Page 9 of 30 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 297

Thread: The Harbour of the Old North

  1. #81
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,664
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    ^^ I used the word "Urheimat" for translating the Swedish "folkhemme" in the sentence "vagina gentium germanorum, d.v.s. det germanska folkhemmet", in which this word was itself used to translate the Latin "vagina". In the context of this study, this word has the very precise meaning of "place where for the first time the series of Germanic shifts is complete", or "place where for the first time we can speak of proto-Germanic language". I don't think that my choice is so unusual. Furthermore, I have some difficulties understanding how Heikkilä could be reproached of "laking a clear perspective on North Central Europe", as the title of his book is "BIDRAG TILL FENNOSKANDIENS SPRÅKLIGA FÖRHISTORIA I TID OCH RUM". Despite all you can tell, North Central Europe is in this respect completely off-topic. Clearly, I will never be able to convince you, but as I do not seek to convince whoever it is, it is not of great importance.

    More importantly, Heikkilä gives, about Sweden ( and possibly the Lake Mälaren region), not an argument, but a (non-linguistic) sign: "As an example, iron production began earlier in the geographical area of today's Sweden than of today's Germany (Koivulehto 1997b: 27; Myhre 2003: 61–62)."
    I will publish here the references used by Heikkilä. First Koivulehto (I let it in German).



    And Myhre:

    Attachment 45188
    Attachment 45189

    edit: Finn, the good sense would be to cease losing your time on a thread where so ridiculous options are supported. After all, I opened it first to cease spoiling your own thread, where you defend the most modern and crystal clear theories.
    It is unusual because it lacks evidence.
    And may be Angles himself made a contribution to the diffusion:
    But that it is defended by most linguists competent in the two fields concerned (Germanistics and Uralistics).
    Central Europe is by fare the oldest region in which we find iron production (German Wiki):

    The oldest iron find in Central Europe dates from 1700 BC. And took place in Slovakia. 1200 BC First hardened iron, i.e. steel, appears. During the 9th century BC The knowledge of the racing fire process reached Central Europe, where it remained the only process for iron extraction until the 16th century AD.
    Like with the Bronze Age, the southern part of North Central Europe was in this respect more progressive than the northern part of it. During Jastorf there are some findings in Mecklenburg which seem to have a later date than Sweden. But I guess the knowledge transmittion is from southern parts of Jastorf to the northern, not via the Swedish/Finnic border....
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenv...i_den_Germanen
    Last edited by Finn; 06-16-2021 at 05:54 PM.

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

     Ryukendo (06-16-2021)

  3. #82
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,958
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    Chance made me read, a few days ago, a comment on Eurogenes (quickly revised no doubt because it contained an insulting remark about one of the followers of this thread) which seemed to suggest that the model that locates the Germanic Urheimat in southern Scandinavia would be an invention of mine ( Anglesqueville). After careful consideration, and hoping that this post will not relaunch a futile and exhausting debate, I must recall ( once again) that this model is by no means mine, but that it is defended by most linguists competent in the two fields concerned (Germanistics and Uralistics). We find it perfectly summarized in the magnificent text of Heikkilä reported yesterday. I do not have the time (or the courage) to detail the argumentation, very rich (but that inevitably can only convince the reader capable of following a tight argumentation of historical linguistics).

    The datings mentioned above indicate when each phonetic transition has occurred, not when it has reached its full distribution over historical time, which is another matter. However, I would like to point out that southern Scandinavia and Mälardalen were definitely not a peripheral linguistic area of the Proto-Germanic area of the Bronze Age and the pre-Roman Iron Age, but rather the central zone of the "Germania" - not the vagina gentium (omnium), but probably the vagina gentium germanorum, that is to say, the original Germanic Urheimat -, from where the Germanic tribes spread in all directions.
    (The words "vagina Gentium" make reference to Jordanes, in his "De origine actibusque Getarum" )



    From what I’ve seen, that does appear to be the consensus.


    For example:


    Rock art and Celto-Germanic vocabulary
    Shared iconography and words as reflections of Bronze Age contact. By John T Koch

    There is a long-standing consensus that before about 500 BC the common ancestor of the attested Germanic languages was spoken in southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic (Faarlund 2008)—in other words, more or less the same time and place as the Nordic Bronze Age. As a linguistic development, a date about 500 BC is also conventional for key changes that transformed a language that still resembled Proto-Indo-European to one looking more like Gothic or Old Norse. Chief amongst these is Grimm’s Law, a sweeping shift in the consonant system that operated across all of Proto-Germanic (Ringe 2006; Faar- lund 2008; Jasanoff 2008)

    […]

    A confusing point about the conventional history of Germanic should be clarified. Because Grimm’s Law, Verner’s Law, and the accent shift are usually dated to the Early Iron Age, it is often stated that Germanic did not exist until then. What that means is that a language looking like that found in the earliest runes did not yet exist. But Pre-Germanic or Proto-Germanic as a distinct linguistic community must have existed. By 1400 BC both Old Indic and Mycenaean Greek are found in writing. These two were then fully separate languages and could not have been mutually intelligible. In any viable family tree of the Indo-European languages (Fig. 2), at the point when Indic and Greek were separate languages, Germanic must also have been a separate language. The undifferentiated Proto-Indo-European had ceased to exist.
    — pages 5 & 6

    https://www.rockartscandinavia.com/i...es/a18koch.pdf




    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.

    On the other hand, the issue of Germanic ethnogenesis remains an unsolved problem, centering around the question of interference and convergence within Indo-European contacts, versus an alleged Proto- Scandinavian language substratum. Literature on this subject supports, in most cases, the substratum theory; however, some well-known linguists - Julius Pokorny (1936) and G{inter Neumann (1971) prefer the contrary option and present solid arguments in favor of it.


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




    The Dawn of Germanic

    In the preceding chapters, the foundational events that gave rise to the English, Dutch, and German languages have been found to be intimately connected with the assimilation of populations that originally spoke Celtic, Latin, or both. The linguistic demonstration of this assimilation presented in this book is new, but the idea that Germanic is, relatively speaking, a newcomer in Britain as well as in the Netherlands and Germany is not. Amongst historical linguists and archaeologists who have devoted attention to the issue, there is widespread agreement that the place where the Germanic branch of Indo-European originated is northern Europe, to be more precise, probably northernmost Germany, Denmark, and southern Sweden.

    — Schrivjer as quote by:

    This is the consensus view among linguists, which I have followed. Schrivjer is not, repeat not, saying that Pre-Proto-Germanic spread into the Netherlands prior to the development of Proto-Germanic. His dating and geography for Germanic is conventional. — Jean Manco

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post296688




    Bidrag till Fennoskandiens språkliga Förhistoria i tid och rum
    mikko k. heikkilä

    (Google translation)

    The Old Germanic names of Western Europe's two largest rivers, * RīnazʼRhenʼ (> ty. Rhein, holl. Rijn, fra. Rhin) and * DōnawjōʼDonauʼ (> got. Dōnawi, fhty. Tuonouwa; cf. lat. Dānuvius / Dānubius -> eng. Danube) are Celtic loan names and the latter has evidently been borrowed after the (first) Germanic sound shift (Ringe 2006: 296; Euler & Badenheuer 2009: 76; Stifter 2009: 277–278, 280) .80

    This fact confirms that the Germanic original home did not included either the banks of the Rhine or the Danube - nor the eastern tributaries of the Rhine Maine, whose names are also of Celtic origin (Ramat 1981: 11). The river name Oder "Åder" (written Adora in 968, Odera in 1139; cf. fhty. Ādaraʼaderʼ; cf. fin. Eura, Aura) is on the other hand of Germanic origin, as well as Elbe (cf. lat. Albis "Elbeʼ and fisl. Elfr" river ") (Koivulehto 1987: 35–36; Hakulinen 2006: 394; Hellquist 2008: 1434; Andersson 2011: 21).
    — pages 101 - 103

    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33724447.pdf




    CELTO-GERMANIC
    Later Prehistory and Post-Proto-Indo-European vocabulary in the North and West
    by John T. Koch

    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 37 - 38

    https://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Do...rmanic2020.pdf




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

    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

    […]

    … northern Europe is a region that saw profound cultural changes in the early third millennium B.C.E. In southern Scandinavia, the end of the Funnel Beaker culture overlapped with the emergence of Sub-Neolithic Pitted Ware influences that reached the northern and eastern coastal areas of present-day Denmark from the Scandinavian Peninsula. From ca. 2850 B.C.E., early Corded Ware (Single Grave) societies appeared on the Jutland Peninsula and introduced among other things new burial customs, pottery shapes, amber ornaments, and new types of stone battle-axes (fig. 3). The third millennium B.C.E. was a period of great material and cultural change, and language cannot be ignored as a factor when considering these changes. Instead, language is to be regarded as an integral part of them.

    […]

    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


    As an aside, Kristian Kristiansen agrees with the above interpretation.




    A Brief History of the German Language
    Aaron D. Alder
    Brigham Young University


    * 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 and ended about 500 B.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





    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.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...rmanic-tribes/
    Last edited by JMcB; 06-16-2021 at 06:20 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).

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-17-2021),  Angantyr (06-16-2021),  anglesqueville (06-16-2021),  Ryukendo (06-16-2021),  Zelto (06-18-2021)

  5. #83
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,664
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    And basically you state" I don't think that my choice is so unusual"
    I think it is because for a Nordic Germanic Urheimat there is no evidence, not linguistic, not archeological, not genetic. If then show it! The only evidence you produce is from some Finnish linguist from the nineties. With some passages that point a Jastorf as derived from Nordic Bronze Age, not at all elaborated! And obvious completely false.

    And I think how can a strict mathematic scientist as Angles believe in such things, without clear evidence, in the end it looks more like a believe.

    May be that's the core you believe in it some kind of a thing that you can't question. In such circumstance it's difficult to debate about it, because you believe in it or not.

  6. #84
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,664
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by JMcB View Post
    From what I’ve seen, that does appear to be the consensus.


    For example:


    Rock art and Celto-Germanic vocabulary
    Shared iconography and words as reflections of Bronze Age contact. By John T Koch

    There is a long-standing consensus that before about 500 BC the common ancestor of the attested Germanic languages was spoken in southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic (Faarlund 2008)—in other words, more or less the same time and place as the Nordic Bronze Age. As a linguistic development, a date about 500 BC is also conventional for key changes that transformed a language that still resembled Proto-Indo-European to one looking more like Gothic or Old Norse. Chief amongst these is Grimm’s Law, a sweeping shift in the consonant system that operated across all of Proto-Germanic (Ringe 2006; Faar- lund 2008; Jasanoff 2008)

    […]

    A confusing point about the conventional history of Germanic should be clarified. Because Grimm’s Law, Verner’s Law, and the accent shift are usually dated to the Early Iron Age, it is often stated that Germanic did not exist until then. What that means is that a language looking like that found in the earliest runes did not yet exist. But Pre-Germanic or Proto-Germanic as a distinct linguistic community must have existed. By 1400 BC both Old Indic and Mycenaean Greek are found in writing. These two were then fully separate languages and could not have been mutually intelligible. In any viable family tree of the Indo-European languages (Fig. 2), at the point when Indic and Greek were separate languages, Germanic must also have been a separate language. The undifferentiated Proto-Indo-European had ceased to exist.
    — pages 5 & 6

    https://www.rockartscandinavia.com/i...es/a18koch.pdf




    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.

    On the other hand, the issue of Germanic ethnogenesis remains an unsolved problem, centering around the question of interference and convergence within Indo-European contacts, versus an alleged Proto- Scandinavian language substratum. Literature on this subject supports, in most cases, the substratum theory; however, some well-known linguists - Julius Pokorny (1936) and G{inter Neumann (1971) prefer the contrary option and present solid arguments in favor of it.


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




    The Dawn of Germanic

    In the preceding chapters, the foundational events that gave rise to the English, Dutch, and German languages have been found to be intimately connected with the assimilation of populations that originally spoke Celtic, Latin, or both. The linguistic demonstration of this assimilation presented in this book is new, but the idea that Germanic is, relatively speaking, a newcomer in Britain as well as in the Netherlands and Germany is not. Amongst historical linguists and archaeologists who have devoted attention to the issue, there is widespread agreement that the place where the Germanic branch of Indo-European originated is northern Europe, to be more precise, probably northernmost Germany, Denmark, and southern Sweden.

    — Schrivjer as quote by:

    This is the consensus view among linguists, which I have followed. Schrivjer is not, repeat not, saying that Pre-Proto-Germanic spread into the Netherlands prior to the development of Proto-Germanic. His dating and geography for Germanic is conventional. — Jean Manco

    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post296688




    Bidrag till Fennoskandiens språkliga Förhistoria i tid och rum
    mikko k. heikkilä

    (Google translation)

    The Old Germanic names of Western Europe's two largest rivers, * RīnazʼRhenʼ (> ty. Rhein, holl. Rijn, fra. Rhin) and * DōnawjōʼDonauʼ (> got. Dōnawi, fhty. Tuonouwa; cf. lat. Dānuvius / Dānubius -> eng. Danube) are Celtic loan names and the latter has evidently been borrowed after the (first) Germanic sound shift (Ringe 2006: 296; Euler & Badenheuer 2009: 76; Stifter 2009: 277–278, 280) .80

    This fact confirms that the Germanic original home did not included either the banks of the Rhine or the Danube - nor the eastern tributaries of the Rhine Maine, whose names are also of Celtic origin (Ramat 1981: 11). The river name Oder "Åder" (written Adora in 968, Odera in 1139; cf. fhty. Ādaraʼaderʼ; cf. fin. Eura, Aura) is on the other hand of Germanic origin, as well as Elbe (cf. lat. Albis "Elbeʼ and fisl. Elfr" river ") (Koivulehto 1987: 35–36; Hakulinen 2006: 394; Hellquist 2008: 1434; Andersson 2011: 21).
    — pages 101 - 103

    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33724447.pdf




    CELTO-GERMANIC
    Later Prehistory and Post-Proto-Indo-European vocabulary in the North and West
    by John T. Koch

    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 37 - 38

    https://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Do...rmanic2020.pdf




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

    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

    […]

    … northern Europe is a region that saw profound cultural changes in the early third millennium B.C.E. In southern Scandinavia, the end of the Funnel Beaker culture overlapped with the emergence of Sub-Neolithic Pitted Ware influences that reached the northern and eastern coastal areas of present-day Denmark from the Scandinavian Peninsula. From ca. 2850 B.C.E., early Corded Ware (Single Grave) societies appeared on the Jutland Peninsula and introduced among other things new burial customs, pottery shapes, amber ornaments, and new types of stone battle-axes (fig. 3). The third millennium B.C.E. was a period of great material and cultural change, and language cannot be ignored as a factor when considering these changes. Instead, language is to be regarded as an integral part of them.

    […]

    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


    As an aside, Kristian Kristiansen agrees with the above interpretation.




    A Brief History of the German Language
    Aaron D. Alder
    Brigham Young University


    * 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 and ended about 500 B.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





    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.

    https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...rmanic-tribes/
    Bric a brac with no clear coherent narrative.

    You didn't answer me about the unlikely case that Jastorf is a Nordic Bronze Age derivative because of clear archeological incongruent and environmental circumstances.

    It's a clear pattern if the arguments are over, you hide, keep the mouth shut.

    And a few days later the gramophone with tic is reintroduced as if it's all a clear story hahahaha
    Last edited by Finn; 06-16-2021 at 06:26 PM.

  7. #85
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,958
    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 can certainly understand why you don’t want to deal with the texts because you really can’t. So now you’re in diversion mode. That’s alright, I’ll let the texts stand on their own. They’re good enough for me.
    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).

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-17-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-17-2021)

  9. #86
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,664
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by JMcB View Post
    I can certainly understand why you don’t want to deal with the texts because you really can’t. So now you’re in diversion mode. That’s alright, I’ll let the texts stand on their own. They’re good enough for me.
    Not at all.

    Koch 2020:

    You see up until 500 BC there were blurred lines between proto Celtic and proto Germanic.


    And Koch gives an add were these contactzone between Celtic and Germanic was and that was NOT in southern Scandinavia.


    Scientist chance positions JmcB.

    The rest of the texts you have quoted are only statements. Ok for you it's satisfying for me it's not because it gives no evidence not even a beginning of some elaboration....

    And about the TRB/Single Grave creolization, along the North Sea coast, any idea what the departure point of SGC was, indeed Saale-Elbe. Any idea where 1000 years later the immigrants came from that went to North Sea Coast to spread the Bronze Age and the 'warrior cult' and of course their language, indeed Saale-Elbe.

    And what about Udolph he stated that the oldest Germanic names where to be found in the Unetice area, Jaska didn't deny this but found it too weak, ok weak or strong doesn't mean: wrong. His hypothesis his underlined by Wolfram Euler who considers the makers of Nebra Sky Disk as the Ur-Germanic speakers. Angles has got it from a German friend, the post between German and the Netherlands is three days, how long does it take from Germany to Normandy? Still with diligence?

    Can you debunk this works of Euler and Udolph (linguistic) and that of Jens Martens (archeology) and do you have signs that "Germanics" from the Rhine (Harpstedt-Nienburg) to Vistula (Wielbark) all are a Southern Sweden offshoot JmcB?
    Last edited by Finn; 06-16-2021 at 07:39 PM.

  10. #87
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    2,958
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    Not at all.

    Koch 2020:

    You see up until 500 BC there were blurred lines between proto Celtic and proto Germanic.


    And Koch gives an add were these contactzone between Celtic and Germanic was and that was NOT in southern Scandinavia.


    Scientist chance positions JmcB.

    The rest of the texts you have quoted are only statements. Ok for you it's satisfying for me it's not because it gives no evidence not even a beginning of some elaboration....

    And about the TRB/Single Grave creolization, along the North Sea coast, any idea what the departure point of SGC was, indeed Saale-Elbe. Any idea where 1000 years later the immigrants came from that went to North Sea Coast to spread the Bronze Age and the 'warrior cult' and of course their language, indeed Saale-Elbe.

    And what about Udolph he stated that the oldest Germanic names where to be found in the Unetice area, Jaska didn't deny this but found it too weak, ok weak or strong doesn't mean: wrong. His hypothesis his underlined by Wolfram Euler who considers the makers of Nebra Sky Disk as the Ur-Germanic speakers. Angles has got it from a German friend, the post between German and the Netherlands is three days, how long does it take from Germany to Normandy? Still with diligence?

    Can you debunk this works of Euler and Udolph (linguistic) and that of Jens Martens (archeology) and do you have signs that "Germanics" from the Rhine (Harpstedt-Nienburg) to Vistula (Wielbark) all are a Southern Sweden offshoot JmcB?

    The first map is only showing what cultures pre germanic originated in and overlapped with, during it’s lifetime. The second map is dealing with the Iron Age (500 BC - 1 AD) and isn’t relevant to the origins of pre germanic. Truthfully, I would rather rely on the quotes of Koch and all the others I supplied, than your interpretation of their maps. As for Udolph, his theories are contradicted by the others and I give them more weight.

    Plus, if you’ve read Rune Iversen and Guus Kroonen, they say the origins of pre germanic were the results of two different languages meeting in a contact zone. In this case, where Single Grave and Funnel Beaker met in Jutland. So where Single Grave was before they entered that contact zone, isn’t really relevant.

    As Koch says, pre germanic evolved in situ, in it’s historical homeland over the course of the Bronze Age. It wasn’t brought there from anywhere else.

    As he said above: There is a long-standing consensus that before about 500 BC the common ancestor of the attested Germanic languages was spoken in southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic (Faarlund 2008)—in other words, more or less the same time and place as the Nordic Bronze Age.
    Last edited by JMcB; 06-17-2021 at 03:05 AM.
    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 2 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (06-17-2021),  David Mc (06-17-2021)

  12. #88
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,719
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    Quickly before I go to bed. I agree of course with all statements made by JMcB. Just for the readers who have jumped on the bandwagon:

    Euler (Sprache und Herkunft etc): I read it. It's a bad book of popularization, nothing more.

    Udolf: all of his etymologies, the global logic of his "enterprise", and even his dignity as a linguist have been thoroughly destroyed by another german specialist in onomastics, Harald Bichlmeier. I have already published some quotations from Bichlmeier. Those who are interested can easily access his studies devoted to (mostly) German hydronyms, as they are all available on Academia. He has written a critical review of Euler's book, but I was unable to find it. It's unfortunate because I guess, seeing the ferocity of his criticism of Udolf (*), that this review is a remake (or a prequel?) of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".


    (*) "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.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     Agamemnon (06-17-2021),  David Mc (06-17-2021),  JMcB (06-16-2021),  Ryukendo (06-16-2021)

  14. #89
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,664
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by JMcB View Post
    The first map is only showing what cultures pre germanic originated in and overlapped with, during it’s lifetime. The second map is dealing with the Iron Age (500 BC - 1 AD) and isn’t relevant to the origins of pre germanic. Truthfully, I would rather rely on the quotes of Koch and all the others I supplied, than your interpretation of their maps. As for Udolph, his theories are contradicted by the others and I give them more weight.

    Plus, if you’ve read Rune Iversen and Guus Kroonen, they say the origins of pre germanic were the results of two different languages meeting in a contact zone. In this case, where Single Grave and Funnel Beaker met in Jutland. So where Single Grave was before they entered that contact zone, isn’t really relevant.

    As Koch says, pre germanic evolved in situ, in it’s historical homeland over the course of the Bronze Age. It wasn’t brought there from anywhere else.

    As he said above: There is a long-standing consensus that before about 500 BC the common ancestor of the attested Germanic languages was spoken in southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic (Faarlund 2008)—in other words, more or less the same time and place as the Nordic Bronze Age.
    The point is JmcB you can't relate it to a Urheimat in Sweden. That in Sweden about 500 BC a Germanic kind of language was spoken is plausible. But that something different than the place of origin in Sweden. The blurred lines between Celtic and Germanic and the contact zone until the beginning of the iron age and the definite stages to proto-Germanic are related to that.

    And Single Grave is a culture that was exactly in the same area as the later on Sögel-Wohlde, of course it's relevant where they staid before because their tongue is related to that. Single Grave brought the Indo-European component into the later on Germanic.

    Besides that ever realized what the connection is between Single Grave and Sweden? Let alone Bell Beaker....

    Schleswig/Jutland as an important pre Germanic hub is plausible!
    Last edited by Finn; 06-17-2021 at 02:48 PM.

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

     CopperAxe (06-17-2021)

  16. #90
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,664
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    Quickly before I go to bed. I agree of course with all statements made by JMcB. Just for the readers who have jumped on the bandwagon:

    Euler (Sprache und Herkunft etc): I read it. It's a bad book of popularization, nothing more.

    Udolf: all of his etymologies, the global logic of his "enterprise", and even his dignity as a linguist have been thoroughly destroyed by another german specialist in onomastics, Harald Bichlmeier. I have already published some quotations from Bichlmeier. Those who are interested can easily access his studies devoted to (mostly) German hydronyms, as they are all available on Academia. He has written a critical review of Euler's book, but I was unable to find it. It's unfortunate because I guess, seeing the ferocity of his criticism of Udolf (*), that this review is a remake (or a prequel?) of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".


    (*) "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.
    Pure bluf Angles, Euler writes clear but his work has a scientific foundation so sheer bluf Angles.....or are you able to debunk his work?

    Euler has published about 80 scientific articles and books covering most branches of the Indoeuropean languages; major contributions refer to the Baltic, Indo-Iranian, Greek and Germanic languages.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfram_Euler

    All popular rubbish according to Angles....
    Last edited by Finn; 06-17-2021 at 07:36 AM.

Page 9 of 30 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •