Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 343

Thread: The Harbour of the Old North

  1. #1
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,730
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland

    The Harbour of the Old North

    There is a permanent thread on the French-speaking forum called "Le Grenier Indo-Européen", that is to say: "the Indo-European granary". Opened in March 2017, it now totals 2,464 messages. To use the terms I used at the time for its opening, it aims to collect everything relating to Indo-European cultures (...): genetics, archaeology, linguistics. The experience of this thread has been very positive. My idea here is to repeat this experience with a subject that is also very "massive", although not as much obviously, and quite fascinating, that of the northern European cultures of the Bronze and Iron Ages. Considering the very maritime character of these cultures, and the importance that trade by sea routes had for them, I chose to baptize it "The Harbour of the Old North".

    Archaeology and anthropology (trade with the whole of Europe, from the Aegean areas to the Baltic and the Atlantic, rock carvings from Sweden, etc, the material is enormous and complex), genetics, linguistics, there would be enough to feed a forum. I was very hesitant about which sub-forum to open this thread, and I ended up choosing the most "cosmopolitan." I hope that many of you will post questions, thoughts, reading tips, etc. I thought a linguistic clarification would be welcome to start this thread. This is what I will try my hand at in the next post.

    446p.jpg
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  2. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (06-06-2021),  CannabisErectusHibernius (06-14-2021),  CopperAxe (06-06-2021),  Finn (06-06-2021),  Garimund (06-06-2021),  JMcB (06-06-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-06-2021),  Kaltmeister (06-10-2021),  Megalophias (06-06-2021),  NixYO (06-09-2021),  Token (06-06-2021),  Tomenable (07-04-2021),  uintah106 (06-06-2021)

  3. #2
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,730
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    In search of pre- and proto-Germanic

    1) pre-, proto-

    When speaking of ancient languages we cannot avoid the use of prefixes like pre-, proto-, even pre-proto-, sometimes paleo-, etc. The experience of reading the texts of specialists teaches us that the meaning of these prefixes is far from being fixed. This may not be a major problem for these specialists, especially when the context is enlightening. But for amateurs, especially when the practice of discussion on a forum favours the publication of excerpts from texts cut off from their overall logic, this has disastrous consequences. I will therefore first of all say in what sense these prefixes will be used here, even if certain texts that will be used call for adaptations.

    In the phylogenetic model which is consubstantial with historical linguistics, languages A1, A2, A3, etc., constitute a family A when they derive, each by a series of specific shifts, from the same "ancestral" language. This language is then called proto-A.

    fig1.png

    Now suppose that this proto-A language can be grouped together with other languages of families B in an A-B superfamily. Their common ancestor is in turn a proto-language, which we can call proto-A-B. proto-A differs from proto-A-B by a series of shifts. Imagine that we were able to classify these shifts chronologically, the first s1, then s2, up to say s4. proto-A is affected by the full s1-s2-s3-s4 series. Its predecessors on the branch which leads from proto-A-B to proto-A should be called pre-proto-A, but it seems that this custom has not been imposed. These intermediate languages are more generally called pre-A. They are therefore 3 here: pre-A-s1, which can only be distinguished from the proto-A-B ancestor by the first shift, then pre-A-s1-s2, then pre-A-s1-s2-s3. So we see the problem: while "proto-" designates a single language, "pre-" in fact designates a process of transformation, or the languages involved in this process.
    Note: It goes without saying that each of these pre-A dialects can perfectly well have "lived its life" by giving birth to sister languages of the following dialects. Simply these sister languages not having had any descendants among the attested languages, we are not and will never be able to say anything about them.

    fig2.png

    2) from pre- to proto-germanic

    The various propositions of Germanic phylogeny differ little. Here is one, modern (Britannica), and an old one (Schleicher, borrowed from https://www.monmeetings.org/meeting13/papavassiliou.pdf )

    Derivation-languages-Germanic-Proto-Germanic.jpg
    schleicher.JPG

    Dealing with proto-Germanic we must keep in mind that a proto-language, being by definition pure of any internal differentiation, is necessarily spoken in a not too large area, because a too large area producing phenomena of isolation by distance would produce de facto phenomena of dialectal differentiation. One of the great specialists of the germanic family, Don Ringe, writes:

    There's a consensus that PGmc. belongs in the Jastorf culture and its successors in southern Denmark and northern Germany. But early Jastorf, ca. 750 BCE, is too early for our reconstructed PGmc., given how similar Gothic (ca. 350 CE) and Early Runic (roughly contemporary) still are. Later Jastorf and its successors occupy too large an area for its population to have spoken anything like a single dialect (see above). The only possible solution is that PGmc. was *one* of the dialects spoken in the Jastorf area, probably not before ca. 500 BCE, possibly a bit later. It follows that most of the tribes identified by the Romans as Germans spoke not our reconstructed PGmc. but closely related sister dialects that have left no descendants.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Finn (07-28-2021),  Garimund (06-06-2021),  hokkanto (06-06-2021),  JMcB (06-06-2021),  Kaltmeister (06-10-2021),  Ryukendo (06-06-2021),  Token (06-06-2021)

  5. #3
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,730
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    So, proto-Germanic, when, and where?

    a) When?
    Considering the linguistic distances between the attested Germanic languages (bases of the construction pf proto-G) and especially considering the fact that Proto-Norse ("attested in the oldest Scandinavian Elder Futhark inscriptions, spoken from around the 2nd to the 8th centuries CE", Wiki) is still very close to proto-Germ, it is unlikely that the evolution to proto-Germ arrived at its term before 500 BC. Some scholars consider that this date is still too early (see Ringe above). In any case, the second part of the first century. Let's make it clear. Sentences in the vein of "U106 proto-Germanic" are pure nonsense.

    b) Where?

    b1) Udolph
    Before we talk about Jastorf, let's get rid once and for all of a theory that has everything against it. In his book "Namenkundliche Studien zum Germanenproblem" (de Gruyter, 1994) the onomastician Jürgen Udolph, defends for Proto-German an area "roughly to be located between the Erzgebirge, Thüringerwald, Elbe, Aller and an open border in Westphalia" . This thesis is supported by arguments of a toponymic nature only. We will soon see that other linguistic facts of a very different nature reduce this thesis to nothing. But even in the absence of these, Udolph's work could be regarded as absolutely invalidated (and it is arguably not inadvertently that neither the German Wikipedia nor the British do not consider the usefulness of a simple evocation). Indeed, this work, which seems a fossil of a time when Indo-European studies were in limbo, has been criticized since its publication ("criticized" is an understatement) by the linguist Harald Bichlmeier. Bichlmeier's repetitions of many of the hydronyms analyzed by Udolph are mostly available on Academia (in German), and I will let interested readers read them in detail. I will content myself with quoting the conclusion of one of these texts, which says what to think about it overall.

    Vom ebenso polemischen wie souveränen Ton der hier ausführlich besprochenen Äußerungen des „Herrn der Namen“ sollte sich niemand darüber täuschen lassen, dass sich in ihnen gravierende Ungereimtheiten in allen Bereichen der historischen Sprachwissenschaft manifestieren.
    Im Sinne Vennemanns wird man die Etymologien Udolphs meist als „naiv“ bezeichnen müssen, da er sich konsequent der Fundierung seiner Arbeiten durch die von der Indogermanistik bereitgestellten „einschlägigen Erkenntnisse“ verweigert.


    Nobody should be fooled by the polemical and sovereign tone of the utterances of the “Lord of Names” discussed in detail here that they manifest serious inconsistencies in all areas of historical linguistics.
    In the sense of Vennemann, Udolph's etymologies will mostly have to be described as "naive", since he consistently refuses to base his work on the "relevant knowledge" provided by Indo-European studies.
    (H. Bichlmeier "Analyse und Bewertung der sprachwissenschaftlichen Standards
    aktueller Forschungen traditioneller Art zur ‚alteuropäischen Hydronymie‘ aus der Perspektive der heutigen Indogermanistik" )

    Now that Udolph has been evacuated from the scene (where he had in fact only made one attempt to enter), it appears we are sticking with the thesis that has been mostly supported in Western Europe for many decades: Denmark and the Jastorf culture. This thesis, seen from quite a distance, seems plausible. In particular, it fully satisfies a criterion that was difficult to reconcile with the Udolphian thesis: the presence within Proto-Germanic of a plethoric maritime vocabulary, which implies that the Proto-Germanic area was in intimate contact with the Sea and the activities related to it. Nevertheless, no more than the Udolphian thesis, it does not take into consideration a fact of major importance.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     Finn (06-06-2021),  JMcB (06-06-2021),  Kaltmeister (06-10-2021),  Megalophias (06-07-2021),  Ryukendo (06-06-2021),  Token (06-06-2021)

  7. #4
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,730
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    b2) Finns and Saamis

    This fact is crucial both for our knowledge of the prehistory of the Germanic languages and of the Balto-Finnic languages. For the former, we can even argue that it is THE major fact. This fact is the presence of hundreds of words borrowed from the Germanic family, throughout its history by the Balto-Finnic families, Saami included, throughout their respective histories. We must insist: this is not about one-off loans inherited from sporadic contacts. These borrowings are layered in complex ways, throughout the Bronze Age (and arguably even a little earlier) and of course subsequent eras. Petri Kallio (in "The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic") estimates that " Finnic has around 500 “early Germanic” loanwords. As standard Finnish has around 6000 word stems (Häkkinen 2004: 6), it is a considerable percentage of the Finnic vocabulary." Kallio further insists that these borrowings were of such importance that they induced structural transformations in Finnic phonology itself: "Moreover, the Germanic loanwords also introduced several new phonotactic features into Proto-Finnic, such as new syllable structures. Most of all, while Early Proto-Finnic only had monomoraic syllables (i.e. *(C)V-) and bimoraic syllables (i.e. *(C)VV-, *(C)VC-), Late Proto-Finnic also had trimoraic syllables (i.e. *(C)VVC-, *(C)VCC-)." In another text Kallio summarizes the fact:
    Thus, the early Germanic influence on Finnic was considerable indeed and may well be compared with the French superstrate in English, for instance.
    (in: "The Stratigraphy of the Germanic Loanwords in Finnic").

    There is no question here of drawing up a detailed picture of the chronology of these loanwords. The subject is far too massive and complex, as it is involved in the entire history of the languages involved (I will give a list of the most accessible references below, and some really fundamental ones, but which are less easy to access), but we must still insist on the fact that the history of these contacts covers the whole Bronze Age, and of course that of the Iron, before the Nordic dialects of Germanic came into play. The implications are dramatic.

    Kallio:
    It goes without saying that hundreds of Germanic loanwords cannot have been borrowed into Finnic through occasional trade; there must have been something more. (...) Personally, I find nothing wrong with the traditional idea of a Pre- and Palaeo-Germanic speaking Nordic Bronze Age people. First of all, the Nordic Bronze Age culture was directly followed by the Pre-Roman Iron Age cultures, such as the Jastorf culture (ca. 600-1 BC). On the other hand, Finnic is not the only Uralic branch with numerous early Germanic loanwords; those in Saami are equally early (Aikio 2006) and almost equally numerous (Sammallahti 1998: 128-129). Objectively speaking, hundreds of Germanic loanwords in both Finnic and Saami should weigh more than only a few stray borrowings between Germanic and Celtic (for which see e.g. Schumacher 2007), but not everyone seems to agree.
    "Not everyone" designates of course Udolph:

    So what can the Germanic loanwords in Finnic tell us about the linguistic map of prehistoric northern Europe? First of all, they totally destroy the theory advocated by some German scholars (e.g. Udolph 1994) that Germanic was spoken nowhere in Scandinavia until the Iron Age.
    Everything converges in fact towards an inevitable conclusion: it is in Scandinavia and nowhere else that the evolution leading from a dialect still little different from the Indo-European of the North-West took place, throughout the Nordic Bronze Age, up to Proto-Germanic, in the pre-Roman Iron Age. As for the location of this last phase, Kallio remains with the Jastorf hypothesis. But he has some of his colleagues against him, and not the least.

    The "patriarch" Korma Koivulehto already noted ( "Die Datierung der germanisch-finnischen Kontakte, revidiert " in " Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt Vorträge des Symposiums aus Anlaß des 30-jährigen Bestehens der Finnougristik an der Rijksuniversiteit Groningen 21.—23. November 1996"):

    Die Hypothese, wonach das Germanische erst um 500 v. Chr, im Bereich der archäologisch feststellbaren Jastorf-Kultur in Norddeutschland entstanden sei, ist mit den frühen germanisch-ostseefinnischen und germanisch-lappischen Kontakten unvereinbar. Die älteste “Urheimat” der Germanen muß vielmehr in Süd- und Mittelskandinavien angesetzt werden, wie bereits traditionell angenommen wurde. Die Jastorf-Leute in Norddeutschland waren zwar sicher auch Germanen, aber damalige Südgermanen, keine ältesten Urgermanen

    The hypothesis, according to which the Germanic language arose for the first time around 500 BC, in the area of the archaeologically ascertainable Jastorf culture in Northern Germany, is incompatible with the early Germanic-Baltic Sea-Finnish and Germanic-Lappic contacts. The oldest “original home” of the Germanic peoples must rather be set in southern and central Scandinavia, as was traditionally assumed. The Jastorf people in northern Germany were certainly also Germanic peoples, but they were southern Germanic peoples at that time, not the oldest original Germanic peoples.
    In "Emergence, contacts and dispersal of proto-indo-european, proto-uralic and proto-aryan in archaelogical perspective",(1999) CHRISTIAN CARPELAN & ASKO PARPOLA write:

    Many scholars have considered the carriers of the Jastorf culture of the Pre-Roman Iron Age (c.600 BC) in northen Germany to have spoken Proto-Germanic (cf. Mallory 1989; Mallory & Adams 1997). But the Jastorf culture had nos connections with Finland or the eastern Baltics whereas there were lively contacts betweens southern Sweden and especially Finland both before and after the Jastorf culture.
    The image that emerges from all these elements could be the following. The entire chronologic period and geographic area corresponding to the Nordic Bronze Age, were the seat of Germanic phylogeny, including most likely the birth of multiple para-Germanic dialects that disappeared without descendants, until the fulfilment of this phylogeny in the Proto-Germanic, most probably on the Swedish coast of the Gulf of Bothnia. The climatic deterioration that coincides with the onset of the Iron Age has seen groups from this region migrate south, and in particular (but not only) settle in Denmark. This first split could correspond to the beginnings of the "dialectization" from Proto-Germanic to North-Germanic and West-Germanic, the establishment of other groups on the southern Baltic coast possibly corresponding to the birth of the Gothic branch.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to anglesqueville For This Useful Post:

     Bygdedweller (06-06-2021),  Finn (06-06-2021),  JMcB (06-06-2021),  Kaltmeister (06-10-2021),  Megalophias (06-07-2021),  Ryukendo (06-06-2021),  Token (06-06-2021)

  9. #5
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,730
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    3)Epilogue: early pre-germanic and before

    The pre-Germanic as a process emerges from the North-West Indo-European fund. While the first proposals of phylogeny (for example that of Scheicher) united the Germanic branch with the Balto-Slavic branch, a certain consensus today seems to want to bring out the Germanic branch from the same background as the Italo-Celtic branch. We should not conclude too much from this observation. In particular, the elements abundantly mentioned seem to militate for the autonomous development of the pre-Germanic without essential contribution from the other branches. On the other hand, it is important to note that this common background makes the search for loanwords, in particular Celtic, difficult, as it is a question of distinguishing them from simple cognates. To use the words of Gilles Quentel, searchers have "to isolate the linguistic contacts between Germanic and Celtic from the whole movement of the Indo-European linguistic phenomenon" (In "Early contacts between continental Celtic and Germanic" (in Sprachkontakte in Zentraleuropa, 2012). It was this task that John T. Koch undertook, a work which ended with the publication of a remarkable text: "CELTO-GERMANIC Later Prehistory and Post-Proto-Indo-European vocabulary in the North and West ". I imagine we will have a lot to learn from this text on this thread. I think that we will agree then that the Germanic borrowings from Celtic (at any stage of development of the two families), which are in the end, not very numerous, can all be interpreted through commercial relations, and cannot be invoked against the thesis of the autonomous development of the Germanic branch in Scandinavia. To conclude, Koch gives an element, which he himself considers "consistent", in favor of this thesis. This element consists of a single word.

    Attaching a date to the word ‘hemp, cannabis’, Proto-Germanic *hanipa- (> Old Norse hanpr, Old English hænep, Old High German hanaf, hanif), would, if convincing, be useful. It is universally agreed to be a loanword.
    (...)
    Forms of this word are widely attested, including early examples qunnabu, qunnapu, qun(u)bu in records of the Assyrian Empire, a few centuries before Herodotus.
    Balto-Slavic cognates, such as Lithuanian kanãpès, Old Prussian knapios, and Russian konopljá, support attribution to ‘the pre-Indo-European agricultural layer in Germanic and related languages in Europe’ (Kroonen 2013, 209), implicating a language of the North European Neolithic encountered by the Indo-Europeans as they expanded from the steppe in the 3rd millennium BC (cf. Iversen & Kroonen 2017). Latin cannabis is a loanword from Greek. There is no occurrence in any Italic or Celtic language of an old word cognate with hemp/kannabis. On its own, that is one small piece of negative evidence, but one consistent with the possibility that the transformation of Proto-Indo-European into the Italo-Celtic group in Western Europe involved a different Pre-Indo-European substrate than the one that affected the formation of Balto-Slavic and Germanic in the North.
    4) Some minimal references

    About the Germanic family and its history, the major reference is:
    Donald Ringe "A History of English: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic"
    https://oxford.universitypressschola...-9780199284139

    About the contacts Germanic-Balto-Finnic, limiting to the English and German sources:
    Easily accessible on the Internet
    Petri Kallio:
    "The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic"
    "THE STRATIGRAPHY OF THE GERMANIC LOANWORDS IN FINNIC"
    Ante Aikio:
    "On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory"

    Perhaps accessible
    CHRISTIAN CARPELAN & ASKO PARPOLA
    "Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-lndo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective"
    in
    "Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European:Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations"


    Jorman Koivulehto: "Die Datierung der germanisch-finnischen Kontakte, revidiert"
    in
    Finnisch-ugrische Sprachen in Kontakt

    I cannot avoid mentioning, even if I doubt it is findable somewhere on the Internet, the essential and enormous
    Kylstra et al.
    "LEXIKON DER ÄLTEREN GERMANISCHEN LEHNWÖRTER IN DEN OSTSEEFINNISCHEN SPRACHEN" (3 tomes)

    At least, J. T. Koch:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...North_and_West
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     cuan (06-06-2021),  Finn (06-06-2021),  JMcB (06-06-2021),  Kaltmeister (06-10-2021),  Megalophias (06-07-2021),  Ryukendo (06-06-2021)

  11. #6
    Registered Users
    Posts
    872
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a CTS11962+L1029+
    mtDNA (M)
    H80

    European Union Germany Italy
    i have a question
    if the dendogram in #2 is correct
    does that then imply that Jutland, and all what happened on Jutland, was West-Germanic until the Danes arrived in the mid-late sixth century

    i guess it does
    GENO2.0 51SEURO 19WCEURO 13SCANDINAVIA 5ASIAMINOR 4EEURO 4GB/IRELAND 3ARABIA myOrigins 26ITA.PENINSULA 13GREECE&BALKANS 12SARDINIA 18GREATBRITAIN 14IRELAND 10CEN.EUROPE 8SCANDINAVIA DNA.Land 49NWEURO 27SEURO 13MED.ISLANDER 11SARDINIAN myHeritage 51.8NWEURO 33.2ITALIAN 7.9GREEK/S.ITALY 7.1BALKAN gencove 29NITALY 19EMED 15NBRITISLES 12SWEURO 10NCEURO 9SCANDINAVIA 6NEEURO GenePlaza 54.4NWEURO 37.6GREEK/ALBANIAN 5.6WASIAN 2.4SWASIA LivingDNA 70.7SGERMANIC 16.3TUSCANY 9.2N.ITALY 3.8SARDINIA

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alexfritz For This Useful Post:

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

  13. #7
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Storm in een glas water.

    I can agree with the most of what you have stated Angles. In add to alexfritz.

    See this timetable and language pedigree of Koch (2020):



    IMO.
    red: pre-Germanic out of Single Grave and Bell Beaker (combi).
    The realignment of Pre-Germanic towards Italo-Celtic now suggests the spread of the Beaker phenomenon into Central Europe, where it overlapped and partly fused with CWC in the area between the Rhine, Upper Danube, and Jutland (§22; cf. Heyd 2007; Østmo 2009; Cunliffe 2010). This Beaker/CWC overlap occurred ~2500–2100 BC.
    orange: pre-Germanic as it was transferred to the Sögel-Wohlde area*
    Then, after ~1900 BC, the Beaker phenomenon lost momentum and began fragmenting into regional Early Bronze Age cultures (cf. Cleary & Gibson 2019). These realignments are a plausible context for Italic and Celtic separating and leaving Pre- Celtic in continuing close contact with Pre-Germanic.
    green: pre-Germanic as developed in the Nordic Bronze Age (area)

    * Sögel-Wohlde area, pictured by Bergerbrant (2012), core area around the North Sea, Dithmarschen as the supposed center (also a dot at the Mittle Elbe that's the finding at the Nebra Sky Disk).

    [/QUOTE]

    IMO this doen't contradict what you have stated above based on Kallo etc.
    Last edited by Finn; 06-06-2021 at 04:00 PM.

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

     alexfritz (06-06-2021),  Tomenable (07-04-2021)

  15. #8
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,971
    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
    I thought this was an interesting section in Koch’s book. Which helped to define some terms that often get confused. I also happen to agree with his final conclusion.



    15. Pre-Germanic and Proto-Germanic: definitions and possible dates

    In this book, a reconstructed language with a name beginning ‘Proto-’ will refer to the latest reconstructable stage of the common ancestor of all members of that family of languages. So, for example, ‘Proto-Germanic’ means the latest reconstructable common ancestor of Gothic, Old Norse, Old English, and Old High German. Sticking to this definition, ‘Common Germanic’ and ‘Proto- Germanic’, similarly ‘Common Celtic’ and ‘Proto-Celtic’, and so on, are interchangeable terms. On the other hand, a reconstructed ‘Pre-’ language, is the stage before that, before all the linguistic innovations resulting in, for example, Proto-Germanic were complete.49

    For the present study a key distinction between Pre- and Proto- languages is that in the latter the changes that distinguish the family from the other Indo-European branches had taken place. In the Pre- language these changes were in progress. Therefore, barriers to mutual intelligibility were present in Proto- languages that were, at least to begin with, absent from Pre- languages. On the Celtic side, loss of *p, *r̥ *l̥ *m̥ *n̥ > *ri *li *am *an, and *ē > *ī would have interfered with mutual intelligibility with Pre-Germanic. On the Germanic side, *r̥ *l ̥ *m̥ *n̥ > *ur *ul *um *un and Grimm 1 and 2 would have worked against mutual intelligibility with Celtic (§16). Inter-dialect borrowings predating these changes would be difficult—usually impossible—to detect as loanwords.

    A further distinction between ‘Pre-’ languages from their ‘Proto-’ descendants is that a Pre- language is more likely also to have
    been the ancestor of dialects that died out without attestation. Such historical-linguistic dead ends might not have undergone all the changes which were shared by, and thus define, the Celtic and Germanic families. This property of Pre- languages is a direct consequence of the method: a reconstructed Proto- language must account for all the attested languages in the family, but a Pre- language is not constrained in this way. There are groups called Κελτοί or Germani by Greek and Roman authors, whose languages are unattested, and therefore possibly descended from Pre-Celtic or Pre-Germanic, but had not participated in all the developments that the better attested languages imply for Proto-Celtic and Proto- Germanic. This theoretical possibility can be relevant when dealing with prehistoric loanwords, the source forms of which do not match exactly what is reconstructed for a particular proto-language.

    For Proto-Germanic, an inception date of ~500 BC or the 5th century BC is often proposed (Mallory 1996, 8; Mallory & Adams 2006, 103). However, other studies suggest a date a few centuries later than this. For example, Penzl (1988): ‘A Proto-Germanic period [began] with the last centuries BC and [ended] in the first two centuries AD.’ Jasanoff (1994) says that by 100 AD ‘the Germanic dialects had been diverging for three or four centuries’, implying a unified Proto-Germanic down to 300/200 BC. According to Ringe (2017, 84–5), ‘Proto-Germanic ... is unlikely to have been spoken before about 2,500 years ago (ca. 500 BC)’ and ~650–600 BC (the date of the early Jastorf archaeological culture of Northern Europe) would have been impossibly early, and again ‘[Proto-Germanic] was spoken ... a few centuries earlier than the Zeitwende, but probably not earlier than about 500 BC’ (2017, 241). As to the subsequent divergence: ‘That there was still a single Germanic language (in any sense) [in the second and third centuries BC] is unlikely ...; the expansion of the Germanic tribes throughout central Europe was already underway, and it is very likely that at least substantial dialect divergence had already occurred’ (2017, 171).

    A primary division is often recognized between North-west Germanic and East Germanic (e.g. Nielsen 2000; Ringe & Taylor 2014, 10). From this split onwards the dialects evolved separately towards the languages of the Ancient Nordic runes and Gothic Bible. The phylogenetic calculation of Chang et al. 2015 shows Gothic splitting off from the rest of Germanic at the turn of the 1st century BC/AD, thus closer to Penzl’s chronology. In sum, then, some consensus can be cited for a date ~500/400 BC for the beginning of Proto-Germanic, with views about its earliest split into the main attested divisions ranging more widely from ~300 BC to ~1 AD/BC.


    As to the earlier date for Pre-Germanic beginning to evolve away from its closest Indo-European sister branch(es), this is a trickier question for two reasons.

    1 The evidence is not straightforward for which Indo-European relative(s) Pre-Germanic was closest (see §22 below).

    2 This separation process is deeper in prehistory and so farther removed from direct datable written evidence.

    The phylogenetic calculation preferred by Chang et al. 2015 shows an independent Pre-Germanic branching off ~1900 BC. A different approach, results in a similar estimate, briefly sketched as follows. The first-order subgroupings of Indo-European of Ringe et al. 2002 has the ancestor of Germanic as originally part of a dialect continuum also ancestral Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. In the light of aDNA evidence, this stage can now be identified with CWC of ~2800–2500 BC, situated approximately between the Rhine and Upper Volga.50 The realignment of Pre-Germanic towards Italo-Celtic now suggests the spread of the Beaker phenomenon into Central Europe, where it overlapped and partly fused with CWC in the area between the Rhine, Upper Danube, and Jutland (§22; cf. Heyd 2007; Østmo 2009; Cunliffe 2010). This Beaker/CWC overlap occurred ~2500–2100 BC. Then, after ~1900 BC, the Beaker phenomenon lost momentum and began fragmenting into regional Early Bronze Age cultures (cf. Cleary & Gibson 2019). These realignments are a plausible context for Italic and Celtic separating and leaving Pre- Celtic in continuing close contact with Pre-Germanic.

    As to the whereabouts of Pre-Germanic during the Nordic Bronze Age (~1700–600 BC), advances in recent years have not upset, as the least controversial view, a homeland in Southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic.51 Therefore, Pre-Germanic would have been approximately coterminous with the Nordic Bronze Age. Its timespan as proposed here (~1900–500/400 BC) contains all of that archaeological period’s usual date range (~1700–600 BC) extended into the final metal-using stage of the Scandinavian Neolithic and the first 150 years of the Nordic Iron Age — pages 36 - 38
    Last edited by JMcB; 06-06-2021 at 04:07 PM.
    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).

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     Alain (06-06-2021),  anglesqueville (06-06-2021),  Bygdedweller (06-06-2021),  JerryS. (06-08-2021),  MitchellSince1893 (06-06-2021),  Ryukendo (06-06-2021),  Tomenable (07-04-2021)

  17. #9
    Registered Users
    Posts
    169
    Sex
    Location
    Eastern Norway
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-Z19
    mtDNA (M)
    H4a

    Norway
    Quote Originally Posted by alexfritz View Post
    i have a question
    if the dendogram in #2 is correct
    does that then imply that Jutland, and all what happened on Jutland, was West-Germanic until the Danes arrived in the mid-late sixth century

    i guess it does
    I think the boundaries are much more blurred. For instance, the runic inscriptions on the Golden Horns of Gallehus are identified as proto-Norse and pre-date the historically attested arrival of Danish tribes by a couple centuries.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bygdedweller For This Useful Post:

     Alain (06-06-2021),  alexfritz (06-06-2021),  anglesqueville (06-06-2021),  JMcB (06-06-2021)

  19. #10
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,699
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by JMcB View Post
    I thought this was an interesting section in Koch’s book. Which helped to define some terms that often get confused. I also happen to agree with his final conclusion.


    15. Pre-Germanic and Proto-Germanic: definitions and possible dates

    In this book, a reconstructed language with a name beginning ‘Proto-’ will refer to the latest reconstructable stage of the common ancestor of all members of that family of languages. So, for example, ‘Proto-Germanic’ means the latest reconstructable common ancestor of Gothic, Old Norse, Old English, and Old High German. Sticking to this definition, ‘Common Germanic’ and ‘Proto- Germanic’, similarly ‘Common Celtic’ and ‘Proto-Celtic’, and so on, are interchangeable terms. On the other hand, a reconstructed ‘Pre-’ language, is the stage before that, before all the linguistic innovations resulting in, for example, Proto-Germanic were complete.49

    For the present study a key distinction between Pre- and Proto- languages is that in the latter the changes that distinguish the family from the other Indo-European branches had taken place. In the Pre- language these changes were in progress. Therefore, barriers to mutual intelligibility were present in Proto- languages that were, at least to begin with, absent from Pre- languages. On the Celtic side, loss of *p, *r̥ *l̥ *m̥ *n̥ > *ri *li *am *an, and *ē > *ī would have interfered with mutual intelligibility with Pre-Germanic. On the Germanic side, *r̥ *l ̥ *m̥ *n̥ > *ur *ul *um *un and Grimm 1 and 2 would have worked against mutual intelligibility with Celtic (§16). Inter-dialect borrowings predating these changes would be difficult—usually impossible—to detect as loanwords.

    A further distinction between ‘Pre-’ languages from their ‘Proto-’ descendants is that a Pre- language is more likely also to have
    been the ancestor of dialects that died out without attestation. Such historical-linguistic dead ends might not have undergone all the changes which were shared by, and thus define, the Celtic and Germanic families. This property of Pre- languages is a direct consequence of the method: a reconstructed Proto- language must account for all the attested languages in the family, but a Pre- language is not constrained in this way. There are groups called Κελτοί or Germani by Greek and Roman authors, whose languages are unattested, and therefore possibly descended from Pre-Celtic or Pre-Germanic, but had not participated in all the developments that the better attested languages imply for Proto-Celtic and Proto- Germanic. This theoretical possibility can be relevant when dealing with prehistoric loanwords, the source forms of which do not match exactly what is reconstructed for a particular proto-language.

    For Proto-Germanic, an inception date of ~500 BC or the 5th century BC is often proposed (Mallory 1996, 8; Mallory & Adams 2006, 103). However, other studies suggest a date a few centuries later than this. For example, Penzl (1988): ‘A Proto-Germanic period [began] with the last centuries BC and [ended] in the first two centuries AD.’ Jasanoff (1994) says that by 100 AD ‘the Germanic dialects had been diverging for three or four centuries’, implying a unified Proto-Germanic down to 300/200 BC. According to Ringe (2017, 84–5), ‘Proto-Germanic ... is unlikely to have been spoken before about 2,500 years ago (ca. 500 BC)’ and ~650–600 BC (the date of the early Jastorf archaeological culture of Northern Europe) would have been impossibly early, and again ‘[Proto-Germanic] was spoken ... a few centuries earlier than the Zeitwende, but probably not earlier than about 500 BC’ (2017, 241). As to the subsequent divergence: ‘That there was still a single Germanic language (in any sense) [in the second and third centuries BC] is unlikely ...; the expansion of the Germanic tribes throughout central Europe was already underway, and it is very likely that at least substantial dialect divergence had already occurred’ (2017, 171).

    A primary division is often recognized between North-west Germanic and East Germanic (e.g. Nielsen 2000; Ringe & Taylor 2014, 10). From this split onwards the dialects evolved separately towards the languages of the Ancient Nordic runes and Gothic Bible. The phylogenetic calculation of Chang et al. 2015 shows Gothic splitting off from the rest of Germanic at the turn of the 1st century BC/AD, thus closer to Penzl’s chronology. In sum, then, some consensus can be cited for a date ~500/400 BC for the beginning of Proto-Germanic, with views about its earliest split into the main attested divisions ranging more widely from ~300 BC to ~1 AD/BC.

    As to the earlier date for Pre-Germanic beginning to evolve away from its closest Indo-European sister branch(es), this is a trickier question for two reasons.

    1 The evidence is not straightforward for which Indo-European relative(s) Pre-Germanic was closest (see §22 below).

    2 This separation process is deeper in prehistory and so farther removed from direct datable written evidence.

    The phylogenetic calculation preferred by Chang et al. 2015 shows an independent Pre-Germanic branching off ~1900 BC. A different approach, results in a similar estimate, briefly sketched as follows. The first-order subgroupings of Indo-European of Ringe et al. 2002 has the ancestor of Germanic as originally part of a dialect continuum also ancestral Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian. In the light of aDNA evidence, this stage can now be identified with CWC of ~2800–2500 BC, situated approximately between the Rhine and Upper Volga.50 The realignment of Pre-Germanic towards Italo-Celtic now suggests the spread of the Beaker phenomenon into Central Europe, where it overlapped and partly fused with CWC in the area between the Rhine, Upper Danube, and Jutland (§22; cf. Heyd 2007; Østmo 2009; Cunliffe 2010). This Beaker/CWC overlap occurred ~2500–2100 BC. Then, after ~1900 BC, the Beaker phenomenon lost momentum and began fragmenting into regional Early Bronze Age cultures (cf. Cleary & Gibson 2019). These realignments are a plausible context for Italic and Celtic separating and leaving Pre- Celtic in continuing close contact with Pre-Germanic.

    As to the whereabouts of Pre-Germanic during the Nordic Bronze Age (~1700–600 BC), advances in recent years have not upset, as the least controversial view, a homeland in Southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic.51 Therefore, Pre-Germanic would have been approximately coterminous with the Nordic Bronze Age. Its timespan as proposed here (~1900–500/400 BC) contains all of that archaeological period’s usual date range (~1700–600 BC) extended into the final metal-using stage of the Scandinavian Neolithic and the first 150 years of the Nordic Iron Age — pages 36 - 38

    Close reading:
    The realignment of Pre-Germanic towards Italo-Celtic now suggests the spread of the Beaker phenomenon into Central Europe, where it overlapped and partly fused with CWC in the area between the Rhine, Upper Danube, and Jutland (§22; cf. Heyd 2007; Østmo 2009; Cunliffe 2010). This Beaker/CWC overlap occurred ~2500–2100 BC.
    In other words these CW/BB fuze was NOT in Scania, but in Central Europe with an add between the Rhine, Upper Danube, and Jutland.

    Then, after ~1900 BC, the Beaker phenomenon lost momentum and began fragmenting into regional Early Bronze Age cultures (cf. Cleary & Gibson 2019). These realignments are a plausible context for Italic and Celtic separating and leaving Pre- Celtic in continuing close contact with Pre-Germanic.
    In other words around 1900 pre-Germanic began to differentiate from Italic and specific Celtic, but staid in close contact.
    Was Scania a neighbor from Celtic or Italic speaking area's? And around 1900 which early Bronze Age culture was flourishing?

Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. North sea populations using G25.
    By evon in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 654
    Last Post: 07-10-2021, 04:53 AM
  2. Replies: 97
    Last Post: 07-19-2019, 04:32 PM
  3. North-Norwegians, North-Swedes and Finns
    By hintsu in forum Anatomy and Physiology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-03-2018, 11:54 AM
  4. Is this North Caucasian and North Sea in K36 "real"?
    By Tomenable in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-08-2017, 08:49 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
  •