Page 34 of 48 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 478

Thread: The Harbour of the Old North

  1. #331
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,962
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    VandKilde:

    The argument can be carried further into a discussion about the presentation of cultural and social identity through material means. Firstly, the boundary between ordinary Late Neolithic Culture and Beaker-enriched Late Neolithic Culture in Jutland coincides roughly with an older cultural boundary between Single Grave Culture and Funnelnecked Beaker Culture (Glob 1944, fig. 113) in addition to a similar boundary centuries later, c. 1600 BC, between the Valsømagle and the Sögel-Wohlde metalwork styles (Vandkilde 1996, fig. 273, B; 1999 b). All three cases relate to contexts of general social change. Secondly, it is especially the frequent occurrence of Beaker pottery in settlements that makes the early Late Neolithic boundary distinct (see fig. 9). This tallies with an interpretation of Beaker pottery as first and foremost signalling a large-scaled form of social identity, which we may call cultural identity, or perhaps ethnic identity.
    Unless this is bogus, this quote has such consequences that it must have had an impact on language development too... without any doubts!
    Last edited by Finn; 07-28-2021 at 03:29 PM.

  2. #332
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,787
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    Finn often uses the phrase "language development". I just don't know what that can mean. Between Proto-Indo-European and our modern languages, for example, I see no development, rather the reverse: simplification of phonology, erosion of the inflectional system, etc. Even the Baltic languages, however appallingly complex, are simple compared to Proto-Indo-European as we reconstruct it. What comes the closest today to the Proto-Norse is the Icelandic. One need only compare Icelandic to any Scandinavian language to understand that this so-called "development" looks more like an implosion. Yet who would dare to claim that our modern societies, their administered world and their devouring technology, are simpler than prehistoric societies, or even those of antiquity? The truth is that there is no connection between the socio-cultural ruptures, new technologies, etc., on the one hand, and on the other the successions of changes in phonology, each benign and barely noticeable if we look at it in isolation, which constitute the dynamics of the jumps on the phylogenetic tree of a linguistic family. So, to put it bluntly, in general archaeology has nothing to say about languages, nothing at all. At the most, it can provide elements of confirmation (for example when Linguistics suggests, on the basis of its own methods and with its data, that there was at a given moment contact between two different languages; or when linguistics notices that the name of an object is reconstructable in a proto-language, archaeology can notice that this object was well known in a candidate society to have spoken that language, and was unknown in another). But aligning linguistic shifts with socio-cultural shifts, which Kristiansen does throughout his texts, is either insignificant stupidity or profound dishonesty. In any case, when it is a linguistic question that is at stake, Linguistics must have the role of initiator of the hypotheses as well as the charge of controlling the conclusions. Now Linguistics can, by definition, only work on linguistic data, and nothing else. But the reconstructed languages are indeed data. To refuse this is quite simply the same as to deny the existence of historical linguistics. It would not be a crime (if not perhaps a crime against intelligence) if those who do this forbade themselves to intervene in any way in debates about languages. Unfortunately, this is not what we are seeing. Therein lies the drama.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     JMcB (07-30-2021),  JoeyP37 (07-28-2021),  Ryukendo (07-28-2021),  Token (07-28-2021)

  4. #333
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,962
    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
    Finn often uses the phrase "language development". I just don't know what that can mean. Between Proto-Indo-European and our modern languages, for example, I see no development, rather the reverse: simplification of phonology, erosion of the inflectional system, etc. Even the Baltic languages, however appallingly complex, are simple compared to Proto-Indo-European as we reconstruct it. What comes the closest today to the Proto-Norse is the Icelandic. One need only compare Icelandic to any Scandinavian language to understand that this so-called "development" looks more like an implosion. Yet who would dare to claim that our modern societies, their administered world and their devouring technology, are simpler than prehistoric societies, or even those of antiquity? The truth is that there is no connection between the socio-cultural ruptures, new technologies, etc., on the one hand, and on the other the successions of changes in phonology, each benign and barely noticeable if we look at it in isolation, which constitute the dynamics of the jumps on the phylogenetic tree of a linguistic family. So, to put it bluntly, in general archaeology has nothing to say about languages, nothing at all. At the most, it can provide elements of confirmation (for example when Linguistics suggests, on the basis of its own methods and with its data, that there was at a given moment contact between two different languages; or when linguistics notices that the name of an object is reconstructable in a proto-language, archaeology can notice that this object was well known in a candidate society to have spoken that language, and was unknown in another). But aligning linguistic shifts with socio-cultural shifts, which Kristiansen does throughout his texts, is either insignificant stupidity or profound dishonesty. In any case, when it is a linguistic question that is at stake, Linguistics must have the role of initiator of the hypotheses as well as the charge of controlling the conclusions. Now Linguistics can, by definition, only work on linguistic data, and nothing else. But the reconstructed languages are indeed data. To refuse this is quite simply the same as to deny the existence of historical linguistics. It would not be a crime (if not perhaps a crime against intelligence) if those who do this forbade themselves to intervene in any way in debates about languages. Unfortunately, this is not what we are seeing. Therein lies the drama.
    Language development equals language evolution.
    And I guess that migration and spread certainly has had influence on the language.

    Would you suggest that the BB spread in Scandinavia would have left no single trace in the language?

    And I guess you don't get my point, but that's ok, we are from "different paradigma's" the mathematician vs the historian Agree to disagree.
    Last edited by Finn; 07-28-2021 at 04:09 PM.

  5. #334
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,962
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    But aligning linguistic shifts with socio-cultural shifts, which Kristiansen does throughout his texts, is either insignificant stupidity or profound dishonesty. In any case, when it is a linguistic question that is at stake, Linguistics must have the role of initiator of the hypotheses as well as the charge of controlling the conclusions. Now Linguistics can, by definition, only work on linguistic data, and nothing else. But the reconstructed languages are indeed data. To refuse this is quite simply the same as to deny the existence of historical linguistics. It would not be a crime (if not perhaps a crime against intelligence) if those who do this forbade themselves to intervene in any way in debates about languages. Unfortunately, this is not what we are seeing. Therein lies the drama.
    Pfff Angles I must say this: toujours dramatiques, I long for a more sober Nordic tone

    The crucial thing is that it's of course possible to make a reconstruction c.q. a model of a prehistoric language. But because of a lack of sources from pre-historic languages we are not able to check if this reconstruction is just or unjust.

    Nothing more nothing less.

    As said in history writing are sources crucial.
    Last edited by Finn; 07-28-2021 at 05:49 PM.

  6. #335
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,962
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b U106 (DF96)

    Netherlands
    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. By ~2300 BC the Beaker package reached Jutland.67 These ‘Beakerized’ regions henceforth had more attenuated contact with non-Beakerized CWC to the east. They entered a cultural sphere with western neighbours, including the Iberian Peninsula, Northern Italy, parts of France, and Britain and Ireland (cf. Van der Linden 2007).
    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. That state of affairs continued to the time when copper from the Atlantic faįade was traded to Scandinavia. That scenario would be more economical than supposing that contact between Scandinavia and the West ended in the post-Beaker Early Bronze Age then picked up again in the Late Bronze Age. A model of continuing contact with the post-Beaker West is also consistent with evidence of copper from Wales coming to Scandinavia in the period ~2000–1400 BC (Nørgaard et al. 2019).
    And also congruent with a continuing contact with the post-Beaker East!

    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 B1 (Valsømagle metalwork). What we see here may be the consolidation of the eastern route, the extension of which now went as far as the Aegean, where Baltic amber was included in the extraordinary shaft grave assemblages of Mycenae [143–146].

    Halfway between southern Scandinavia and the Carpathian–Transdanubian crossroads, the Nebra hoard, with its twin sets of Hajdu ́sa ́mson-derived weaponry made of Mitterberg copper and perhaps even tin from Cornwall [40,41], marks the place where the eastern route branched in two. One of these branches was a westerly itinerary along the River Elbe to the Sögel-Wohlde region of north-west Europe, while a north-easterly and similarly riverine itinerary headed towards the Baltic Sea, crossing over to the Danish isles and Scania. In Scandinavia, these changes concurred with formation of a new social order, identified by an emblematic style among prominent warriors in the incipient NBA.

    This period saw the first rush of construction of large burial mounds [122,123], erected as monuments to commemorate individual founders of this warrior class who carried Valsømagle-type gear. Crucially in NBA IB, Italian AATV copper is faintly discernible among the copper provenances in the Bronze Age dataset. This development signals the onset of changes that came to full fruition after c. 1500–1450 BC.

    In NBA II (1500–1300 BC), British copper is no longer detectable in the dataset. This may mean that the sea-based trade between southern Scandinavia and the British Isles had declined or ceased and that Italian AATV copper had seized dominance (see S1 Fig), which is in accor- dance with established knowledge [7,8]. This takeover coincided with establishment of the full-grown NBA, with burial mounds by the thousand and a unifying metalwork style that branded the upper social echelon of men and women in distinct yet shared ways. This tie-up with a prevailingly western riverine and land-based route now connected the NBA region with the South German Tumulus culture and the first transalpine amber traffic. Abundant finds of Baltic amber in the rich mound burials of the South German Tumulus region [147] indicate a major shift in alliances and trading routes. Material culture wise, there are several similarities between the classic NBA II and the South German Tumulus group e.g. [5,50]. Baltic amber was now travelling across the Alps and likely passed through Val Camonica to the Po valley, continuing from there to Apulian coastal entrepots like Roca Vecchia [119,148,149] in South Italy.
    Shifting networks and mixing metals: Changing metal trade routes to Scandinavia correlate with Neolithic and Bronze Age transformations
    June 2021PLoS ONE 16(6)(e0252376.):1-42 Follow journal
    Last edited by Finn; 07-29-2021 at 07:08 AM.

  7. #336
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,787
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    "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."
    I hope you understand that the "closeness" evoked here by Koch is between languages, not between human groups. I hope you also understand what the implications of this claim are, that the Germanic and Italo-Celtic branches did not begin to separate frankly until late in the Bronze Age. If I have a doubt about your understanding, it is obviously that this thesis (which is really nothing extraordinary) is in flagrant contradiction with the delusional chronology by Kristiansen that you defended yesterday with energy. It is time that you finally clearly explain which model you defend, preferably without those metaphorical and nebulous words that you like ("affinity", "influence", etc.).
    Regarding the very important text you quote next, I'm quite worried about the meaning that words like "a continuing contact with the post-Beaker East" may have in your mind. The object of this text is essentially the transfer of metal by commercial routes, nothing else. Considering your tendency, highlighted by JMcB, to a sort of "creative reading", I would like to be sure that you do not make this text say anything other than what it says.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     JMcB (07-29-2021),  JoeyP37 (07-29-2021),  Ryukendo (07-29-2021)

  9. #337
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,962
    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
    "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."
    I hope you understand that the "closeness" evoked here by Koch is between languages, not between human groups. I hope you also understand what the implications of this claim are, that the Germanic and Italo-Celtic branches did not begin to separate frankly until late in the Bronze Age. If I have a doubt about your understanding, it is obviously that this thesis (which is really nothing extraordinary) is in flagrant contradiction with the delusional chronology by Kristiansen that you defended yesterday with energy. It is time that you finally clearly explain which model you defend, preferably without those metaphorical and nebulous words that you like ("affinity", "influence", etc.).
    Regarding the very important text you quote next, I'm quite worried about the meaning that words like "a continuing contact with the post-Beaker East" may have in your mind. The object of this text is essentially the transfer of metal by commercial routes, nothing else. Considering your tendency, highlighted by JMcB, to a sort of "creative reading", I would like to be sure that you do not make this text say anything other than what it says.
    It's more than 'commercial'. See already the title: Shifting networks and mixing metals: Changing metal trade routes to Scandinavia correlate with Neolithic and Bronze Age transformations

    Can't be overseen!

    It's not even against "the linguistic model" Koch:
    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
    And of course language is part of a social-cultural context, of transformation. The one who thinks that an evolution of a language is total independent of the context, tends to stay in an ivory tower, unworldly. By the way it's totally at ease with Kristiansen, no light between it.

    Face it Angles: (post) Bell Beakers did play a part in the 'formation' of Germanic!
    Last edited by Finn; 07-29-2021 at 04:42 PM.

  10. #338
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,962
    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
    "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."
    I hope you understand that the "closeness" evoked here by Koch is between languages, not between human groups. I hope you also understand what the implications of this claim are, that the Germanic and Italo-Celtic branches did not begin to separate frankly until late in the Bronze Age. If I have a doubt about your understanding, it is obviously that this thesis (which is really nothing extraordinary) is in flagrant contradiction with the delusional chronology by Kristiansen that you defended yesterday with energy. It is time that you finally clearly explain which model you defend, preferably without those metaphorical and nebulous words that you like ("affinity", "influence", etc.).
    Regarding the very important text you quote next, I'm quite worried about the meaning that words like "a continuing contact with the post-Beaker East" may have in your mind. The object of this text is essentially the transfer of metal by commercial routes, nothing else. Considering your tendency, highlighted by JMcB, to a sort of "creative reading", I would like to be sure that you do not make this text say anything other than what it says.
    Even when the computer says: YES. Angels stays with: computer says, NO.

    In some way reminds me of:

    (humor intended)

  11. #339
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    7,787
    Sex
    Location
    Normandy
    Ethnicity
    northwesterner
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-BY3604-Z275
    mtDNA (M)
    H5a1

    Normandie Orkney Netherlands Friesland East Frisia Finland
    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.
    En North alom, de North venom
    En North fum naiz, en North manom

    (Roman de Rou, Wace, 1160-1170)

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

     Granary (07-29-2021),  Ryukendo (07-30-2021)

  13. #340
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    5,962
    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.
    Kein Spiel. You are not able to reason beyond your own dogma's.

    It's a fact that there was a Beaker migration and (post ) Beaker one like with the chieftain of Drouwen and the princess of Fallingbostel (both fit in this 'profile' of Nørgaard e.a. 2021, they are from: ' tell settlements in the Koszider period -Fårdrup-Hajdu ́sámso Sögel metalwork- and the earliest Middle Danube tumulus groups'). These (elite)migrants didn't lose their mother tongue.

    Archeologist and linguist state the same (in casu Koch, Kristiansen, VandKilde, Prescott and many more), but it's you who refuses this....
    Last edited by Finn; 07-30-2021 at 07:57 AM.

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

     parasar (08-05-2021)

Page 34 of 48 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... 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
  •