Frank Ankersmit in which "representation" plays a key part. In history we have only representations of reality not reality itself. So indeed only perspectives that are more or less plausible.

    On topic:


    Ok let's assume they have. The figuration is than the Valsømagle sphere that flows into Jastorf. That's Elb Germanic?

    But what about the Sögel-Wohlde sphere? The one who was Alex also pointing at. The one which was deeper influenced by the Central European Bronze Age and Iron Age cultures. Does this represent indeed a kind of Northwestblock?

    And third we got the 'original' Germani of the lower Rhine Delta, of Germania Inferior (north) and Germania Superior (south)?

    It's hardly to believe that all three "spheres" had the same genetic, cultural and linguistic profile.



    So or "Germanic" is from scratch diversified. Or we only recognize the Elb-Germans as the one and only Germans. But that's purely based on later on criteria, not of that time! So in some sense anachronistic.

    Or do you have another clue.
    The problem with Jastorf and their associated Northern Iron Age groups, to put it that way, is that they were "too special" in some respects, like the poverty of the cremated burials in particular. We deal with a completely different society, both different from the Nordic Bronze Age and its neighbours. So the question is: Why were they so different? Was it just economy and ideology, or was it also an ethnolinguistic differentiation. I really formulate this as a question, because while I think its more likely that this was the Proto-Germanic core, and other groups were not part of it at the initial stage, this might be right or not. One way to prove it right is if we can prove on the genetic level that this core population expanded and even replaced to some degree other populations, even in Scandinavia, but also in the Rhine area.
    If they did, it would be a strong support for a late, Iron Age core : expansion scenario, if not, if there is too much continuity between the different regions of the NBA, I would say it would be a very strong argument against this scenario, and a good argument for a broader, more fluent and continuous development of Germanics. This can't be answered archaeologically, like so many other age old debates (origin of the PIE, of the Romanians, Jewish origins etc., etc.) can't be answered based on archaeological and historical records, but probably, just probably, if the results are clearly going in one direction, by ancient DNA.

    How can you tell what's the true scenario based on the data you can get access to at the moment? I'm not claiming I can, I just say we can't know until we have tested it out, because even minimal, rather subtle changes in Western Norway could be accompanied by an influx of new people and elites, and more drastic changes elsewhere not. We don't know, without testing the human remains, getting data for their autosomal DNA, the patrilineages and their isotopic profiles.

    Same with the Celts in Britain: Unless we have really fine grained, detailed data, we can't tell for sure.

    @Nijmegen: Not the place and time I was talking about
    Last edited by Riverman; 05-06-2021 at 02:29 PM.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (05-06-2021),  Finn (05-06-2021),  Michał (05-06-2021)

  3. #42
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    They were in all likelihood Germanic but already from a branched off group which had assimilated both Celts and possibly other Kentum speakers of the region. Like I wrote in other threads before, between Jastorf and related Germanic groups in the North and La Tene Celts in the South was in Central Germany an independent group of people, which built large fortresses and kept some Hallstatt traditions, including a more hierarchical society, alive. These conservatives might have been closer to Germanics, closer to Celts, somewhere in between or something independent from the Centum spectrum. We don't know, we will never know. But what we can tell is that people which tried to isolate and defend themselves for so long from either side are likely to represent at least an ethnic, probably even ethnolinguistic unity of their own.
    That's a good case for an archaeological culture and observation, which looks too differentiated, to be simply part of the main neighbouring groups, which were much more clearly Germanic and Celtic respectively. So along a very large portion of land, right through Germany, there were probably no Germanics bordering Celts at all, but a different, somehow intermediate people. And like with the origin of Germanics and Celts, we need to get those people tested. Like if, added to the archaeological unique characteristics, they also have a unique genetic profile, being differentiated especially on the paternal side, this would be a strong argument in favour of this being people of their own, a different ethnolinguistic formation.

    Mind you, one of the reasons why Germanics were developing slower culturally, kept the old IE/CWC clan based structure for longer, was that they were actually refused the hierarchical Hallstatt culture and were isolated from La Tene. As soon as they came into contact with La Tene, this had an immediate impact on them, and when the East Germanics conquered, assimilated and teamed up with the Eastern Celts and Lusatian-Urnfield derived people, this resulted in the 2nd Latenisation which was a bigger or minimum as big influence on Germanics as the Roman one. This means a lot, it was a game changer.

    But a big role in this played the intermediate groups, which isolated Germanics proper and Celts proper from each other, about which ethnolinguistic affiliations we really simply know close to nothing. Some day we might be able to tell how differentiated they really were or whether the differences in culture and settlement being not reflected in their ancestry and genetic make up.
    This is another one Riverman.

    In Drouwen Drenthe there is a Sogel-Wohlde warrior grave that belonged to the highest ranking according to the Unetice traditions:

    The tomb dates back to around 1800 BC. and was rich in grave goods: two gold spiral rings, a broad and short sword with the remains of a scabbard, nine flint arrowheads, bronze razor, a polished lydite grindstone, a flint flint, and a bronze bent edged ax. None of the human remains had been preserved.
    https://www.hunebednieuwscafe.nl/201...n-van-drouwen/

    Two gold spiral rings:

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (05-06-2021)

  5. #43
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The problem with Jastorf and their associated Northern Iron Age groups, to put it that way, is that they were "too special" in some respects, like the poverty of the cremated burials in particular. We deal with a completely different society, both different from the Nordic Bronze Age and its neighbours. So the question is: Why were they so different?
    Was it just economy and ideology, or was it also an ethnolinguistic differentiation. I really formulate this as a question, because while I think its more likely that this was the Proto-Germanic core, and other groups were not part of it at the initial stage, this might be right or not. One way to prove it right is if we can prove on the genetic level that this core population expanded and even replaced to some degree other populations, even in Scandinavia, but also in the Rhine area.
    If they did, it would be a strong support for a late, Iron Age core : expansion scenario, if not, if there is too much continuity between the different regions of the NBA, I would say it would be a very strong argument against this scenario, and a good argument for a broader, more fluent and continuous development of Germanics. This can't be answered archaeologically, like so many other age old debates (origin of the PIE, of the Romanians, Jewish origins etc., etc.) can't be answered based on archaeological and historical records, but probably, just probably, if the results are clearly going in one direction, by ancient DNA.

    How can you tell what's the true scenario based on the data you can get access to at the moment? I'm not claiming I can, I just say we can't know until we have tested it out, because even minimal, rather subtle changes in Western Norway could be accompanied by an influx of new people and elites, and more drastic changes elsewhere not. We don't know, without testing the human remains, getting data for their autosomal DNA, the patrilineages and their isotopic profiles.

    Same with the Celts in Britain: Unless we have really fine grained, detailed data, we can't tell for sure.

    @Nijmegen: Not the place and time I was talking about
    Even within these iron age cultures there are some differentiated groups, like the Over-Jerstal group.
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-Jerstal-Kreis
    They 'delivered' the floating Warnen, influential in Thüringen....

    I agree withOtto Knotterus (2020), he stated that during the migration ages there was a kind of warlord culture:

    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 brand treasure of neighboring peoples, 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.
    The different warlords with their Gefolgschaften flowed to England, Friesland, Rhine Delta and of course to different places in Central-East Europe and further.
    Last edited by Finn; 05-06-2021 at 06:45 PM.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (05-06-2021),  JMcB (05-06-2021)

  7. #44
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,890
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    The different warlords with their Gefolgschaften flowed to England, Friesland, Rhine Delta and of course to different places in Central-East Europe and further.
    I believed in the primary role of the Roman influence too, and for sure, it was very important. But the rather later Roman influence could build upon the 2nd Latenisation, which resulted in a massive societal change. Actually, the first warlords and their retinues in Scandinavia might be Gothic and generally East Germanic backflow.

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (05-06-2021),  Finn (05-06-2021),  JMcB (05-06-2021)

  9. #45
    Registered Users
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    Absolutely serious.
    Do you seriously mean that languages are there to be found and we only have to dig and: eureka. With a sticker on it with the letters: G-e-r-m-a-n-i-c.
    Of course languages are there to be found. No stickers, they are totally irrelevant: languages are totally independent from any stickers. You have seriously misunderstood something very badly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn
    After the Romans there is a gap. In the early middle ages the word Germani was nearly lost. The West-Germanics labeled themselves as Teutonic, see Dutch/Diets, Deutsch etc. The Scandics didn't use Germanic (or such like) at all.
    So, are you talking about ethnic identity or what?
    Clearly you are not talking about the existence of a language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn
    It were early linguist like Grimm used Germanic, with classifications etc. Here the use of Germanic language in modern and linguistic sense is born.

    The use of label in "technical sense" like you I can understand from linguistic point of view.
    Considering the relatedness of languages, the linguistic point is the only relevant point.
    Germanic languages = descendants of the Proto-Germanic language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn
    Followers of Volksgeist alway get kind of upset when you state that Germanic is a construct, 'just' a subjective label, because according to them Germanic (just like Slavic or Celtic) is something essential, unique, spiritual. Not created but given.
    I don't understand what you mean by claiming, that Germanic is a construct.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Jaska For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (05-06-2021)

  11. #46
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Considering the relatedness of languages, the linguistic point is the only relevant point.
    Huhuh.

  12. #47
    Registered Users
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    Huhuh.
    Do you disagree? On which basis?
    Nothing else can tell anything about languages than linguistics. Is this new for you?

  13. #48
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Do you disagree? On which basis?
    Nothing else can tell anything about languages than linguistics. Is this new for you?
    My focus here is the language spoken by the Germani/ Germanics from a historical point of view. So what kind of language did the Germani speak. And how and why did it change?
    We now know that by 'modern standards' the 'original' Germani along the Rhine didn't speak Germanic, but a language heavily influenced by Central European Bronze and Iron Age cultures.

    Second during the Roman period the people 'right of the Rhine' were gross seen as Germani. In fact the whole North German plain.It's likely that in the Jastorf culture they talked a language that was in a modern view (Grimm law etc) Germanic. That was along the Elbe. What constructed this language? Most probably influences from the Nordics (Nordic Bronze Age) but also from the Central European zone, were the Elbe had it's well. And indirect through the Sögel-Wohlde culture, deeply influenced by Unetice, Urnfield etc, that has it's effect on the Nordic Bronze Age/ Jastorf.

    It would be nice if through this topic we could elaborate this. If you find this odd, not of your business, not of interest whatsoever. Fully ok. Nevertheless I want to keep the focus on the influence of the central european bronze age on 'Germanic'. If you have a contribution in this respect, even better; welcome!
    Last edited by Finn; 05-07-2021 at 06:46 AM.

  14. #49
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaska View Post
    Are you claiming, that the Saami languages only appeared, when the Scandinavians first time wrote about it, calling them Finnr or Lappir? Even though the Saami name for Saami is much older. Because that is what you are claiming for Germanic: that it wasn't Germanic before Romans called it Germanic!
    The Germani didn't called themselves Germanic or such like. And after (or even during?) the Roman period the people called themselves Thiuda (derived: Diets, Deutsch, Dutch etc)= folk. The use of the label Germani(c) disappeared (in- and external).

    Only when about the earliest kind of 'linguistic brothers' of you came on the scene, the brothers Grimm for example, then Germani(c) came in reuse.

    And yes I see a language also as a kind of refection of a sense of belonging. That means that the names of a language and a nation/people can sometimes be confused.

    So imo we must go beyond the modern linguistic labels as Germanic. We must see them in time and place. The development around the Rhine Delta is differentiated from the Elbe. In simple words. The language around the Rhine in the Roman period and before was 'colored' by a language derived from Bronze Age and Iron Age Central European cultures. The language development around the Elbe was a mixture of central european and nordic influences.

    During the migration ages the Elb-Germanic language spread all over the place incl the Rhine Delta, Friesland, England etc.
    Last edited by Finn; 05-07-2021 at 07:59 AM.

  15. #50
    Registered Users
    Posts
    396
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    My focus here is the language spoken by the Germani/ Germanics from a historical point of view. So what kind of language did the Germani speak. And how and why did it change?
    We now know that by 'modern standards' the 'original' Germani along the Rhine didn't speak Germanic, but a language heavily influenced by Central European Bronze and Iron Age cultures.
    So? That cannot tell anything about the Germanic languages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn
    Second during the Roman period the people 'right of the Rhine' were gross seen as Germani. In fact the whole North German plain.It's likely that in the Jastorf culture they talked a language that was in a modern view (Grimm law etc) Germanic. That was along the Elbe. What constructed this language? Most probably influences from the Nordics (Nordic Bronze Age) but also from the Central European zone, were the Elbe had it's well. And indirect through the Sögel-Wohlde culture, deeply influenced by Unetice, Urnfield etc, that has it's effect on the Nordic Bronze Age/ Jastorf.
    Yes?
    Languages usually are influenced by their neighbours: loanwords are borrowed etc. Still, every language has only one genealogical root.

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn
    It would be nice if through this topic we could elaborate this. If you find this odd, not of your business, not of interest whatsoever. Fully ok. Nevertheless I want to keep the focus on the influence of the central european bronze age on 'Germanic'. If you have a contribution in this respect, even better; welcome!
    Label "Germanic" is independent from the Germanic languages - that label was not used by the Germanic speakers. If you talk about "Germanic" bronze age in Central Europe, you take the risk, using the word wrong. Because Germanic is used to denote to the Germanic languages.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jaska For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (05-07-2021),  JMcB (05-07-2021),  JoeyP37 (05-07-2021),  Michał (05-07-2021),  Radboud (05-08-2021),  Riverman (05-07-2021)

Page 5 of 55 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 93
    Last Post: 07-23-2020, 05:39 PM
  2. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 07-08-2020, 07:59 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-22-2020, 03:10 PM
  4. Impact of Unetice or Central European Bronze Age!?
    By Finn in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-08-2018, 01:12 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-08-2017, 05:07 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •