About Proto-Germanic

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn:

"The reason he is convinced of that "because an archaeological continuity between the Jastorf culture, its successors and offshoots, and populations known from Roman sources to have been Germanic can be demonstrated." Imo absolutely right."

We all know by now that archaeological continuity alone CANNOT testify for linguistic continuity. Archaeological continuity is evident everywhere, but linguistic situation is almost everywhere quite recent.

Evidence by Ringe:
1. Ringe talks about Jastorf as the traditionally supported homeland for Proto-Germanic. 
2. Ringe apparently does not even consider Germanic loanwords in Finnic and Saami - or can you find such a mention from him? 

Tradition is not a strong argument, as we all know.
Omitting important evidence means that the result can be wrong.

Ringe supposes this because of:

a. an archaeological continuity between the Jastorf culture, its successors and offshoots, and populations known from Roman sources to have been Germanic can be demonstrated.

b.dialect geography the area of origin is the area with the most diversity.
See above.

Both seem legitimate to me.

And he spends attention to loanwords (the fact that you don't know, does this mean ypu are not familiar with this standard linguistic work with regard to PGMC????);

@Jaska Is there something here you cannot accept? Please try to explain your point as clearly as possible.

[Anglesqueville]

Rodoorn, what of many Ringe's works are you referring to? You should tell the source always when you quote someone. We are not telepaths here.

The last quote comes from "A Linguistic History of English Volume I From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic". "Rengas" and "Kuningas" are the two (2!) only allusions to Germanic loans to Finnish, and Saami is completely ignored. The point of view is very restrictively "constructivist".
edit: ... and the publication year is not 2017, but 2006.

Wisecrack, the quote is from the second revised edition in 2017.

Nope, I have the 2006 edition and the exact quote is inside, p. 149. Btw this version is archived: https://ia801802.us.archive.org/26/items...rmanic.pdf

[Jaska]

Rodoorn,
1. Ringe writes that the earliest dialectal split is between NwG and EG. Both are nowadays generally derived from Scandinavia. So, if you do not find some new evidence for their expansion from the south to the north, you should accept this view.

2. Ringe mentions only three early Germanic loanwords in Finnic ('ring', 'king', and 'lamb') and none in Saami. He does not seem yet (in 2006 anyway) to know the whole long continuity of contacts of Germanic with Finnic and Saami. This knowledge has only recently been acknowledged among the Western European Indo-Europeanists. So, you cannot hide behind outdated views which ignored these contacts.

3. Archaeological continuity can be followed also in Sweden, England, and other known Germanic regions. So, you cannot stare only at the continuity in Central Europe. We all know that despite the archaeological continuity, there cannot be linguistic continuity in all these regions. There is no reliable method which could help us to see from the archaeological material, which of these many continuities corresponds with the Germanic language lineage.

Is there something you cannot understand or accept?

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, what of many Ringe's works are you referring to? You should tell the source always when you quote someone. We are not telepaths here.

The last quote comes from "A Linguistic History of English Volume I From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic". "Rengas" and "Kuningas" are the two (2!) only allusions to Germanic loans to Finnish, and Saami is completely ignored. The point of view is very restrictively "constructivist".
edit: ... and the publication year is not 2017, but 2006.

Wisecrack, the quote is from the second revised edition in 2017.

Nope, I have the 2006 edition and the exact quote is inside, p. 149. Btw this version is archived: https://ia801802.us.archive.org/26/items...rmanic.pdf

Man that question was aimed at me, and I gave the honest answer.....tiring.

[Anglesqueville]

#563 > I don't want to speak for Jaska, but it seems to me that there is nothing controversial there. I have a vague memory of reading that the antiquity of "rengas" was perhaps not entirely obvious, due to the persistence of the "e" in some Norwegian dialects, but I am unable to give a reference, and in any case, it doesn't matter much, because that's not the problem. The problem is that you claim that Ringe takes Germanic-Finnic relations into account, and that is not true. He cites in passing two loanwords (out of several hundred) only in the context which is his in this part of his book, namely that of a certain vowel shift.  For the rest, in particular the question of the localization of the PGmc (a question which, I repeat, does not interest him), there is nothing in this book, nothing at all, that is to say, less than even in Udolph or Euler. For you, it's not a problem, but it's not everyone's opinion, and I can't help but quote Saarikivi and Holopainen once again:

"In conclusion, we point to the interrelatedness of location and dating of Proto-Germanic and Proto-Finnic. There are few reconstructed protolanguages in Europe with such intensive contacts, and the palaeolinguistic evidence suggesting nearly identical cultural characteristics of their prehistoric communities. Thus, the location and dating of these two protolanguages is largely dependent on each other."

(Saarikivi and Holopainen 2017)

edit: I just read Jaska's response. I missed "lammas".
edit edit: It would perhaps be less tiring and could start to be interesting if you explained to us how for your own thesis (which you will be kind enough to summarize in clear terms) the indisputable existence of intensive links between "Germanic" speakers (from pre-proto- to north-, without discontinuity) and Finnic speakers (pre- etc) does not constitute a problem ("no problemo"). Frankly, this is beyond me.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn,
1. Ringe writes that the earliest dialectal split is between NwG and EG. Both are nowadays generally derived from Scandinavia. So, if you do not find some new evidence for their expansion from the south to the north, you should accept this view.

2. Ringe mentions only three early Germanic loanwords in Finnic ('ring', 'king', and 'lamb') and none in Saami. He does not seem yet (in 2006 anyway) to know the whole long continuity of contacts of Germanic with Finnic and Saami. This knowledge has only recently been acknowledged among the Western European Indo-Europeanists. So, you cannot hide behind outdated views which ignored these contacts.

3. Archaeological continuity can be followed also in Sweden, England, and other known Germanic regions. So, you cannot stare only at the continuity in Central Europe. We all know that despite the archaeological continuity, there cannot be linguistic continuity in all these regions. There is no reliable method which could help us to see from the archaeological material, which of these many continuities corresponds with the Germanic language lineage. 

Is there something you cannot understand or accept?

1. NwG is attested to Roman Iron Age and the migration ages, it can be shown by runes indeed.

Ringe placed PGmc as the follow up in the form of NwG explicit in Schleswig. Ringe (2017):

Ringe writes in The development of Old English (2014):

"There is some evidence that North and West Germanic developed as a single language, Proto-Northwest Germanic, after East Germanic had begun to diverge. However, changes unproblematically datable to the PNWGmc period are few, suggesting that that period of linguistic unity did not last long. On the other hand, there are some indications that North and West Germanic remained in contact, exchanging and thus partly sharing further innovations, after they had begun to diverge, and perhaps even after West Germanic had itself begun to diversify."

Schleswig was in IA, Roman and Migration Time the seat of the Angli and southwards of it lived the Warini. According to Tacitus they were part of the tribes he called Northen Suebi, bounded by the same Nerthus cult. This was also part of Jastorf.

This one from archeologist Johan Nicolay (2007) gives the realms of Roman time and migration, is this linguistic relevant. Yes as you runes as sources this is the place to be for NWG, and central places like Gudme were places were cults were held, where there were gatherings, so communication, so language was essential in this all.

Again we se the area of Schleswig being part of this presumed NWG speaking area, with Gudme and Hole with (2021 the oldest found runes in Hole near Oslo), the Angles were part of (3) "the Gudme area":



2. I don't ignore that, never done! But the basic assumptions seems to be at your side they ignore it....that's more your own thing than mine. But this perfectly matches with pre-Germanic in NBA area and PGmc in Jastorf no problem. Even from the Schlei (Anglo area) the Finnic area is within reach by the way, as they were primal "zeelüü" as we say in Friso-Saxon.

3.  The archeological situation in Schleswig is indeed NBA> Jastorf a big archeological continuity. It was Schwantes, who coined Jastorf, himself who introduced in the thirties a LBA>IA influx of the Swedes, because of racialist reasons. Because of the archeological continuity in this area he was creative with the big thumb and made a hoax, in the autochtone graves man and woman were mingeld and the Swedish graves in Jastorf were strictly man vs woman. Later on completely debunked. But the hoax staid.

PS archeological continuity in England (and Friesland)? No, we see here explicit in migration time the Anglo-Saxon influx.....and of the NwG, that turned into old English, old Frisian, old Saxon.

[JonikW]

Jaska and Angles, I mentioned in my last post that your observations on the Finnic contacts have persuaded me that a neighbouring part (or parts) of Sweden spoke PGmc. I also feel Rodoorn has made some good observations about the region to the south. Under current linguistic theories, how far might the PGmc language zone have extended beyond where you envisage its focal point in Sweden? Is it completely beyond the bounds of current theory that it could have included much of the area beyond that had also belonged to the earlier Nordic Bronze Age (say the Baltic German coast and/or Jutland?

[Anglesqueville]

JonikW, your question is obviously of the greatest interest, but also of the greatest difficulty. It is made up of two closely linked questions: 1) that of the diffusion of this particular dialect that we call PGmc, and 2) that of the dialectalization of PGmc as a proto-language.
As for the first, it relates to the general problem of dialect diffusion from an initial pole. In recent decades, many more or less mathematized models have been proposed. The problem is of great complexity. The most promising thing I've read is https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/1...sos.171446 (along with the authors' previous work, cited in reference)
As for the second, your question could translate into: how long was PGmc spoken in the transition zone with the CNE zone (if it was ever actually spoken there) before beginning its dialectalization in West Germanic? I don't have an answer to this question, and I don't know if there can be one. The only thing clear to me is a tautology: this area (roughly final Jastorf) is where dialectalization begins, once the East Germanic branch is separated. For the rest, including the existence or non-existence of a NWGmc node, I have nothing precise or serious to say in the current state of my reflection, and I have high hopes for it from all of you, especially those here who are more familiar with the language of ancient futhark than I am.

[PopGenist82]

An essential point to grasp is that the stratification of borrowings implies that these colonies maintained constant and close contact with the source of the Germanic borrowings. Consequently, this source could not have been situated far from the Finnish coast. We find ourselves in a potentially unparalleled situation where linguistic arguments alone decisively contribute to localizing not only a proto-language but an entire segment of linguistic evolution. This evolutionary span likely commenced centuries before the proto-language and extends through its dialectal stages.

I believe that immediately (must I?  no just joking   And I'm also convinced that innovations from a bilingual situation could have been "thrown into the Germanic network".

Nevertheless I guess we have in the Germanic lineage very big gaps!

Just a quick tour along the "Germanic fields". For convenience, keep the Roman layout for a while.

Rhine-Weser
To start between Rhine and Weser, very few people know about it. We know that the Franks, as a conglomerate of the Germanic tribes between the Rhine and Weser, have kept that torch high. But to what extent? They were eager to blend in with Roman culture, including its remnants. Old Dutch alone is full of Latinisms. We saw the emergence of tribes related to the Suebi, such as the Batavi, in the river area at the end of the Roman period, which were clearly Celtic in origin. In the North Dutch area the Chauci (according to some also Suebi/ Jastorf related) went into Groningen and Northern Drenthe (Nieuwhof passim). The old Frisii probably - my impression - spoke a kind of NW-Block (Kuhn 1962) language. I don't want to go as far as Schrijver talking about a North Sea Celtic related to Britonic and Gallic. But it is unlikely that their language resembled that of the Suebi or Jutes, at least not at that time. This changed with the migration period and the Frisians moved fully into the NW Germanic camp.


Elbe
Along the Elbe the situation is even more unclear. And this is a stark contrast to the position that the Suebi took as a whole. From the early IA they were the key player along the Elbe (Hamburg-Bohemia and yet we know very little about their language (despite what Orentil sent, which was basically the same conclusion). The spread of the Suebi towards what is now southern Germany was decisive for High German (then and certainly now the group with the most speakers!). So a group with the most impact but we have the least knowledge about it...it is far too easy for me to assume that they derived their language entirely from Scaninavian. By doing so we would most likely be doing violence to reality.

Scandinavia (NE)
You and Jaska are probably best acquainted with the Scandinavian situation (say, the NE part). We know relatively much about "old Norse", as you also indicated, this formed a major input into reconstructed proto-Germanic. And with all due respect, you do get a variation on "garbage in garbage out"  In the migration period (the Danes from Scania) and afterwards (Viking period) this was strongly expansive.

Scandinavia (SW)
Then we have the SW part of Scandinavia, the picture I showed yesterday. Norway, the Jutes, the Northern Suebi (Angli, Warini etc) of Tacitus. Here we find the core of NW Germanic, as it was apparently spoken in IA Roman times and the Migration Period. This made a jump to Friesland, England etc and was in turn replaced by the old Norse.


Just a quick scan, with little pretension, but to indicate that we still have very large gaps in our knowledge on crucial aspects of the Germanic lineage....

The expansion of 'Suebi' is interesting. It's associated with Großromstedt horizon, which is the movement of lower Elbe groups into central-southern Germany, esp Thuringia, over remnant La Tene groups. Further south, into Slovakia & Bohemia, Czech/Slovak archaeologists see it as a clear migration, probably into depopulated lands. 

Again, migrations from the Elbe region led to the development of Lugian-Vandals (Przeworsk) and Gotho-Gepid (Oksywie-Wielbark) group. So its very much focussed from the lower Elbe region, probably the key zone developing from the local Urnfield horizon. 

I think the formation of  Rhine-Weser are most difficult to understand.

The ('Southern') Suebi expanded even broader: to nowadays Niedersachen, Nordrhein Westfalen, Hessen by the Cherusci and  Chatti.  This was also the case in the Central Dutch area by the Batavi (also Suebi derivative) and in the North Dutch area specific Groningen and Drenthe by the Chauken (according to some Suebi/Jastorf related). In fact they affected already in Roman times large parts of nowadays Deutsch and Dutch area. In migration time they spread all over the South German place (unto parts of Southern Europe....)

The Rhine-Weser Germanics were in fact represented by the Franks. They were (see Seebold 2013) in fact a grouping that was a reaction towards the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons around the North Sea. This "resistance group" consisting of Chamavi, Bructeri, Salli (nowadays Salland-province Overijssel- gave most probably the name to the Salian Franks) and parts of the old Frisii and Chaucii!! They most probably spoke a kind of NW block language (may be, speculative, most related to a kind of pre-Germanic or undivided  NW IE). But they were already in Roman times eager foederati so they were partly integrated Latinii (super prestige at that times). They also went SW wards and became the founders of France....which made them even more mixed with the Gallo-Roman culture.....

The Franks develop as a 'macro-group' in the wake of Rome's ''3rd century crisis'' as a reformulation of earlier tribes (Chatti, Chauci, etc). The Anglo Saxon invasions were in late 4th/5th century
The Rhine-Weser Germani are a new formation in the final centuries BC, after the collapse of the Celtic Oppida culture. The main formation of these groups comes from Elbe Germanics, as you say, but also migrations from the Oder-Vistula reigon (Przeworsk culture) + whatever 'Celts' remained. 

More generally, the main departure of Elbe Germanic and Eastern Germanic (Gothic) is the lower Elbe, this is beyond doubt. 

Thinking back to the Old Frisians, and a point Jonik made, it makes me think that proto-germanic at least in some form, really is a broader Bronze Age phenom. Your old discussions abotu Sogel-Wolde are proven, as there is continuity of the Nordsee Germani with the MBA, via Urnfield and then colonization of the terpen. The Romans might have called them "Germani", but they cant have brainwashed them into worshipping Germanic Gods !

NB: this is not a “Jastorf model”, as can be seen

As an example, we can cite how linguists cannot actually agree on the ''internal treeness' of language families, but Population Anthropology now can give very clear narratives. We have even had great linguists whose linguistic analysis showed that Germanic is closely related to Albanian, but we know in reality that is non feasible.

proto-Germanic being rich in maritime technology is very interesting and fits with their Bronze Age forays, but it doesnt mean it all sprang from eastern Sweden, that risks being an reductio ad absurdum. And I won’t get into the herein cited Uralic-Germanic contacts, because the the entire platform needs to shift  in time & place by 1000 years and 3000 km 

[Dewsloth]

Thinking back to the Old Frisians, and a point Jinik made, it makes me think that proto-germanic at least in some form, really is a broader Bronze Age phenom. Your old discussions abotu Sogel-Wolde are proven, as there is continuity of the Nordsee Germani with the MBA, via Urnfield and then colonization of the terpen. The Romans might have called them "Germani", but they cant have brainwashed them into worshipping Germanic Gods !

So maybe FTDNA was on to something after all

Zwaagdijk 26830 was a man who lived between 1620 - 1311 BCE during the European Bronze Age and was found in the region now known as Wervershoof-Zwaagdijk, Noord-Holland, Netherlands.
He was associated with the Bronze Age Germanic cultural group.
His direct maternal line belonged to mtDNA haplogroup H3v+16093.
Reference: I26830 from Patterson et al. 2021

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...81/ancient

[PopGenist82]

Thinking back to the Old Frisians, and a point Jinik made, it makes me think that proto-germanic at least in some form, really is a broader Bronze Age phenom. Your old discussions abotu Sogel-Wolde are proven, as there is continuity of the Nordsee Germani with the MBA, via Urnfield and then colonization of the terpen. The Romans might have called them "Germani", but they cant have brainwashed them into worshipping Germanic Gods !

So maybe FTDNA was on to something after all

Zwaagdijk 26830 was a man who lived between 1620 - 1311 BCE during the European Bronze Age and was found in the region now known as Wervershoof-Zwaagdijk, Noord-Holland, Netherlands.
He was associated with the Bronze Age Germanic cultural group.
His direct maternal line belonged to mtDNA haplogroup H3v+16093.
Reference: I26830 from Patterson et al. 2021

https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna...81/ancient

I hope to look at the Dutch data soon, perhaps in a thread here. Not much was said about them in the OP, as they were used as comparanda for Britain

[Jaska]

"People need to be realistic about linguistics, as it is not a science. - - As an example, we can cite how linguists cannot actually agree on the ''internal treeness' of language families"

Mutatis mutandis, because geneticists cannot agree on their qpAdm and Admixture results and the results are different in every study, we can conclude that genetics is not a science, it is an art of guessing. Interesting logic, which leaves for us no sciences at all.

[PopGenist82]

"People need to be realistic about linguistics, as it is not a science. - - As an example, we can cite how linguists cannot actually agree on the ''internal treeness' of language families"

Mutatis mutandis, because geneticists cannot agree on their qpAdm and Admixture results and the results are different in every study, we can conclude that genetics is not a science, it is an art of guessing. Interesting logic, which leaves for us no sciences at all.

That’s not really the case, apart from debates on what are essentially minutiae (such as ‘how CHG arrived to the steppe’), or overt omissions which have been glaringly obvious to the broader community. In terms of the big picture, each publication adds details to previous rather than upturning. And these have quite clearly sorted previous scenarios based on archaeological or linguistic inferences into probable and not probable. So of course there’ll be some who aren’t thrilled with aDNA. There are some who quite adaptable, such as David Anthony who has openly said that his previously preferred homeland for Indo-Europeans in the Volga region doesn’t seem to be supported & somewhere further west should be searched for. Kudo’s to him. To be a wise man one doesn’t haven’t to be right all the time, just know when they might be wrong.

[Jaska]

PopGenist82:
"That’s not really the case, apart from debates on what are essentially minutiae (such as ‘how CHG arrived to the steppe’), or overt omissions which have been glaringly obvious to the broader community. In terms of the big picture, each publication adds details to previous rather than upturning."

The same is true also for linguistics. At the same time, there will always be subjects open for different interpretations in linguistics and genetics. This cannot nullify their status as scientific disciplines, because there are also very solid and permanent views and results in those disciplines.
 
You cannot just pick the most speculative parts of linguistics and judge the whole discipline on that basis. You must compare it to the most speculative parts of genetics. Most importantly, you should first know and understand linguistics, before you could try to criticize it.

P.S. This is off-topic, so perhaps we need to move this discussion to another thread.

[Rodoorn]

Jaska:

The Franks develop as a 'macro-group' in the wake of Rome's ''3rd century crisis'' as a reformulation of earlier tribes (Chatti, Chauci, etc). The Anglo Saxon invasions were in late 4th/5th century
The Rhine-Weser Germani are a new formation in the final centuries BC, after the collapse of the Celtic Oppida culture. The main formation of these groups comes from Elbe Germanics, as you say, but also migrations from the Oder-Vistula reigon (Przeworsk culture) + whatever 'Celts' remained. 

More generally, the main departure of Elbe Germanic and Eastern Germanic (Gothic) is the lower Elbe, this is beyond doubt. 

Thinking back to the Old Frisians, and a point Jonik made, it makes me think that proto-germanic at least in some form, really is a broader Bronze Age phenom. Your old discussions abotu Sogel-Wolde are proven, as there is continuity of the Nordsee Germani with the MBA, via Urnfield and then colonization of the terpen. The Romans might have called them "Germani", but they cant have brainwashed them into worshipping Germanic Gods !

NB: this is not a “Jastorf model”, as can be seen

As an example, we can cite how linguists cannot actually agree on the ''internal treeness' of language families, but Population Anthropology now can give very clear narratives. We have even had great linguists whose linguistic analysis showed that Germanic is closely related to Albanian, but we know in reality that is non feasible.

proto-Germanic being rich in maritime technology is very interesting and fits with their Bronze Age forays, but it doesnt mean it all sprang from eastern Sweden, that risks being an reductio ad absurdum. And I won’t get into the herein cited Uralic-Germanic contacts, because the the entire platform needs to shift  in time & place by 1000 years and 3000 km 

@Jaska Thanks for the time and effort you spend in it Jaska, and I admire the guts to state something about a region that is fare from you heartland (I wouldn't dare to state such thing about Finland or Estonia).

That said I guess it's all a tad different from what you have stated. Imo the Franks and Saxons are indeed new in the end of Roman time and
were in fact a result of the militarization of the Germanics during Roman times. Warlords  with their Gefolgschaften, shaped umbrella tribes like the Saxons (with their specialization: being pirate, scum the North Sea and Channel), containing lads from the bottleneck (Schleswig, Jutes, ext. Danish Islands). The Franks were indeed containing  the original Germani tribes between Rhine and Weser. Even Clovis had although king of France, the attitude of a warlord, he ones slayed a not neatly dressed soldier to death to teach the military a lesson (scenes we unfortunately still now from nowadays warlords like Wagner c.s.).

See:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...09_392-402

The Franks were in fact heir of Harpstedt Nienburg culture, in yellow:



I agree with you that the Germani- as they were called by the Romans in casu the Franks- were most probably NOT proto or NW Germanic speaking.
I guess the definite Germanization in the sense of absorption of the Jastorf culture due to Suebi/ Elb Germanic expansion went in two phases.

Phase I. in which the most Eastern part of Harpstedt-Nienburg became an extension of Jastorf:




With green stripes if i'm well we can find Harpstedt and Nienburg. In IA this was obviously a target zone of the Germanic Suebi.

"At the end of the Hallstatt period and at the beginning or during the La Tène period, ramparts appeared as fortifications in Westphalia. The following are known as ring and section walls: the Babilonie (in the Wiehengebirge) from the 5th century, the Hünenburg (near Bielefeld) from the 4th/3rd century. the Grotenburg (near Detmold), the Piepenkopf, the Tönsberg (on the Weser) or the Herrlingsburg (near Schieder) from the 3rd century BC. Permanent settlement can be identified, so that some of the complexes can definitely be placed alongside the Celtic "oppida".

https://www.lwl.org/westfaelische-geschi...aettern=17

The castles are settlement and protection places, centers of settlement chambers, their existence is the result of an upper class that grew stronger during the La Tène period and thus of social change.

Some of the prehistoric fortifications date back to 300/250 BC. BC or at the turn of the era, horizons of destruction appeared. They are perhaps related to Germanic advances by the Jastorf culture or with advances by Elbe Germans into Westphalia."

Mark that these La Tene walls (against the Suebi/ Jastorf ) were at the Southside of Harpstedt-Nienburg (NOT A PART OF).
https://www.lwl.org/westfaelische-geschi...aettern=17

Phase II. The western part of Harpstedt Nienburg became Germanized in the early middle ages during migration ages, due to the most Northern Suebi (Tacitus) aka the Anglo-Saxons (as JonikW may be more correct called a Mischgruppe, so  a bric a brac of Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Danish Isles, Norwegians etc). These Anglo-Saxons were for sure NW Germanic speakers and introduces also the runes to Friesland. They caused that nowadays North Dutch like I are genetically cc the Anglo-Saxons of migration time.


Nicolay (2007):


I initially prepared a posting about NW Germanic & runes, the roots of it and a discovered a sourced which astonished me very much (because it also potential solved an old genetic puzzle of me!!! So to be continued.

PS about the Northern border of "Jastorf":

https://www.academia.edu/10276827/Jastor...f_Culture_