Page 35 of 48 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 478

Thread: The Harbour of the Old North

  1. #341
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,982
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    OK, again and again, the same nebulous spiel. I stop. I will restart to debate if one day you are able to explain how the first pre-Germanic shifts occurred in a context of "post-bell-beaker" influence. Come on! It's discouraging.
    Bring down that iron curtain Angles!

  2. #342
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,982
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    OK, again and again, the same nebulous spiel. I stop. I will restart to debate if one day you are able to explain how the first pre-Germanic shifts occurred in a context of "post-bell-beaker" influence. Come on! It's discouraging.
    So in the end it's not a "nebulous spiel" but a network approach. A network in which people, pots, idea's and....language flowed.

    I take this zone of Koch as a network.

    Koch 2020:
    Within the CWC area, the dialect shift that Ringe at al.2002 envision for Pre-Germanic on purely linguistic evidence has an analogue in archaeology. ~2500 BC the Beaker phenomenon entered the CWC area from the west and henceforth interacted and partly fused with CWC in West-central Europe, in a zone extending as far east as the Middle Danube.
    Linguistically, these developments suggest an intensification of contacts towards Pre-Italo-Celtic and reduction of contacts with Pre- Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian. Now confronting the evidence that most CG words are not detectable as loanwords, it seems likely that Pre- Germanic and Pre-Italo-Celtic simply continued to be close long into the Bronze Age.
    Nørgaard e.a. 2021:
    The direct Scandinavian access to the Carpathian basin and the Transdanubian plains that was opened up by the Unetice collapse c. 1600 BC increased importance in the sixteenth century BC as signs of contact appear with tell settlements in the Koszider period (Fårdrup-Hajdu ́sámso Sögel metalwork) and the earliest Middle Danube tumulus groups in Bronze Age
    One of these branches was a westerly itinerary along the River Elbe to the Sögel-Wohlde region of north-west Europe
    Kuzmenko 2011:

    Archaeological findings do not contradict the assumption about the formation of Italic innovations on the territory of modern northwestern Germany and about the existence of Italo-Germanic and Italo-Celtic contact zones on the northern and southern borders of the proposed Proto-Italic homeland. They indicate the existence of archaeological cultures which differ both from the cultures which were traditionally connected with the ancestors of the Germanic peoples and from the Celtic cultures. The archaeological correspondence to the region where Proto-Italic was being formed shows that this could be the culture of Sögel-Wohlde (1800–1000 BC) and other preceding archaeological cultures of the area.
    Šabatová et al (2020):
    In the Early Bronze Age (between 2500/2400 and 2000 BC), we can observe a transformation that probably grew out of the contact of a southern, Balkan, and a north-western and central European network within the Carpathian Basin. From this time onward, contact with the north-west and the south assumed a greater importance, with the Danube acting as the main axis of communication. The background of these connections, an invisible world of concepts, ideas and innovations, can be revealed through thorough analyses, in which network studies play a key role.

    (Sögel Wohlde in red by Finn)
    Last edited by Finn; 07-30-2021 at 02:13 PM.

  3. #343
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,982
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    And how did this effect Southern Scandinavia?

    Beaker

    The presumed BB spread called Flint Dagger Period:

    Prescott (2009), Apel (2000), VandKilde (2005) "Flint Dagger spread"


    Post Beaker


    According to Sophie Bergerbrant (2007) , in the case of Sögel-Wohlde we have about the following area, with the focal point in the current Dithmarschen above the Elbe in Schleswig Holstein (dots = Sögel-Wohlde):



    Bergerbrant (2012)


    Kuzmenko 2011:

    Archaeological findings do not contradict the assumption about the formation of Italic innovations on the territory of modern northwestern Germany and about the existence of Italo-Germanic and Italo-Celtic contact zones on the northern and southern borders of the proposed Proto-Italic homeland. They indicate the existence of archaeological cultures which differ both from the cultures which were traditionally connected with the ancestors of the Germanic peoples and from the Celtic cultures. The archaeological correspondence to the region where Proto-Italic was being formed shows that this could be the culture of Sögel-Wohlde (1800–1000 BC) and other preceding archaeological cultures of the area.
    So in LN, BB-spread, Flint-Dagger spread (=also language spread) and in EBA (kickstart NBA) influence of Sögel-Wohlde in which they spoke a language that was presumable close to a kind of "Italo-Celtic".

  4. #344
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,982
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    The World Championship of Linguistic Bullshit (Professional Prehistorians category) is ... what its name suggests. One of its most famous recipients is Collin Renfrew, for his body of work (with special mention for his chronology of Indo-European). Its big winner in 2009 was Kristian Kristiansen, as a reward for many years of work, crowned by this masterpiece:

    2850-2350 BC SGC, Pitted Ware and TRB Disintegration, SGC = Proto-Germanic
    2350-1750 BC Dagger period Integration = formation of Proto-Norse
    1750-1500 BC Early Bronze Age Disintegration = west/east Germanic
    1500-450 BC Nordic Bronze Age Integration = mature Norse/Gothic
    450-150 BC Pre-roman Iron Age Disintegration = west/east Germanic
    150 BC-1000 AD Roman and Viking Age Integration = traditional Norse

    A lot of fuzz but in the end Kristiansen comes near Koch, ok you can stumble about "proto-Norse" that is a definition question, fore the rest....

    Koch 2020:

    From ~2800 BC gene flow from Yamnaya at the founding of CWC in Northern Europe points to mass migration of Post-Tocharian Indo-European speakers. This created the setting for a dialect chain ancestral to Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Indo-Iranian.

    From ~2500 BC the entry of Beaker people with steppe ancestry into CWC Central Europe caused the dialect ancestral to Germanic to come closely into contact with the dialect(s) ancestral to Italic and Celtic. Contact between Pre-Germanic and the dialects ancestral to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian diminished.

    After ~1800–1500 BC the proposed time frame for the separation of Pre-Celtic from Proto-Italic (§21) predates the formation of most of the words comprising the 173-word CG subset. These words lack Italic cognates by definition, indicating that contact of Proto-Italic with Pre-Celtic and Pre-Germanic had fallen off.80

    The split of Proto-Italo-Celtic into Pre-Italic and Pre-Celtic is provisionally identified with the breakup of the Beaker culture into diverse post-Beaker Early Bronze Age cultures ~2000/1800 BC. The latter date of the above range (~1500 BC) allows
    time for the separate Pre-Celtic to develop new vocabulary, absent from Italic, during a period of rising social complexity
    and technological advance. On the social side, the rise of the professional warrior and warrior ideal are notable (Vandkilde 2014; Kristiansen 2018). Especially important technological advances spreading widely and catalysing social change at this time are what I have called the ‘three strands’ of the Bronze Age: standardized high-tin bronze, the horse and chariot package, and advanced seafaring (Koch 2013a).
    The modification in line with Kuzmenko (2011), Schmidt (1984), Kuhn (1961) would be that the 'breakup of the Beaker culture into diverse post-Beaker Early Bronze Age cultures ~2000/1800 BC' (Koch) and 1750-1500 BC Early Bronze Age Disintegration' ' was imo not a break up or disintegration, but a period of intens contact even an elite (warrior) migration from the middle Danube to the North Sea Coast (Sögel-Wohlde).

    This has left it 'Italo-Celtic' traces around the North Sea Coast.

  5. #345
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,792
    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
    A lot of fuzz but in the end Kristiansen comes near Koch, ok you can stumble about "proto-Norse" that is a definition question, fore the rest....
    You are still cheeky because it is not a simple matter of semantics, it is crucial. Deciding when we are at the Proto-Germanic stage is precisely deciding when "dialectalization" begins: the third millennium or the middle of the first, that makes a hell of a difference. It's like when you throw yourself into the case of PGerm * aiza, Lat aes, "ore", as if it is obvious that it must be a loan and therefore suggest a contact in the Bronze Age. You would have looked beyond the tip of your nose, you would have discovered that this lexeme also refers to Skt. ayas-, Av. aiiah (Kroonen), and that "The Germanic form developed from * aiza through * ajez- <* h2ei-es- with regular loss of the medial e after j (cf. * airi 'early' and * laiza - 'clay'). The original PIE s-stem * h2ei-os, * h2 (e) i-es-os may have been derived from the root * h2ei- 'to burn' "(Kroonen). There is no need here to invoke any borrowing, the derivations from the PIE constituting a direct and clear explanation.
    Okay, a few words on your latest craze, Kuzmenko. I just read his 2011 text (apparently not the one you quote), "Early Germans and their Neighbors" (РАННИЕ ГЕРМАНЦЫ И ИХ СОСЕДИ), and I am extremely circumspect. I'm not talking about the childish uses he makes of haplogroups (2011, we forgive him!), neither even of the hilarious archaeological associations (PWC = early Balto-Finnics!), but only of the presumed "shared innovations", which would make it possible to position the Germanic family in relation to the other families involved in the problem. I am wary because it is not in the domain of amateurs that we are to distinguish real shared innovations from possible shared archaisms or parallel developments. I know you're gonna tell me he's a "specialist", blah blah. However, his work is essentially based on that of Porzig (1954, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets). Another Germanist (of whom you could not deny that he was "great") Winfred Lehmann, knew perfectly well the text of Porzig, of which he wrote a review (rather good, moreover). But Lehmann, in his "A Grammar of proto-Germanic" writes: "The relationship of the Germanic language group to other language groups can only be determined by evidence in the languages. The closest language groups to Germanic are the Balto-Slavic, the Italic, and the Celtic. Yet, unlike Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Armenian, which have the augment as a common innovation as well as extensive verbal inflection, these four western groups lack any common phonological or morphological innovations. (...) . In view of the absence of common innovations shared among other dialects, such as the augment, I assume that Germanic broke off independently - early - from Proto-Indo-European. Its archaic structure has been pointed out variously, as for instance in my article on the conservatism of Germanic phonology (Lehmann, 1953) and in subsequent publications. "
    I may know less linguistics than you, but taking into account the confusion which results (in my mind at least) from such elements, I am careful not to make the slightest use of Kuzmenko's texts, even when they seem decidedly to tip the balance on the side of "my theses" rather than yours. In this respect, it is quite edifying to see how you take care not to mention, from Kuzmenko, the lists that he draws up of the innovations shared with the Baltic group (not to mention those with the Uralic family, which I will classify in the category funny linguistics).
    A few more words, not on the area of formation of the Proto-Germanic (which is hardly in doubt for me), but, at the other end of the story, on the question of beginnings. This question is not, in my opinion, a question of more or less muddy archaeological assumptions, but above all of the localization of the Germanic in the phylogenetic tree of the Indo-European family (always bearing in mind that a tree is inevitably always a model, that a model is always an "operational" simplification of reality, and that in terms of linguistic cladistics the "mass is far from being said"). I have the feeling that for you, as for many others here, it is blindingly clear that there existed a proto-language "North-West Indo-European", from which the Celtic, Germanic, Italic, even Balto-Slavic, groups are genetically derived. If I understood correctly (I say "if"), you leave the Balto-Slav outside and install the ancestor common to the other three somewhere in central Europe, not too far from the North Sea. Yipee! The truth is that this view is one among others and that even the existence of an Italo-Celtic group is not unanimously defended, for the reason that the innovations common to the two groups remain for some specialists too weak for eliminating the hypothesis of prolonged contacts between two languages ​​of ancient separation (Matasovic, Clackson & Horrocks). The truth, too, is that for all serious linguists who have faced these questions of Indo-European cladistics, Germanic has appeared to be a terrible puzzle. I strongly encourage you to read or reread the text by Ringe et al. "Indo-European and Computational Cladistics". Not that I am defending their method, but it is really interesting to see what problems the Germanic poses for them, and certainly useful to meditate on these problems. While you are there, you will benefit from reading the fundamental text to which they refer several times regarding the topics of contacts, exchanges, and linguistic phylogeny (Thomason, "Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics", 33 euros at Amazon, that's a useful expense). You'll perhaps understand that things are not so easy you seem to believe they are. To conclude, I will quote Ringe et al. I have no doubt that you can put this quote to your liking, as I could quite easily do by mentioning the CWCs from Poland landing in Scandinavia. In my opinion, it would be more profitable for you to think about the modesty of the tone of their conclusion.

    Capture1.JPG
    Capture2.JPG
    Last edited by anglesqueville; 08-04-2021 at 08:07 PM.
    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:

     Alain (08-05-2021),  Granary (08-06-2021),  JMcB (08-04-2021),  JoeyP37 (08-04-2021),  Ryukendo (08-04-2021),  Token (08-04-2021)

  7. #346
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,982
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by anglesqueville View Post
    You are still cheeky because it is not a simple matter of semantics, it is crucial. Deciding when we are at the Proto-Germanic stage is precisely deciding when "dialectalization" begins: the third millennium or the middle of the first, that makes a hell of a difference. It's like when you throw yourself into the case of PGerm * aiza, Lat aes, "ore", as if it is obvious that it must be a loan and therefore suggest a contact in the Bronze Age. You would have looked beyond the tip of your nose, you would have discovered that this lexeme also refers to Skt. ayas-, Av. aiiah (Kroonen), and that "The Germanic form developed from * aiza through * ajez- <* h2ei-es- with regular loss of the medial e after j (cf. * airi 'early' and * laiza - 'clay'). The original PIE s-stem * h2ei-os, * h2 (e) i-es-os may have been derived from the root * h2ei- 'to burn' "(Kroonen). There is no need here to invoke any borrowing, the derivations from the PIE constituting a direct and clear explanation.
    Okay, a few words on your latest craze, Kuzmenko. I just read his 2011 text (apparently not the one you quote), "Early Germans and their Neighbors" (РАННИЕ ГЕРМАНЦЫ И ИХ СОСЕДИ), and I am extremely circumspect. I'm not talking about the childish uses he makes of haplogroups (2011, we forgive him!), neither even of the hilarious archaeological associations (PWC = early Balto-Finnics!), but only of the presumed "shared innovations", which would make it possible to position the Germanic family in relation to the other families involved in the problem. I am wary because it is not in the domain of amateurs that we are to distinguish real shared innovations from possible shared archaisms or parallel developments. I know you're gonna tell me he's a "specialist", blah blah. However, his work is essentially based on that of Porzig (1954, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets). Another Germanist (of whom you could not deny that he was "great") Winfred Lehmann, knew perfectly well the text of Porzig, of which he wrote a review (rather good, moreover). But Lehmann, in his "A Grammar of proto-Germanic" writes: "The relationship of the Germanic language group to other language groups can only be determined by evidence in the languages. The closest language groups to Germanic are the Balto-Slavic, the Italic, and the Celtic. Yet, unlike Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Armenian, which have the augment as a common innovation as well as extensive verbal inflection, these four western groups lack any common phonological or morphological innovations. (...) . In view of the absence of common innovations shared among other dialects, such as the augment, I assume that Germanic broke off independently - early - from Proto-Indo-European. Its archaic structure has been pointed out variously, as for instance in my article on the conservatism of Germanic phonology (Lehmann, 1953) and in subsequent publications. "
    I may know less linguistics than you, but taking into account the confusion which results (in my mind at least) from such elements, I am careful not to make the slightest use of Kuzmenko's texts, even when they seem decidedly to tip the balance on the side of "my theses" rather than yours. In this respect, it is quite edifying to see how you take care not to mention, from Kuzmenko, the lists that he draws up of the innovations shared with the Baltic group (not to mention those with the Urals family, which I will classify in the category funny linguistics).
    A few more words, not on the area of formation of the Proto-Germanic (which is hardly in doubt for me), but, at the other end of the story, on the question of beginnings. This question is not, in my opinion, a question of more or less muddy archaeological assumptions, but above all of the localization of the Germanic in the phylogenetic tree of the Indo-European family (always bearing in mind that a tree is inevitably always a model, that a model is always an "operational" simplification of reality, and that in terms of linguistic cladistics the "mass is far from being said"). I have the feeling that for you, as for many others here, it is blindingly clear that there existed a proto-language "North-West Indo-European", from which the Celtic, Germanic, Italic, even Balto-Slavic, groups are genetically derived. If I understood correctly (I say "if"), you leave the Balto-Slav outside and install the ancestor common to the other three somewhere in central Europe, not too far from the North Sea. Yipee! The truth is that this view is one among others and that even the existence of an Italo-Celtic group is not unanimously defended, for the reason that the innovations common to the two groups remain for some specialists too weak for eliminating the hypothesis of prolonged contacts between two languages ​​of ancient separation (Matasovic, Clackson & Horrocks). The truth, too, is that for all serious linguists who have faced these questions of Indo-European cladistics, Germanic has appeared to be a terrible puzzle. I strongly encourage you to read or reread the text by Ringe et al. "Indo-European and Computational Cladistics". Not that I am defending their method, but it is really interesting to see what problems the Germanic poses for them, and certainly useful to meditate on these problems. While you are there, you will benefit from reading the fundamental text to which they refer several times regarding the topics of contacts, exchanges, and linguistic phylogeny (Thomason, "Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics", 33 euros at Amazon, that's a useful expense). You'll perhaps understand that things are not so easy you seem to believe they are. To conclude, I will quote Ringe et al. I have no doubt that you can put this quote to your liking, as I could quite easily do by mentioning the CWCs from Poland landing in Scandinavia. In my opinion, it would be more profitable for you to think about the modesty of the tone of their conclusion.

    Capture1.JPG
    Capture2.JPG
    The fact is that you are not able to sketch a pre and proto German trajectory from your favoured Urheimat Sweden. Not in a linguistic way, not archeologic, not in genetic way. Total empty hands!

    "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."

    Para-Germanic? Explain.... the only para Germanic language in Scandinavia I can see has a connection with the Flint Dagger Period (See the works of Apel, Kristiansen, VandKilde, Prescott).


    These Flint Dagger folk equals the Jutish Bell Beakers. I see no reference to the Bell Beakers in your trajectory, nor the Flint Dagger Period. Why not?

    Koch (2020) does:
    From ~2500 BC the entry of Beaker people with steppe ancestry into CWC Central Europe caused the dialect ancestral to Germanic to come closely into contact with the dialect(s) ancestral to Italic and Celtic. Contact between Pre-Germanic and the dialects ancestral to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian diminished.
    on top of that, Koch (2020):

    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.
    Besides Koch (2020) his linguistic companions Kuzmenko (2011), Euler (2009), Schmidt (1984, 1991), Kuhn (1961) have stressed the influence of Italo-Celtic on pre-Germanic and proto-Germanic, traces are even there in nowadays (West-) Germanic. This is not due to a developments in "Swedish coast of the Gulf of Bothni"

    You have a completely blind spot for the Bell Beakers (Flint Dagger) and the post- Bell Beakers (Sögel-Wohlde)! Why?

    On top of that you repeat:
    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
    We already discussed this, papers have shown:
    a. the climate conditions were in LBA>IA with evidence even worse around the North Sea compared to Sweden;
    b. the more North we go in Jutland the less Jastorf culture,

    that contradicts your story completely.

    So why hang on to pre ww2 theories Angles? No evidence, no narrative.....
    Last edited by Finn; 08-04-2021 at 06:42 PM.

  8. #347
    Registered Users
    Posts
    356
    Sex
    Location
    Coventry, Rhode Island
    Ethnicity
    Celto-Germanic
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-YP445
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c2b

    England Germany Palatinate Italy Sicily Ireland Munster Acadia Mercia
    I agree with Ringe. The core of Germanic is Corded Ware, but it was heavily influenced by later Italo-Celtic dialects and then Celtic proper; which leads me to support a Jutland urheimat for Germanic.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to JoeyP37 For This Useful Post:

     Finn (08-04-2021)

  10. #348
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,982
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeyP37 View Post
    I agree with Ringe. The core of Germanic is Corded Ware, but it was heavily influenced by later Italo-Celtic dialects and then Celtic proper; which leads me to support a Jutland urheimat for Germanic.
    Indeed Single Grave>BB and so fort, from that point of view I completely agree!
    (I will not start about Jastorf etc etc

  11. #349
    Registered Users
    Posts
    767
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    I dont think it makes sense to speak of "Corded Ware" and "Bell Beaker languages" in this archaeological context. I don't think that has been written with the idea that Bell Beakers are basically Single Grave offshoots.

    Is the difference in language between Bell Beaker from northern Germany and a late Single grave people from Denmark going to be bigger than between a N. German and a Spanish beaker?

    Or will that Single Grave male be closer in language to the Abashevo near the Urals than he would be to a Bell Beaker from Belgium? One is "Corded Ware" and the other is "Bell Beaker".

    I'm gonna agree with Angles on that one. Its basically Eupedia level stuff imo.
    Last edited by CopperAxe; 08-04-2021 at 07:59 PM.

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CopperAxe For This Useful Post:

     altvred (08-04-2021),  anglesqueville (08-04-2021),  Granary (08-05-2021),  JMcB (08-04-2021)

  13. #350
    Registered Users
    Posts
    767
    Sex

    Netherlands Kenya
    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    The fact is that you are not able to sketch a pre and proto German trajectory from your favoured Urheimat Sweden. Not in a linguistic way, not archeologic, not in genetic way. Total empty hands!

    "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."

    Para-Germanic? Explain.... the only para Germanic language in Scandinavia I can see has a connection with the Flint Dagger Period (See the works of Apel, Kristiansen, VandKilde, Prescott).


    These Flint Dagger folk equals the Jutish Bell Beakers. I see no reference to the Bell Beakers in your trajectory, nor the Flint Dagger Period. Why not?

    Koch (2020) does:


    on top of that, Koch (2020):



    Besides Koch (2020) his linguistic companions Kuzmenko (2011), Euler (2009), Schmidt (1984, 1991), Kuhn (1961) have stressed the influence of Italo-Celtic on pre-Germanic and proto-Germanic, traces are even there in nowadays (West-) Germanic. This is not due to a developments in "Swedish coast of the Gulf of Bothni"

    You have a completely blind spot for the Bell Beakers (Flint Dagger) and the post- Bell Beakers (Sögel-Wohlde)! Why?

    On top of that you repeat:


    We already discussed this, papers have shown:
    a. the climate conditions were in LBA>IA with evidence even worse around the North Sea compared to Sweden;
    b. the more North we go in Jutland the less Jastorf culture,

    that contradicts your story completely.

    So why hang on to pre ww2 theories Angles? No evidence, no narrative.....
    I really dont think that this:

    From ~2500 BC the entry of Beaker people with steppe ancestry into CWC Central Europe caused the dialect ancestral to Germanic to come closely into contact with the dialect(s) ancestral to Italic and Celtic. Contact between Pre-Germanic and the dialects ancestral to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian diminished.
    is referring to Jutish Bell Beakers or any of the northern ones. Its probably referring to the Iberian Bell Beaker origin or something.

Page 35 of 48 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... 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
  •