Page 20 of 55 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 543

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

  1. #191
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,487
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    I didn't want to react the other day (your "Herrenvolk" stories had put me in too bad a mood). For me, the old stories of so-called New Archeology are totally irrelevant here, as were your allusions to Nazi Nordicism (which you had the distraction of wanting to make an argument). What is in question here is the scientific possibility of deducing a language (or a linguistic affiliation) from a set of archaeological classifications, without the slightest properly linguistic clue.
    if you are so strict you must reject the "Scandic Urheimat" theory immediately because it was not based on linguistic or archeological clues let alone evidence....just sheer 'ideology'.
    See:
    https://gfa.gbv.de/dr,gfa,004,2001,a,04.pdf

    The reason why linguistic and archeology (even within archeology in which migration theses were long time tabu for example) has 100% a relationship with ideological misuse and so a kind of flowing into the other extreme (anti-reaction).

    Do you think Euler has written his work without a linguistic clue?

    The bottom line seems to me that when we have a migration of people it's not weird to assume that the language is also involved.


    Nothing more nothing less....
    Last edited by Finn; 05-15-2021 at 02:50 PM.

  2. #192
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,857
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    I agree with that. There are all the reasons to suppose that so soon as the middle of the Bronze Age Western Europe was the seat of a complex continuum of dialects, most ultimately derived from the language(s?) brought by the Cordeds and that only a small fraction of these dialects have had a descent until the historical era.This is exactly why it is very adventurous to try with all force to associate all archaeological cultures with one of the linguistic groups constructed from modern or attested languages. What language (s) did the people of Unetice culture speak in its final stages? In truth, no one knows anything about it, and in all likelihood will never know about it. There is still a case where a lost language, in particular a reconstructed one, has left enough traces to be identified: this is when it has had a strong lexical influence in a rather different language, a fortiori a language from another family. When, moreover, this language is well described, in particular by a whole series of phonological mutations which constitute so many chronological markers, we can say that the case is privileged. This is exactly what happens with the Germanic, for whom the Saami and Finnish groups are nothing less than a conservatory. It is not forbidden to scrutinize Central European hydronyms in the hope of finding Proto- or Paleo-Germanic fossils. On the other hand, it is unacceptable not to give all the attention it deserves to the enormous corpus of Germanic lexemes of Saami and Finnish, stratified from pre-Proto-Germanic to Proto-Norse, and obviously beyond. Unless of course, the object of the study is not linguistic, but only archaeological, in which case any linguistic correlation should be avoided, at the risk of the subject falling into total confusion.
    In geneal I do agree, but for any conclusion as to where the Proto-Germanic core was sitting geographically, if considering this kind of linguistic evidence, every century matters. From my point of view Proto-Germanic lasted throughout the whole pre-Roman Iron Age:
    The Early Iron Age, also called the pre-Roman Iron Age or the Celtic Iron Age, spans the first five hundred years of the period, from 500 b.c. to 1 b.c.
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanit...ge-scandinavia

    Obviously we can assume Proto-Germanic started to exist earlier, but, it could have lasted that long and for sure didn't end before 500 BC!

    So any kind of Proto-Germanic influence on Finnic and Saami needs to be dated exactly. How can you do that? Like you said, you have no evidence of the Germanic languages at all. What if the Iron Age was spread to the North by a branch speaking a conservate "pre-Germanic" dialect, independent from the united Proto-Germanic group in Jastorf? If, like all the time, one tribe pushed the other in front of its own expansion, and in the early Iron Age, the whole Para-Germanic group had just one direction: North. Why? Because to their South the firmly established, technologically superiour Iron workers, from which they got their innovations, were their necessary allies. Those having had access to iron weapons first were the advantaged. And while other people got rolled over, one Northern splinter group did keep up its integrity and spread itself on top of that wave of change and transition. This was the Proto-Germanics and they were led by clans dominated by I1 and R1b-U106. Very closely related people would have lived all around them, probably they were in many respects quite similar, but they were not exactly the same.
    And obviously I see no problem at all with a Proto-Germanic Urheimat South of Denmark as long as we keep that in mind:
    - Related Para-Germanic groups might have lived in different Nordic Bronze Age provinces
    - Proto-Germanic did reach Scandinavia with the early Iron Age

    Now I want to know in which way a possible contact with Finns and Saami in Northern-Middle Scandinavia and Finland contradicts that? Can anybody date the Proto-Germanic phase much, much before the Iron Age based on linguistic influences on the Finnic languages with any given certainty? That's the problem I have with it, this cannot be conclusive evidence in this respect, at least not more so than the combination of archaeological and genetic evidence which hopefully will trickle in some day. Obviously it needs to be considered, but I personally see no contradiction.

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

     CopperAxe (05-15-2021),  Finn (05-15-2021),  Michał (05-15-2021)

  4. #193
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,487
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Let me explain why 'ideological pre-assumptions' let to the frame of the "Scandic Urheimat". Until about 1890 nearly no one talked about the Scandic Urheimat. Ludwig Wilser and others of course but he was the main coiner of the Scandic Urheimat because he had as we nowadays say an agenda:

    With these efforts to refute the negatively proven barbarian topos and to give it a positive twist in the ideologue of the original, unadulterated, young people, 50 the national belief of predestination and superiority of the Teutons and therefore of the Germans could only be partially justified .
    From a völkisch point of view, however, this problem could be completely resolved with the doctrine of the “northern hearth of creation ”.51 One of her ideologues summarized its central importance for the völkisch world view in 1918 in the sentence:“ With the doctrine of the northern European origins of the Indo-Europeans Our whole species-conscious worldview stands and falls. ”52 The rejection of the older ex-oriente-lux theory was also anti-Semitically motivated and also took into account the anti-Asiatic attitude of the Völkisch based on racial ideology, but it was primarily about establishing a basis for legitimation to create for the folkish doctrine of predestination and superiority. The ex-septentrione-lux theory assumed that - in Theobald Bieder's words - “Northern Europe [...] has become a source of culture for the whole continent, and [that] the homeland of these oldest, closed culture [...] coincides with the homeland of the white Aryan race, from which the Germanic peoples emerged as a core people. "53
    google translate from
    https://gfa.gbv.de/dr,gfa,004,2001,a,04.pdf

    I don't want to disturb your mood Angles but as a professional historian I have to look history and history writing right into the eyes if we like it or not....
    Last edited by Finn; 05-15-2021 at 03:45 PM.

  5. #194
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,662
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    So any kind of Proto-Germanic influence on Finnic and Saami needs to be dated exactly. How can you do that?
    Can anybody date the Proto-Germanic phase much, much before the Iron Age based on linguistic influences on the Finnic languages with any given certainty? That's the problem I have with it, (...)
    Did you really read the works of Kallio and Aikio? Once more:

    https://www.academia.edu/13615139/Th...ords_in_Finnic
    https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kallio.pdf
    https://journal.fi/susa/article/download/81944/41155/
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     JMcB (05-15-2021),  Nganasankhan (05-15-2021)

  7. #195
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,662
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    Let me explain why 'ideological pre-assumptions' let to the frame of the "Scandic Urheimat". Until about 1890 nearly no one talked about the Scandic Urheimat. Ludwig Wilser and others of course but he was the main coiner of the Scandic Urheimat because he had as we nowadays say an agenda:



    google translate from
    https://gfa.gbv.de/dr,gfa,004,2001,a,04.pdf

    I don't want to disturb your mood Angles but as a professional historian I have to look history and history writing right into the eyes if we like it or not....
    Today to associate the theory of localization of the Proto-Germanic in Scandinavia with the Nazi ideology, it is to make Science history in the style of Demoule. It is outrageous, and above all ridiculous. This theory has been revived and consolidated by predominantly Finnish linguists. Do you think that the idea that agriculture, metallurgy, and many other things attested by the Germanic vocabulary, were transmitted to the ancestors of the Finns by ... ancestors of the Swedes, was pleasant for their public? Certainly not. To imply that these linguists worked under the sway, however unconscious, of Nazi ideology is, I repeat, outrageous and ridiculous, and I am very sorry that such innuendos were made here.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (05-15-2021),  JMcB (05-15-2021),  Michał (05-15-2021),  NixYO (06-09-2021)

  9. #196
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,487
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    Today to associate the theory of localization of the Proto-Germanic in Scandinavia with the Nazi ideology, it is to make Science history in the style of Demoule. It is outrageous, and above all ridiculous. This theory has been revived and consolidated by predominantly Finnish linguists. Do you think that the idea that agriculture, metallurgy, and many other things attested by the Germanic vocabulary, were transmitted to the ancestors of the Finns by ... ancestors of the Swedes, was pleasant for their public? Certainly not. To imply that these linguists worked under the sway, however unconscious, of Nazi ideology is, I repeat, outrageous and ridiculous, and I am very sorry that such innuendos were made here.
    Don't make you own conclusions or put words in my mouth. As said read Euler he talks about it in a sensible way. But indeed the Scandic Urheimat theory finds it's roots in an agenda driven mind. That's a fact.

    Is this relevant. Yes it is because basically it was not driven by archeological, linguistic, historical notions.....certainly not evidence based! It was the other way around: how can the 'facts' be suited to the agenda. That's always doubtful Angles....

    And of course we still can use the option of the Scandic Urheimat, why not? Still it has to make sense.... If then I'm curios for this answers I still don't have it, even not after reading the Finnish experts:

    With regard to the "Scandic Urheimat" (see previous posting, but again):
    1.This theory leaves a language gap in North-Central Europe, more specific the Unetice area as shown above, what kind of language did they speak before the proto Germanic speakers came from Scandinavia?
    2.Modern geneticist and archeologist have not attested a LBA/IA movement of proto Germanic speakers that fuzed with- or expelled the- hitherto people in North-Central Europe. There are only hints, but nothing we can pinpoint.
    3. Proto-Germanic is not only affiliated with Saami/Finnic but to some extent also with (proto) Baltic, Italic, Celtic. How is this to be coped with a Scandic heartland?
    Last edited by Finn; 05-15-2021 at 04:04 PM.

  10. #197
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,890
    Sex
    Location
    Florida, USA.
    Ethnicity
    English, Scottish & Irish
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    I-FT80854
    mtDNA (M)
    H1e2
    mtDNA (P)
    K1

    England Scotland Ireland Germany Bayern Italy Two Sicilies France
    It doesn’t look like it.



    Perhaps, these should be added.


    Talking Neolithic: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on How Indo-European Was Implemented in Southern Scandinavia
    rune iversen and guus kroonen

    In this article, we approach the Neolithization of southern Scandinavia from an archaeo- linguistic perspective. Farming arrived in Scandinavia with the Funnel Beaker culture by the turn of the fourth millennium B.C.E. It was superseded by the Single Grave culture, which as part of the Corded Ware horizon is a likely vector for the introduction of Indo- European speech. As a result of this introduction, the language spoken by individuals from the Funnel Beaker culture went extinct long before the beginning of the historical record, apparently vanishing without a trace. However, the Indo-European dialect that ultimately developed into Proto-Germanic can be shown to have adopted terminology from a non-Indo-European language, including names for local flora and fauna and important plant domesticates. We argue that the coexistence of the Funnel Beaker culture and the Single Grave culture in the first quarter of the third millennium B.C.E. offers an attractive scenario for the required cultural and linguistic exchange, which we hypothesize took place between incoming speakers of Indo-European and local descendants of Scandinavia’s earliest farmers.1

    […]


    Through its vocabulary, language is the medium for the transmission of new ideas, and it thus accumulates evidence for cultural change through the ages. This article combines the linguistic and archaeological evidence for innovations in subsistence strategies and material culture in the third millennium B.C.E. into a unified scenario. The aim is to determine when the speakers of the Indo-European dialect that later evolved into Proto-Germanic became established in northern Europe and southern Scandinavia. We envisage a scenario in which these speakers, having arrived in central and western Jutland together with Corded Ware cultural features, became integrated into and influenced by late Funnel Beaker culture groups, who according to our data spoke an unknown language that would become extinct before the start of the historical record. This extinct language, which we shall henceforth refer to as “Early European Neolithic,” is the likely donor of an etymologically obscure set of Germanic terms for local flora and fauna and important plant domesticates that were absent in the parent language, Proto-Indo-European.

    https://static-curis.ku.dk/portal/fi...04_Iversen.pdf




    Language dispersal and the formation of Proto-Germanic in northern Europe

    These local processes of social integration between intruding Yamnaya/Corded Ware populations and remnant Neolithic populations can be applied to language dispersal. We should expect that the transformation from Proto-Indo-European to Pre-Proto Germanic would reveal the same kind of hybridisation between an earlier Neolithic language of the Funnel Beaker Culture, and the incoming Proto-Indo-European language. This is precisely what recent linguistic research has been able to demonstrate (Kroonen & Iversen in press). In their study on the formation of Proto-Germanic in Northern Europe, Kroonen and Iversen document a bundle of linguistic terms of non-Indo-European origin linked to agriculture that were adopted by Indo-European-speaking groups who were not fully fledged farmers. The most plausible, and perhaps the only possible, context for this to have happened would be the introduction of Proto-Germanic by the intruding Yamnaya groups. Archaeologically, this adoption can be understood from their interaction over several hundred years with late Funnel Beaker groups still residing in eastern Jutland and on the Danish islands, where they maintained a largely agricultural economy. From this we can conclude that terms linked to farming, and the cultivation of many important crops, were missing among the early Yamnaya/Corded Ware groups, who may well have acquired cereals (barley) mainly for the purpose of producing and consuming beer (Klassen 2005). In addition, we learn that the Neolithic language of the Funnel Beaker Culture was in all probability non-Indo-European. This process of language interaction is illustrated by the model in Figure 2. It illustrates that different Indo-European language branches were in contact with one and the same Neolithic tongue throughout Europe.
    The new data conforms well to the reconstructed lexicon of Proto-Indo-European (Mallory & Adams 2006), which provides important clues that the subsistence strategy of early Indo-European-speaking societies was based on animal husbandry. It includes, for instance, terms related to dairy and wool production, horse breeding and wagon technology. Words for crops and land cultivation, however, have proved to be far more difficult to reconstruct. These results from historical linguistics are supported by similar evidence from archaeology (Andersen 1995; Kristiansen 2007). With the recent study by Kroonen and Iversen (in press), we can now demonstrate how social and economic interaction with existing Neolithic societies also had a corresponding linguistic imprint. This should not surprise us, as similar results are well documented from the interaction of Yamnaya societies with their northern Uralic-speaking neighbours (Parpola & Koskallio 2007).

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/servi...-in-europe.pdf




    Origins

    The Germanic peoples (also called Teutonic, Suebian, or Gothic in older literature) are an ethno-linguistic Indo-European group of northern European origin. They are identified by their use of Germanic languages, which diversified out of Proto-Germanic during the Pre-Roman Iron Age …

    Northernmost Europe, in what now constitutes the European plains of Denmark and southern Scandinavia, is where the Germanic peoples most likely originated. This is a region that was “remarkably stable” as far back as the Neolithic Age, when humans first began controlling their environment through the use of agriculture and the domestication of animals. Archeological evidence gives the impression that the Germanic people were becoming more uniform in their culture as early as 750 BCE. As their population grew, the Germanic people migrated westwards into coastal floodplains due to the exhaustion of the soil in their original settlements.

    Germanic Tribes

    By approximately 250 BCE, additional expansion further southwards into central Europe took place, and five general groups of Germanic people emerged, each employing distinct linguistic dialects but sharing similar language innovations. These five dialects are distinguished as North Germanic in southern Scandinavia; North Sea Germanic in the regions along the North Sea and in the Jutland peninsula, which forms the mainland of Denmark together with the north German state of Schleswig-Holstein; Rhine-Weser Germanic along the middle Rhine and Weser river, which empties into the North Sea near Bremerhaven; Elbe Germanic directly along the middle Elbe river; and East Germanic between the middle of the Oder and Vistula rivers.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...rmanic-tribes/




    Stedje (1989) points out that Proto-Germanic (PG) probably began to develop as far back as about 2000 b.c., as Indo-Europeans began to settle western areas of the Baltic Sea (see Appendix A), and ended about 500b.c., when the differences had become evident enough to discriminate PG from other languages.

    The Vocabulary of Proto-Germanic

    From the beginning, Proto-Germanic language drew heavily upon its own resources in the creation of native vocabulary, particularly in the areas of agriculture, animal husbandry, hunting, and warfare. "Approximately a fourth to a third of the Modern German vocabulary is uniquely Germanic in origin, no Indo-European cognates of these words have been found," claims Waterman (1966: 36).

    https://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/...ts/german.html



    And with a hat tip to you:



    The Pre-Germanic Substrata and Germanic Maritime Vocabulary
    Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak University of Lodz

    The Germanic ethnogenesis

    The geographical origin of the Germanic tribes is a noncontroversial issue. In the light of prehistoric data the Germanic homeland can be situated in the area of contemporary Jutland, southern Scandinavia and northern Germany. The Germanic languages were formed from northern Indo-European dialects and they underwent specific changes in their phonological, morphological and lexical systems.


    https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.ne...OHF5GGSLRBV4ZA


    Of course, there’s more. All you have to do is look.
    Paper Trail: 42.25% English, 31.25% Scottish, 12.5% Irish, 6.25% German, 6.25% Sicilian & 1.5% French. Or: 86% British Isles, 6.25% German, 6.25% Sicilian & 1.5% French.
    LDNA(c): 86.3% British Isles (48.6% English, 37.7% Scottish & Irish), 7.8% NW Germanic, 5.9% Europe South (Aegean 3.4%, Tuscany 1.3%, Sardinia 1.1%)
    BigY 700: I1-Z140 >I-F2642 >Y1966 >Y3649 >A13241 >Y3647 >A13248 (circa 620 AD) >A13242/YSEQ (circa 765 AD) >FT80854 (circa 1650 AD).

  11. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-15-2021),  anglesqueville (05-15-2021),  Bygdedweller (05-15-2021),  CopperAxe (05-15-2021),  Radboud (05-15-2021),  Strider99 (05-15-2021)

  12. #198
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,487
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by JMcB View Post
    It doesn’t look like it.
    .
    I did and lots more (I can read English, German and Dutch papers very fast JmcB ) but these texts you mentioned don't give an answer to these questions.

    With regard to the "Scandic Urheimat" (see previous posting, but again):
    1.This theory leaves a language gap in North-Central Europe, more specific the Unetice area as shown above, what kind of language did they speak before the proto Germanic speakers came from Scandinavia?
    2.Modern geneticist and archeologist have not attested a LBA/IA movement of proto Germanic speakers that fuzed with- or expelled the- hitherto people in North-Central Europe. There are only hints, but nothing we can pinpoint.
    3. Proto-Germanic is not only affiliated with Saami/Finnic but to some extent also with (proto) Baltic, Italic, Celtic. How is this to be coped with a Scandic heartland?
    Last edited by Finn; 05-15-2021 at 04:17 PM.

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

     JMcB (05-15-2021)

  14. #199
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,662
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    if you are so strict you must reject the "Scandic Urheimat" theory immediately because it was not based on linguistic or archeological clues let alone evidence....just sheer 'ideology'.
    For god's sake, leave those damn Nazi things where they are, and r-e-a-d t-h-e F-i-n-n-n-i-s-h t-e-x-t-s. Well, read them if your subject is really Germanic. If it is only Unetice in the Netherlands, it is not obligatory. But then stop saying that Unetice brought Proto-Germanic to the Netherlands because it is very (very) probably wrong, whatever Udolph, Euler, Monty Python and the Pope may have written.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  15. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-15-2021),  JMcB (05-15-2021),  JoeyP37 (05-15-2021),  Michał (05-15-2021),  NixYO (06-09-2021),  Radboud (05-15-2021)

  16. #200
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,487
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    For god's sake, leave those damn Nazi things where they are, and r-e-a-d t-h-e F-i-n-n-n-i-s-h t-e-x-t-s. Well, read them if your subject is really Germanic. If it is only Unetice in the Netherlands, it is not obligatory. But then stop saying that Unetice brought Proto-Germanic to the Netherlands because it is very (very) probably wrong, whatever Udolph, Euler, Monty Python and the Pope may have written.
    I have read the Germanic world according to some Finnish experts.....nevertheless no answer to my questions.

    But then stop saying that Unetice brought Proto-Germanic to the Netherlands because it is very (very) probably wrong, whatever Udolph, Euler, Monty Python and the Pope may have written.
    Are you sure? and why?

Page 20 of 55 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •