Sweboz EB 1.0 comments

[cmacq]

This excerpt is from D.H. Green's Language and history in the early Germanic world 1998. Cambridge University- a marvelous book (and quite affordable compared to some) recommended to me awhile ago by my professor of Old English / Old Norse. It is nearly my favorite book on such subjects




WOW that took forever to type

I just realized something : this information can be referenced when people are curious to the new Celto-Germanic cavalry unit (1.1), recruitment based in those areas of Eastern Celtic influence nice! btw, I named them Marhaleudiz Walhiskē

anyways, I plan to do some citing of Gothic / Balto-Slavic loanwords too and more from this book in another post- unless everyone yells at me

Very informative Blitz, I'm not familiar with Green's work. I've always wondered about where those Bavari came from. It seems to make sense and by the way may suggest there is some merit to my thesis, possibly? If I may make an additional point. The initial line of contact Green proposes may only represent that which due to happenstance was recorded by Classical authors. Of course I suggest this line may have been much further north. In turn you may ask where the initial line of contact was in relationship to Balt and Slav. Please see the Lugii and Zumi for Slav?

Additionally, this thread has me revisting the Danish Cauldrons, and I think I may have had a 'bring the mountain to Mohammad' moment. For the reasons I presented above, the current popular theory is that the Cimbri commissioned the Scordisci to manufacture the artifacts and then transported them by land from Romanian to Denmark. However, I was thinking that in fact the Scordisci would not have made these artifacts. Rather, it may have been the Scordisci craftsmen that actually made them. As craftsmen are mobile and Romania is not, is it impossible that Cimbric princes lured such craftsmen to Denmark, as well as those from other Gallic regions to work for them directly?

And yes please post the load word list.

[cmacq]

[EDIT] I just want to add that it seems to me from various sources that the Hermunduri are the core identity / culture of the original "Germanic" peoples who continuously developed over time into Germany proper. Pomponius Mela [Pliny] who writes in his Description of the World (III.3.31) concerning Hermiones, descendents of Irmin (ancestor god) [PGmc Ermenaz, Ermunaz]- OT: while also being similar in form to 'German' do not think this the case, partly based on the scale and direction needed for the linguistic changes necessary to form the alternate derivations we receive. Nonetheless, the Hermunduri have an elusive history in which they disappear completely, yet reappear as powerful players in the Dark Ages: Thuringia, of whom there is an infamous (and beautiful) forest and province [i forget the duchy term used :oD damn American] named after to this day- the 'Thuringi' where we see a dropping of the initial name element and an added suffix -ing along with d => t dialectal High German sound change : which makes [Hermun]-Duringi, which means 'descendents of Hermunduri', which does not make for an unbelievable name, especially in the context of conglomeration. This population has always been described as large and constant, although competitive identity / populations exist but their later disappearances (Semnones) forever from history can be attributed to amalgamation into a newer identity even in an older name. One of the reasons I think this is so, is the frequency of references made to this tribe (from the very beginning perception of 'German') but also throughout later ancient sources [Pliny, Gregory of Tours, Jordanes] and its key location which later defines Germany as we think of it today- nonetheless the gap of information we do not know concerning them makes sense in the context of overall lacking information on the Germanic tribes as we come to know them. We only assign various attributes from the Norse language family because we have such a gap between the later Migration age Germanic peoples and the Greco-Roman awareness of Rhine culture.

Yes indeed, I rather agree with you on this point. To me it has seemed the Thuringi was the progenitor of some type of basal proto-Swabian ethnos (not the later Swabo-Federation we see functional at 60 BC). I would be willing to modify my thesis to provide for the appearance of these Thuringi (the Vandal's bogie men) prior to the Cimbri migration. However, the Vandals, Longobards, and proto-Guthons, I'd still place after 120 BC. Yet while Thuringi, embedded in the northwest, the Cimbri migration may have still triggered their expansion and morphing into the Swabos? Again the Frisians would have to be another very different story altogether.

[MeinPanzer]

However, I was thinking that in fact the Scordisci would not have made these artifacts. Rather, it may have been the Scordisci craftsmen that actually made them. As craftsmen are mobile and Romania is not, is it impossible that Cimbric princes lured such craftsmen to Denmark, as well as those from other Gallic regions to work for them directly?

It's a possibility that a Scordiscan craftsman could have moved to the Denmark region, but it seems extremely unlikely. What seems much, much more likely is that the cauldron was looted, given as a gift, or traded (though the latter option does seem unlikely for such a prestigious item) and made its way to northern Europe that way. Once again, there is some evidence for other items from the Balkans already having reached Denmark at a much earlier date.

F. Kaul, in the 1995 article I cited before, has an extensive section entitled "The Gundestrup Cauldron's Route to Denmark: The Cimbri" (pp. 28-29 specifically, with pp. 30-34 being an excursus on other items that provide evidence of links between the Balkans and Denmark). Multiple scenarios are laid out, with one being that the Cimbri captured it as loot from the Scordisci when they fought them after 118 BC. There are however historiographical problems with the contact between the Cimbri and the Scordiscans between 118 and 113 BC, and Kaul suggests that they may have formed an alliance after some initial contact; he postulates that the cauldron could have been given as a gift in the alliance-forming process. This is, however, extremely hypothetical, and Kaul also fails to take into account the Thracian weapon present in the Hjortspring deposit, which suggests other means for items from southeastern Europe to have reached Jutland.

[cmacq]

This is, however, extremely hypothetical, and Kaul also fails to take into account the Thracian weapon present in the Hjortspring deposit, which suggests other means for items from southeastern Europe to have reached Jutland.

Right, I believe this strong Thracio-Getea material culture connection, extending from the LBA to the early Roman IA was explored in an earlier thread about a possible Cimmeri connection. Blitz referred to this thread above. It seems clear that the Thracio-Getea region was responsible for the west and northwest spread of Halstatt C, as it was associated with the introduction of Iron into that part of Europe. This also appears to be associated with a complex trade network that dealt with the exchange of amber, ivory, salt, medals, horses, and other high status items.

Kaul, F., and J. Martens
Southeast European Influences in the Early Iron Age of Southern Scandinavia. Gundestrup and the Cimbri, Acta Archaeologica, vol. 66 1995, pp. 111-161.

Right, I've looked at the Thracio-Kelt examples as well. While I must say the manufacturing techniques are very similar, and some similar motifs are used, the overall execution of this style (Thracio-Kelt) appears to demonstrate a more ridged or stronger Hellenistic influence. The execution on the Gundestrup for example, almost looks early 3rd or 4th century northern Gaulish. I don't think Kaul and Martens were being totally upfront on that point. Then there are other examples from Denmark which do not display the Thracio-Kelt style at all. Then as always, there is the problem of the composition on the Gundestrup; what the iconography displayed? If indeed it was swag, tribute, trade, or a gift made in Romania, as I explained above, why did it depict a practice documented among the Cimbri?

Are Kaul and Martens telling us there was some type of familial relationship (shared set of customs and believes) between the Cimbri and Thracio-Kelts? Of course that would redirect your rebut and I don't think you want to go there. This line may even reopen the Cimmeri issue and I'm sure no one is ready for that either. No, I think the more pratical explanation is the 'commissioned' thesis; the only question is were the craftsmen present in Romania, Gaul, or Denmark.

I need to get a project report out, so I'll be a bit tied up for some time. If I don't respond immediately, please continue as I will join in as time permits.

[Frostwulf]

You do realize the only reason I joined this thread is to show what evidence there was for this quote:

I didn't want to get mixed up in this, yet think you may want to rethink this to a very great extent, as I do not believe there is any solid evidence to support these conclusions.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...3&postcount=46
I'm not trying to be rude but I do have a hard time understanding what your saying. I can only address some of your quotes/questions etc. because I'm having a hard time figuring out what your getting at.

The point of my intervening into this threat was to demonstrate a distinction in the early Latin usage of the term ‘German’ which was being used to substantiate a massive eighth century BC Nordic migration from Sweden and Norway into Denmark and northern Germany.

What your calling Nordic is to me the same as Germani. If this is correct then the archaeological evidence supports what I posted here:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...1&postcount=63

The third great pillar is that all Classical writers were feeble, biased, or just plain wrong and all modern authors that support the 'Early' or 'Always Nordic Germans' line are always correct.

Using just one ancient author is just ridiculous. You are completely ignoring multiple others. The majority of the modern historians/archaeologists don't use just one source. They use both archeology as well as multiple ancient-modern texts. For you to be fixated on Strabo is a mistake.

Strangely, you do not present direct evidence to counter my thesis; rather you merely cite the tertiary (or worse) augments of modern authors?

I think I countered your arguments of the Cimbri, Cauldron and Denmark quite well using the sources I posted.

Please read carefully what I wrote above. Strabo was telling us the reason the Roman's called that region 'Germany.' It was used as a geographic and not an ethnic qualifier...

I must have missed it, the only thing I could find that you put down was this:

Traditional Rendering: H. L. Jones: Harvard University Press, 1917 thru 1932.
[2] Now the parts beyond the Rhenus, immediately after the country of the Celti, slope towards the east and are occupied by the Germans, who, though they vary slightly from the Celtic stock in that they are wilder, taller, and have yellower hair, are in all other respects similar, for in build, habits, and modes of life they are such as I have said the Celti are. And I also think that it was for this reason that the Romans assigned to them the name “Germani,” as though they wished to indicate thereby that they were “genuine” Galatae, for in the language of the Romans “germani” means “genuine.”

The above certainly is a ethic qualifier. Maybe this wasn't the post you were referring to?

J.B. Bury-" Soon after 100BC southern Germany had been occupied, and they were attempting to flood Gaul. This inundation was stemmed by Julius Caesar." pg.5

I believe the Swabian (which was partly a Nordic ethnos) confederation had allied with the Arverni and was attempting a land grab in Gaul around 60 BC. This would have been at least 60 years, or about three human generations after the Cimbri migratation. This was why I made this line Bold so you may notice the date and understand this occurred well after the Cimbri move?

The Cimbri wandered by, this wasn't occupation. Had the Cimbri occupied this region, then he would have put down an earlier date. The Suebii(Sweboz) were invited by the Sequani in 71BC, and I'm sure they would have been there earlier then that, perhaps soon after 100BC.

Maybe we should revisit Caesar's Germans, rather than cite tertiary sources. So then Tell me, from your own read, what does Caesar say about his Germans?

He says they are different then the Celts, having different social structure, less advanced etc.

///The above statement fits not only with Caesars writings but also with archaeological findings of the Jastorf culture(attributed to Germanic speaking peoples) which was replacing the La Tene culture during this time period.///

It does fit, it means that the Germani(nordic as you put it) began to move into this particular area. This is why the Helvetii were being pushed out as said by Caesar.

Maybe you hadn't notice that many of the tribal names recorded in Ceasar's day, east of the Rhine, end up either west of the Rhine or gone altogether, by the end of the Julio-Claudians. These replaced by the namesakes of what became the hallmarks of the Deutsch-Germans

Meaning that they had been resettled by the Romans or they moved across? Again I'm not sure of your point here.

The part I underlined appears to be yours, as it may have confused others. Not good to interspace your's with other's opinions.

Good point, I'll try to be more careful of that.

Please read carefully the third paragraph; the segment you made bold. Are you a native English speaker?

I am a native English speaker.

John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-" One item must be an import, the Gunderstrup cauldron, which belongs to a tradition of art totally foreign to Denmark, but its origin on the lower Danube is almost universally agreed; it is worth noting the long tradition of exotic items being imported into Denmark fro this area, starting from as early as the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic around 4000 BC." pg.184

John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"These are exotic and high prestige goods, and so are difficult to parallel closely anywhere else, so to assume that because they are in 'Celtic' La Tene style they cannot have been made in 'Germanic' Denmark is obviously false logic. With more prosaic objects we can see that local products were often following the mainstream of central and western artistic traditions." pg184

Collis is saying that some of the objects found in the La Tene style could have been made locally except the Gunderstrup cauldron.

John Collis-The Celts:Origins, Myths & Inventions-"In brief, in Denmark we have a group of probably Germanic-speaking people with burial rites and material culture which are considerably different from those living further south, but who were using and manufacturing metalwork with La Tene forms and decorations."pg.185

What Collis is saying is that the people living in Denmark were probably German speaking but had a different culture then that of the La Tene culture(Celts). I don't see a contradiction in what Collis is saying.

I hope I didn't misunderstand you on the things I answered.

The Celto-Germanic Nordwestblock culture on the Rhine indeed is not the same as that of Thuringia, despite a similar Celtic presence.

Has the Nordwestblock become more excepted now?
For the rest of your post I agree with you, though there certainly was for me, new information.

As I'm still trying to finish another post, my response will be slow or non-existent till I finish it.

[cmacq]

What your calling Nordic is to me the same as Germani.

Right, your understanding of something...

I tried to be as clear as I could. I understand this is a complex subject, and I do not want to be curt or cruel, so as you say you understood Blitz's postings better, please read them again. Here to help you I've posted below, the one where he addresses this subject, and will bold the important parts.

Posted in this thread by blitzkrieg80
If anyone does not know, my stance on the term 'German', it is that it is a propaganda tool of Caesar used to enlist legitimacy to his campaigns, where before it had been a designation for tribes in hinterland (hardy, fell), mostly associated with the Rhine and Gaul because of the occupation of those lands by Celtic tribes and the impressive and sophisticated influence of Halstatt/La Tene. No Germanic speaker calls themselves 'German' in their own language and there is no language which uses a related modern cognate. It pains me that Spain is called Espagne on the Olympics in the USA, but Deutschland is Germany WTF!? Anyways, the Germanic peoples (not Germans) had begun mixing with the indigenous populations of West and Central Europe for some time, to a greater degree in some areas than others, which would foreshadow the shaping of our modern Europe. An ethnos does not travel overnight and a gens level substantiates more influence in these developments than credit is given. Also, we all realize there must have been pre-Indo-Europeans to greater or lesser degrees, admitting that quite a bit of the empowerment of Indo-European culture is due to various levels of integration with them.

------------------
Again, please read carefully as this may appear to be a subtle distinction. Still, it is critical to the understanding of this subject. I respectively propose that if you can not get over this hump, your continued posts on this subject will add little to the debate. Additionally, as this seems to be your modus operandi, if you could shorten your posts by addressing fewer topics concerning the direction of the debate, it would make reading them helpful.

Thank you

[MeinPanzer]

Right, I've looked at the Thracio-Kelt examples as well. While I must say the manufacturing techniques are very similar, and some similar motifs are used, the overall execution of this style (Thracio-Kelt) appears to demonstrate a more ridged or stronger Hellenistic influence. The execution on the Gundestrup for example, almost looks early 3rd or 4th century northern Gaulish. I don't think Kaul and Martens were being totally upfront on that point.

The stylistic qualities of the cauldron have been discussed to death at this point. In that selfsame issue of Acta Archaeologica, Kaul discusses the argument that the cauldron was produced in Gaul (which has been for a long time the most prominent opposing theory) extensively. Having reviewed the secondary writings on the topic, I agree with Kaul and his conclusions.

Then there are other examples from Denmark which do not display the Thracio-Kelt style at all.

Which indicates nothing one way or the other on the issue. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the peoples in Denmark obtained luxury goods exclusively from the Balkans.

Then as always, there is the problem of the composition on the Gundestrup; what the iconography displayed? If indeed it was swag, tribute, trade, or a gift made in Romania, as I explained above, why did it depict a practice documented among the Cimbri?

There is nothing on the Gundestrup cauldron or in the nature of the cauldron itself that is exclusively Cimbri in character. Similar cauldrons have been found all over western and central Europe (including fragments from the Balkans and the Czech republic).

Are Kaul and Martens telling us there was some type of familial relationship (shared set of customs and believes) between the Cimbri and Thracio-Kelts? Of course that would redirect your rebut and I don't think you want to go there.

Of course not, and I think you are entirely missing the point. No direct cultural or familial link is being drawn between the Cimbri as possible procurers of the cauldron and the Scordisci other than the suggestion of an alliance, merely a parsimonious explanation for how it ended up in Jutland.

This line may even reopen the Cimmeri issue and I'm sure no one is ready for that either. No, I think the more pratical explanation is the 'commissioned' thesis; the only question is were the craftsmen present in Romania, Gaul, or Denmark.

It doesn't reopen the Cimbri issue since this has already been widely discussed in the past. And as for the last point, the already mentioned extensive scholarly discussion on the topic now suggests that it was made by Scordisci craftsmen in northwestern Bulgaria or southwestern Romania. To suggest that such craftsmen travelled to Denmark is a needless stretch and utterly farfetched.

[cmacq]

Having reviewed the secondary writings on the topic, I agree with Kaul and his conclusions.

Regrettably, as you have made up your mind about this subject, there appears little more that you can add to the debate.

As these are only arguments designed to support or reject a thesis, I for one have not decided one way or the other, nor am I personally invested in the out come, and thus I remain open minded. Such is the nature of archaeology and historiography in theory.

[MeinPanzer]

Regrettably, as you have made up your mind about this subject, there appears little more that you can add to the debate.

As these are only arguments designed to support of reject a thesis, I for one have not decided one way or the other, nor am I personally invested in the out come, and thus I remain open minded.

I'm curious, how many of the published works discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron and its origins have you read?

[cmacq]

By published works discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron, I assume you mean those that focus on this artifact? As you know every basic treatise on the Euro IA mentions it to some degree.

Sorry if this takes awhile, I'm compiling a list, and doing two other things.

[blitzkrieg80]

It seems to me that we all agree on these things to quite a degree, so this thread is odd, but entertaining. I have enjoyed many posts from everybody in this thread.

Frostwulf has made significant contributions to EB threads with good logic and better evidence and citation. I think you guys have a misunderstanding- I know I love 'throwing down' a little and so, do some of the same, but as I said, we all seem to agree. Cmacq, I have enjoyed reading much of your comparative work in threads, you also do the good practice of logic, evidence, and citation. Was there really an argument going on about Norsemen in Roman times in the first place? It doesn't seem like it to me. I think everybody has made good points on that.

Anyone notice the absence of the instigator of drama and unsupported claims of doubt in EB representation of Sweboz?

btw, Nordwestblock isn't necessarily widely accepted, I have no idea- I think it makes sense, especially considering the physical material and linguistic evidence I have read.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Anyone notice the absence of the instigator of drama and unsupported claims of doubt in EB representation of Sweboz?

Yes and gladly so.
.

[SaFe]

.

Yes and gladly so.
.

Seconded...

[Anthony II]

The progression of specific elements of material culture associated with the late phases of Halstatt culture from southeast to the west, northwest, and north does not support a proposed early southward expansion from Scandinavia. Neither does the progression of the LaTene nor that of the early phase of the Halstatt.

Sdk80, I can get very detailed on this subject, but it will only add to disprove your thesis of an early Nordic southward expansion into Denmark and northern Germany. The reason I didn't want to address the direction this thread was heading is because this is a typical quasi-national socialist view of the subject.

Agree. From what I’ve observed on these forums, there appears to be a general consensus amongst many here that there existed a huge generic Nordic / Germanic 'volk' that invaded very early in the period and slaughtered all of the generic 'La Tene Celts' in their path due to an innate superiority / marshal prowess.

Again, I hope this line is not a case of a 'modern German tail/tale wagging an Old Norse dog?'

Often wondered that myself

I hope your not going to get into the "your a nazi" innuendo's because I might disagree with you. I have already been through that and don't care to go through it again. If you disagree with my information that is fine, but don't label me because of a disagreement. My interest is purely academic.

Sounds terrible, when did this happen?

The only one who brought up nationalism is sadly yourself. Beside your comments i didn't noticed anything about this thread being nationalistic… I really enjoyed reading blitzkrieg's, Frostwulf's and other comments

A fish may never know that he lives in water..

So true cmacq

All of these Hjortspring swords are the IA Nordic type; single edged..

I’d tend to disagree there.

I can only repeat what more learned men then I have said:
J.B. Bury…
H.D. Rankin …
The Oxford Classical Dictionary….

In this thread there are points I didn't get...at all.

First Collis says one thing, then says the reverse, then couters back again. It is obvious he doesn't actually present evidence, as this is an overview of others opinions. I have this book as well, but this section is little more than once again, his or others opinions. The part I underlined appears to be yours, as it may have confused others. Not good to interspace your's with other's opinions. Please read carefully the third paragraph; the segment you made bold. Are you a native English speaker?

Having looked over these forums, it appears that Frostwulf does this sort of thing alot. If I'm not wrong, the general modes operandi involves unintentionally posting large amounts of conflicting data in an attempt to support a given position.


Excellent post by the way cmacq

I have enjoyed many posts from everybody in this thread.

Frostwulf has made significant contributions to EB threads with good logic and better evidence and citation. Cmacq, I have enjoyed reading much of your comparative work in threads, you also do the good practice of logic, evidence, and citation.

True on Cmacq. Whilst I don’t agree with everything he’s said, he’s argued his position most admirably. No offence as he is obviously a close friend..but Frostwulf, I just found confusing, vague and clutching at straws.

Anyone notice the absence of the instigator of drama and unsupported claims of doubt in EB representation of Sweboz?

lol ..poor sdk80, EB mods probably banned his ass!


my2bob

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

poor sdk80

I was thinking of somebody else.
.

[MeinPanzer]

By published works discussing the Gundestrup Cauldron, I assume you mean those that focus on this artifact? As you know every basic treatise on the Euro IA mentions it to some degree.

Sorry if this takes awhile, I'm compiling a list, and doing two other things.

Yes, I'm referring to works specifically discussing the provenance of the cauldron. Because you state that you have not decided "one way or the other," I'm curious how informed your opinion is- have you read Klindt-Jensen 1950, Berciu 1969, Powell 1971, Olmstead 1979, Grooth 1987, Hedeager 1988, or Hachmann 1991? Because when you read these sources, and their extensive arguments and counterarguments culminating in the latest research, the debate is no longer as open ended as you seem to make it out to be.

[Anthony II]

.

I was thinking of somebody else.
.

Oh, who ?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Somebody else.
.

[Jaywalker-Jack]

That is not a digeridoo but an ancient celtic instrument (like Alexandros said), that resembles a horn.

Sorry to nitpick but those intruments were from pre-Celtic Ireland, its a mistake to say they are "celtic".

[blitzkrieg80]

lol ..poor sdk80, EB mods probably banned his ass!

my2bob

what you talking about, Psy2bob?

EB mods don't ban, unless you refer to individuals who harass for immature and sick pleasure, going on campaigns of self-loathing where continual antagonism of good people is rewarding to them in some way, dragging those who want nothing to do with them down, for no reason but for the fact that he feels so low. No point in feeding at the bottom by choice, so 'poor'- wh-wha-WHAT!?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Glad I'm not the only one to think Anthony II is...somebody else.
.

[antiochus epiphanes]

.
Glad I'm not the only one to think Anthony II is...somebody else.
.

more then a few of us...

[Frostwulf]

I understand this is a complex subject,

Its not the "complexity" of the subject, its your way of conveying information that I have a problem with. This is not an insult, the problem could easily be me.

Additionally, as this seems to be your modus operandi, if you could shorten your posts by addressing fewer topics concerning the direction of the debate, it would make reading them helpful.

This is a fair request though I don't think there is any point for me to continue with this. We disagree on the Cimbri, Denmark etc. and I feel confident on my stance on these subjects as they are backed up by the majority of academia.

btw, Nordwestblock isn't necessarily widely accepted, I have no idea- I think it makes sense, especially considering the physical material and linguistic evidence I have read.

It does make sense to me as well, but not having an in depth knowledge of the subject its hard to say what there would be to counter it.

Blitz- I think we have the same thought on the 'Germani' but I would like to clarify some things. My thought is that around 100BC the 'Germani'(cmacq's nordic) came into the area in southern Germany and the Rhine area. I believe we agree on this part.
I think the part that you might disagree with is that there may have been earlier movements around 250BC or so. My belief is that these 'Germani' moved into northern Holland area and mixed in with the people already there(Celts,Nordwestblock? etc.), hence the Belgae(or at least some of the Belgic tribes).

my2bob

How sad.

[blitzkrieg80]

hmm... I don't get it- Nordic would be like Proto-Norse (450 CE) so I don't see how the Germanic peoples can be anything different than Germanic before then? I suppose I believe that Common Germanic is Nordic, whether material culture from another civilization is used or not. The Indo-Europeans are all pretty Nordic, although mixing with other peoples brings interesting combinations. The Yueh-Chi didn't have Celts in their midst- they were simply Indo-European and thus the Chinese describe them with the same traits (as many describe Celt, Slav and German alike): red/fair hair, tall, ruddy- from a similar origin (linguistically PROVEN) so I don't have a problem with Halstatt/La Tene being dominant at the time (especially when one looks those cultures- what kickass culture!). The Germans undoubtedly mixed early into the fringe of nearby Celtic borders, just as many other peoples have throughout time. I seriously doubt any "no man's land" existed in Europe very long after the Ice Age (damn Global Warming! civilization would have been so much better without ) whether or not that there are gaps in the amount we know, small in the scale of history, because unless the land is radioactive (or artic)- somebody's been there. So we don't see an emergence of conflicting 'Nordic' material culture until 100BCE-100 CE? That simply means there was no heavy pressure for local Celtic populations to adapt their lifestyle, ect. to their new neighbors. Similarly, the effect of immigration from India on the USA might not be very measurable until we have Curry Restaurants everywhere, like The United Kingdom of Great Britain, who seems to talk about eating curry every time I hear about it on the BBC- that's so cool! (seriously- I like curry)

I think the part that you might disagree with is that there may have been earlier movements around 250BC or so. My belief is that these 'Germani' moved into northern Holland area and mixed in with the people already there(Celts,Nordwestblock? etc.), hence the Belgae(or at least some of the Belgic tribes).

No, I pretty much agree with that- I just don't think we get to call them 'Germanic' (even if mixed, which they certainly were)

My thing is the identifier 'German', which never meant anything close to 'Deutsch.'

[cmacq]

After the teaser, I'd planned this to be the second stage of the debate.

So that everyone out there understands, the Nordwestblock is more or less an archaeo-historic concept with a strong linguistic element. It was proposed to explain the relatively common cultural expression found within what is now the Netherlands, Belgium, northern France (around Calais), and northwestern Germany. It roughly covers the period from the Bronze Age to the beginning of the Christian era. I think the theory was initially developed by Hachmann, Kossack, and Kuhn in the early 60s.

As I'm a Southwestern US archaeologist, whos only interest in Old World Arch was the Eastern Med and Near Eastern LBA, I was totaly unaware of this concept until well after I had come to basically the same conclusion. I can't speak to the linguistic aspect, yet I've objectively reviewed alot of the available site report data (which is actually considerable and covers detailed information concerning ceramics, architecture, burials, and metallurgy) and I think that as far as the LBA to at least EIA, archaeologically the concept is irrefutable. Basically, local expression of Hallstatt with about as much LaTene as that found in Denmark. This concept also provides some answers for many of the historic questions: such as the 'all Gaul is divided,' line.

I hinted at this concept above, as it is a 300 pound gorilla, and it appears that blitz immediately picked up on it. However, based on the archaeological data, I suggest that this expression was most pronounced from the LBA, while its end is somewhat indistinct. Additionally, while I would not include this area within the Nordwestblock, the archaeology of the Danish peninsula, at the same time, appears very similar. In fact I might suggest that this area, if not included within the Nordwestblock, should be considered a related yet discrete culture area.

Please see

Hans Kuhn, Rolf Hachmann and Georg Kossack, Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten. 1962
(The People between the Germans and Kelts)

I think Kossack just died a few years ago?

[Anthony II]

what you talking about, Psy2bob?

Ah yes, poor Psycho. Had his ass banned because allegedly some in EB found his presence here too threatening. Or so he said, I'm his cousin.

.
Glad I'm not the only one to think Anthony II is...somebody else.
.

My, someone is perceptive! Ok, yes I admit I'm not really Anthony II. My real name is actually Bhuail Tá leabhar agam Antaine Moíthimtengae. I just thought an Anglo-Latin name Anthony would be easier and 'Anthony' had already been taken.

Anyway, this is all a bit off topic. Lets get back to this discussion on the Germans.


my2bob

[Frostwulf]

@blitzkrieg80-Seems then we are of the same conclusion on the 'Germani'. The reason I used the term norse was of cmacq designation for them. The Roman term 'Germani' is perfectly fine for the peoples who moved from southern Sweden area and spread from there.

Please see

Hans Kuhn, Rolf Hachmann and Georg Kossack, Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten. 1962
(The People between the Germans and Kelts)

I guess I had it backwards, I was thinking it was more linguistic evidence and not so much material. Thanks for the reference.

[blitzkrieg80]

I had this idea recently and I want to know what everyone thinks:

FOR EB2:

REMOVE Rugi town / province (add land to Sweboland or Pomerania/Polish coast province)

ADD Hermunduri town / provinces in the mysterious gap North of between the Chatti (Volcae) and the Boii on the map.

RENAME Swebotraustastamnoz town (which currently means 'Suebi Allied stem') to something with the Semnones

[SaFe]

@Blitz

Well, considering the Rugii i agree with you - give the Sweboz a little more landmass.
Hermundurii inclusion is a good idea, though they simply don't appear before BC in any reasonable fashion.
Also the adding of towns is a problem for germanic tribes, because you know that they germanic people simply almost had none that would be worth considering to be named towns or cities. I would even go so far and say it is totally against germanic tradition in the EB timeframe to live in gathered places like oppidas or towns. Only with contatct/conflict with the romans towns appeared in Germania, so adding towns would be totally unhistorical. The Chattii had two towns of reasonable size, Mattium is one of them, but also those were populated only after contact with romans.
Swebotraustastamnoz means by my translation book Allied tribes of the Sweboz b.t.w.

[blitzkrieg80]

I figured out why there is confusion with the term Nordic: scholars are misinterpreting data, because the Norse were really outcropping colonies into harsher climates, thus they are the latest Germanic to pop around the rest of Europe. The East Germanic language is not really similar (although some) to Northern Germanic, thus why East splits early from North-West Germanic in the family tree. The Migration Age was triggered by the same Germanic peoples in Central/West Europe appearing time and again under different tribal names (with those which stuck- Schwaben, Thüringen, Hessen) but this time they had impetus and organized tribal structure, although population undoubtedly helped (so much that we have a lot of far-off places named after them: Allemagne, Wessex, Essex, Sussex, Sachsen-Anhalt, Nieder Sachsen, Friesland, East Anglia, England, France). The Goths and Huns gained their number under their title and banner, it is not like Germany was ever abandoned: they lost identity easily because you ARE whoever you fight for, especially with supratribal / advanced organization as seen in the Reiks [emperor/warlord rather than king (Go. kindins)] or Khagan, or better example: Romans.

Denmark's islands were inhabited by Germanic tribes of the Low German / Anglo-Frisian sort, btw, Nerthus Cult worshipers, although I'm certain they did not lose their original Germanic pantheon completely. The Norse developed out of fringe contact with the pre-Indo-Euro inhabitants and other nearby influences, and that is why there is a great mythology centered around a marriage alliance between the two families of gods- Vanir and Aesir. The Aesir represent the typical Norse gods, but the Vanir are represented almost purely as fertility, and a double set of fertility twins- Freyr and Freya, with Njord as their father who is thought to be the male counterpart to Nerthus, a Celtic fertility goddess in Denmark (Angleland- the original England), which points to non-Indo-Euro because of strong Neolithic Earth Mother worship and absence of war gods, although the Norse certainly developed them in that direction.

sorry, gotta go- will respond to you later, SaFe