About Proto-Germanic

[Rodoorn]

The formation of the Nordic Bronze Age is not at all my subject on this thread, but as I am willing to admit that there may be a correlation (in my opinion really cryptic, but too bad), I bring out from my archives a fairly long quote from Engedal (specifically from his thesis), which sums up all aspects of the problem quite well. This will at least prove that I can be receptive to investigations carried out from a purely archaeological point of view, provided they are actually carried out. We are at least dealing here with an archaeologist who does not reduce everything here to migratory nonsense, but poses the problems of the Bronze Age in realistic terms, that is to say in terms of modalities of exchange and of trade routes.

"The time-span 1950-1300 BC of the European Bronze Age is conventionally interpreted as a three-step development, with east-west shifts in gravity and routes of importance (cf. Sherratt 1994; Kristiansen 1998: 368pp.; Jensen 2002: 61pp.):

1. the BA enters into a new mode north of River Danube between Rivers Oder and Elbe, with the appearance of the “Classical” Unetice Culture, the triangular metalhilted dagger, and the “princely” burials of Leubingen, Helmsdorf and Leki Male (Br. A1b, 1950-1700 BC)
2. gravity shifts southeastwards to the Carpathians with the emergence of the Hajdüsâmson-Apa horizon and the first swords (Br. A2, or “A2/B1”, or “A3”,1700/1600-1600/1500 BC)
3. gravity shifts westwards with the emergence of the Tumulus Culture, and a consolidation of sword-production with the octagon-hilted Tumulus sword (Br. B1- C2, 1600/1500-1300 BC)

The above three-step model is a generalization as are all models. In the following I shall try to demonstrate that it is a model in which the Nordic Zone is poorly integrated: i.e. it fails to incorporate Nordic groups as agents on the larger continental scene, it ignores the shear volume of bronze in the north and Nordic production of first generation swords and spearheads, and it fails to unravel the “Scandinavian-Mycenaean” enigma.

In my opinion, any attempt at a grand narrative of the Nordic Bronze Age should seek to remove the enigmatic veils that have surrounded three phenomena in particular:
1. The compensation that brought bronze and thus a Bronze Age to Scandinavia. Any exploration of either Alpine or Ural copper-networks leading into Scandinavia in the Bronze Age, will sooner or later strand as it cannot with equal certainty assert what went in the opposite direction.
2. The unique status of Southern Scandinavia in a European context, in the words of Kristiansen and Larsson: “(...) why this region [southern Scandinavia] – more than other regions in Europe – adopted a Mycenaean cultural ideom as a basis for the new Nordic Bronze Age society remains yet to be explained” (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005: 236). To this mystery could be added the volume of imported metal, the high levels of tin used in Nordic alloys, the volume of local production, the complexity of moulding techniques, and the volume of weapons deposited (swords and spearheads in particular). Henrik Thrane calculates a total of c. 2746 swords deposited in Southern Scandinavia and Schleswig in the EBA (Thrane 2005: 621). Taken at face value, this indicates the displacement of 2.7 tons of bronze from the Alps to Scandinavia, and the transformation of most of it through highly complex casting operations into swords, predominantly within 400 years from 1500 to 1100 BC.
3. The third enigma rests in the LBA and is evident mainly in Central Scandinavia: the appearance of looped axes with extended necks, the KAM (Akozino-Mälar) axes, in a belt from the North Sea in the west to Volga-Kama in the east (cf. Meinander 1985;Kuz’minych 1996). On the basis of the results in part I and II the magnitude of this phenomenon must be upgraded in light of both eastern designs and moulding procedures in the southwest corner of this belt, at Jæren in southwest Norway.
Below, I will attempt to unravel these enigmas and argue that fur was the main compensation for metal, and that NW Scandinavia was both a habitat of valuable fur bearing species as well as a gateway to such habitats. The second enigma linked to Alpine coppers and Mycenae I suggest was the result of the ability of South Scandinavian groups to successfully funnel fur from the north and amber from the Baltic, and bring these directly into the hands of both Mycenaeans and copper-producing groups in the Alpines. Finally, I shall argue that the third enigma linked to Volga-Kama and Uralian coppers, was merely another development in Scandinavia-Volga networks, and one that must be considered in light of the declining availability of bronze in SW Scandinavia and the rise of a competing fur trade network along Volga to Caucaus in the east.
(Engedal, Ø. 2010a: The Bronze Age of Northwestern Scandinavia. Thesis for degree dr. philos. University of Bergen)

One more word. It seems that a new slogan is appearing on the market: "Germanic Circuit". Speaking of circuits, and in line with Engedal's text, I believe it is time for us to remember that what characterizes (in an absolutely dramatic way) the culture of the Nordic Bronze, in Sweden in the 15th century, owes much or even most to Mediterranean cultures. For this I refer to Kristiansen, who clearly demonstrates that the astonishing sanctuary of Kivik denotes nothing less than the brutal flowering of a quasi-Mycenaean culture. I once wrote a lot about this on AG, but read Kristiansen instead, especially "The Rise of Bronze Age Society: Travels, Transmissions and Transformations". Just to be clear: neither I nor anyone else imagines Mycenaean settlements in Scandinavia in the 15th century, nor (arguably) any linguistic influence that would have accompanied the objects, paintings, rituals, etc.

Well of course! Nevertheless my impression is-see the text of VandKilde- that the Unetice koiné- or the beginning of the Germanic circuit- had much deeper impact on Southern Scandinavia, especially SW Scania.