Germanic art, artefacts and runes, BC-AD; news & discussion

[Rodoorn]

Hi all!

No new discoveries or anything, but just wanted to share a couple stray artefacts deriving from the Elp and Harpstedt-Nienburg cultures (or that will have been part of the respective cultures, based on chronology and location). In the case of the former archaeological culture, I happened to stumble upon the "Sonnenstein" (sunstones), three stones all found in Lower Saxony (specifically in Colnrade, Harpstedt, and Horsten) which probably date to the Bronze Age based on similarities with both British and Scandinavian petroglyphs dating to about the same time (I am fully in agreement with the assumed dating). Here is a photo of the Beckstedt sunstone, in my opinion the most visible of the uploaded photos of the sunstones on Wikipedia: 

As the German Wikipedia article(s) point out, there are artistic similarities with both Nordic and Atlantic traditions where concentric circles are incorporated into artwork, with cup and ring marks being especially close formally to the sunstones. The problem, however, is that most of the "concentric circles" that are incorporated into Atlantic petroglyphs are actually spiral shapes that tend to interlock with one-another, whereas these sunstones depict clearly delineated concentric circles emanating from a singular point in the middle of the rock, so I view this as very clear solar symbolism related either to the emanation of the sun's rays (or perhaps even the movement of the heavenly bodies and constellations, with the sun as the all-encompassing force around which all phenomena were organised, extrapolating from religious ideas propagated by the PIE forebears of these Bronze Age folks). In this context it is perhaps important to note objects such as Bronze Age shields from Denmark, as seen in the following link where the rings all radiate outward from the fess point and from bumps located around the outer portion of the shields: https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledg...e-shields/ Although there is no way of knowing for certain, considering the (probable) usage of these solar shields in religious ceremonies and the connection with the spring and summer seasons, I am tempted to imagine that these were either markers denoting centres of cultic activities (since Colnrade, Harpstedt, and Horsten are situated on the Hunte, a tributary of the Weser river) or perhaps protective community markers which would invoke the power of some sort of sun-god (in this context I have taken keen interest in an idea I have seen thrown around that Ingui-Freyr and Freyja were originally solar deities, of course having strong associations with fertility). In any case, the artwork neatly fits into the cultural milieu of Bronze Age Northern Europe; although the paper is quite outdated in several key regards (including the anti-migrationist stance RE: the spread of Bell Beaker innovations especially to Britain), I would like to share the following excerp from Fokkens, Fontijn, and Valentijn (2013), "Archaeology of the Dutch Twilight Zone" (https://www.academia.edu/6072124/Archaeo...light_Zone): 

"In the Bronze Age proper, after 2000 cal BC, the differences between the north and the south became more clearly visible again, but in a slightly different constellation than before. Again there were two larger interaction spheres. The Nordic sphere included the north-west and the east and seems to ‘end’ at the peat marshes that had developed in the IJssel-Vecht basin. The Atlantic sphere included the centre of the Netherlands and the eastern part of the river delta, the southern sand plateaus and the Meuse valley (cf. Fig. 1) (cf. Fokkens 2009:86). Differences between the two spheres are visible not only in the styles of houses, of burial and ceramic traditions and bronze objects, but also in deposition practices and in the structure of arable land (Table 1). With respect to farms, different traditions are visible (cf. Arnoldussen 2008). The familiar three-aisled Bronze Age farms developed from 1500 cal BC onwards, both in the Nordic and in the Atlantic sphere. In the north and east we find the Elp and Emmerhout-type farms that are also well known from northwest Germany, Schleswig-Holstein and Jutland (cf. Arnoldussen 2008:200). Stable partitions are generally visible in these farms. These are not visible in the Oss type houses of the southern tradition, but we still think that stables were also part of these farms (cf. Fokkens 2005b). In the river area and in West-Frisia farms were surrounded by ditches to catch water running from the roof. Apart from that, a fundamental difference is the place of the entrance. Elp, Emmerhout and Oss farms have entrances located on the long sides, dividing between the stable and ‘living’ quarters. In West-Frisia and in the river delta houses have entrances on each short side, one for livestock and one for people, perhaps. This may indicate that the types were experienced differently, maybe even had different cosmological connotations. Round houses do not occur in the Netherlands (cf. Theunissen 1999; Arnoldussen & Fokkens 2008). These are part of the tradition in the British Isles(e.g. Bewley 1994), and possibly also in northern France, though these reconstructions are not very convincing (cf. Bourgeois & Talon 2009:46)” (pp. 534-535).

This [i.e., shared aspects of material culture] illustrates a few important aspects of identity: i.e., that it is contextual (e.g. Eriksen 1992); that it is a process better called ‘identifying’ (cf. Brubaker 2004); and that it is related to action (cf. Somers 1994:615-6). Apparently people did not have a cultural identity, but given the social context they identified more or less with their neighbours across the delta. And, depending on how they identified, they actually acted differently towards each other: certain traditions and items were shared while others were not. This, of course, need not be true just for social relations across the delta, but also for social relations on each side of it. That people shared in, e.g. Nordic traditions and consumed Nordic style objects does not mean that they had a Nordic identity. Rather they identified in such a way that, for instance, exchange of Northern metals was deemed possible. It does not mean that people identified fully: cultural differences between them still existed and might have been expressed, affecting the social relationship and consequently actions. And we should not only think of identities as a system of Chinese boxes (cf. Eriksen 1992:172; Jones 1997:100), as is often done (e.g. Kristiansen 1998, fig. 28). It is important to gain more insights into these processes of identification within networks, as they affected peoples’ activities and as such the dynamics of a network” (p. 536).

For what it's worth, I do think that the Elp and Hoogkarspel folks identified themselves with the Nordic network more generally, the difference being merely the face these were related microcultures situated within a macrocultural identity (a trade network, persisting into the Iron Age period and to some extent weakening after the full maturation and proliferation of Proto-Germanic speech, at least weakening for these northwestern folks). 

Moving onto the Iron Age, we have this earthenware mask found at Middelstum-Boerdamsterweg (taken from p. 659 of Fokkens (2005), The Prehistory of the Netherlands Volume 2): 


Link to book here:  The Prehistory of the Netherlands Volume 2 | Scholarly Publications (universiteitleiden.nl)

I know of no comparable masks in Jastorf or the Nordic Iron Age groups, so this find is quite remarkable - at a glance they remind me of some of the Mycenaean funeral masks or medieval Slavic masks (some of which I do know are forgeries), so I do wonder about whether they might be used in rituals revolving around communication with the dead (connected also to ancestor worship).

As we do not have much artistic evidence left from the Elp and Harpstedt-Nienburg cultures beyond weaponry and cinerary urns (at least not that I am currently aware of), these finds are exceptional and illuminate the rituals and beliefs that were in circulation in the relevant areas during the Bronze and Iron Age periods. Perhaps I will revisit these in the future with more thoughts, but in the meantime I hope this will suffice!

I guess for sure Elp as Harpstedt-Nienburg were part of a pre-Germanic culture.

Wiki:
"The Elp culture (c. 1800—800 BCE)[1] is a Bronze Age archaeological culture of the Netherlands having earthenware pottery of low quality known as "Kümmerkeramik" (also "Grobkeramik") as a marker. The initial phase is characterized by tumuli (1800–1200 BCE), strongly tied to contemporary tumuli in Northern Germany and Scandinavia, and apparently related to the Tumulus culture (1600–1200 BCE) in Central Europe. This phase was followed by a subsequent change featuring Urnfield (cremation) burial customs (1200–800 BCE)."

Mark that the population is basically Funnelbeaker and a kind of Ertebølle bases, Ertebølle spearheads were found in the Elp area.

See the magnificent work of Karsten Wentink:
https://www.sidestone.com/books/ceci-n-e...-une-hache

The following picture are from Fokkens (Background of the Beakers).

Funnelbeakers, the green ones are the Ertebølle derived Funnelbeakers:


A result of the co called Tiefstich 3400 BC spread:
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-a...roup-adna/

In 2850 BC followed by Single Grave Culture according to Egfjørd (2021) departed from the Middle Elbe Saale (early CW Saale-Bohemia).


Evolved into the Bell Beakers 2400-2000 BC:


The start of the Elp culture (1800 BC>)came with the influence of Unetice (see wiki quote)  especially the core of it namely Drenthe, came under the influence of Unetice. There is a rich grave in Drouwen Drenthe (outmost NE Dutch), the person belongs to the highest ranks of the strict hierarchical Unetice culture of Middle Elbe Saale. This is the only Unetice kind of grave in the Netherlands.

After the collaps of Unetice, Elp became in LBA more under the influence NBA, again Drouwen Drenthe was the only place in the Netherlands were a typical sword (calibre chieftain level) was found, the center of distribution of these kind of swords was Zealand, Butler after Sprockhoff.
 
 

Is this all unisono Scandic copycat. No imo this is the Germanic interaction zone of CNE AND South Scandinavia.  If this is Nordic than this is Nordic

https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

[Rodoorn]

Ambiorix:
For what it's worth, I do think that the Elp and Hoogkarspel folks identified themselves with the Nordic network more generally, the difference being merely the face these were related microcultures situated within a macrocultural identity (a trade network, persisting into the Iron Age period and to some extent weakening after the full maturation and proliferation of Proto-Germanic speech, at least weakening for these northwestern folks).


Rodoorn:

I guess that Harpstedt-Nienburg -and in the North Dutch case may be the only most NE part what Butler called if I'm well the Hunze-Ems-Hunte group, was part of a (pre) Germanic network (see the Unetice grave and LBA/NBA sword unique in the North Dutch area). For Hoogkarspel is this questionable.

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". 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."

Phase II. The western part of Harpstedt Nienburg as Hoogkarspel became Germanized in the early middle ages during migration ages, due to the most Northern Suebi (Tacitus) aka the Anglo-Saxons. See the princes of Zweelo in a previous posting here, with amber necklace....

Nicolay (2007)


(Sorry for this exposé Ambiorix because this is my affiliated heartland area!!!!

[JonikW]

Not an artefact but I can't resist posting this here. I'm in Gdansk and have taken the train to Sopot to walk along the beach and look out at the Baltic sea. I've been here several times over the years but this is the first time I've had the good fortune to find a piece of amber. Another dream come true for me given how important amber was in early Germanic times and the number of times we've discussed it in various threads over the years. I'm very happy right now.

Tacitus in Germania is one of the historical sources of course. By way of reminder: "As you would expect of barbarians, they have never asked or discovered what it [amber] is or how it is produced. For a long time, indeed, it lay unheeded amidst the other jetsam, until our luxury made its reputation."

private image hosting

Great find!

Reminds me of the role it played in IE-cultures, sun cult. Once in a while big pieces are found on the Frisian Isle, here a find from a few years ago on Ameland:



In EBA it was already popular in what I call   pre-germanic societies, VandKilde:



Drenthe is connected by the Hunze with the Wadden Sea and the Isles (it mounds between Ameland and Schiermonnikoog). This is a BA necklace from Exloo in Drenthe:


And- fully on topic- "the princes of Zweelo" with a necklace full of amber, an Anglo-Saxon find in Drenthe too:

Blimey, that massive lump of amber puts mine to shame, happy though I am that I found it! That last bead set you posted reminds me very much of the longest one under number 1 in this Maidstone museum display of Kentish finds. I posted it on one of our forums before when I took the image as well as my separate visit to Sarre, where it was found. As we've discussed before many times back on AG, the Mischgruppe of peoples that collected in the Netherlands in the Migration Period made the leap to Kent and other places in England in many instances while others stayed in their new Dutch home, including your ancestors of course.

[Orentil]

Find of the month November 2023 in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Ein kleiner Odin in Menzlin?

https://www.kulturwerte-mv.de/Landesarch...es-Monats/

[JonikW]

Find of the month November 2023 in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern: Ein kleiner Odin in Menzlin?

https://www.kulturwerte-mv.de/Landesarch...es-Monats/

What an incredible discovery. I see no reason to doubt that we're seeing Odin here myself, particularly after our recent early bracteate discovery with runic inscription.

The Gotland example in your link is even more impressive. Remarkable how much the "Odin" figure there resembles one of the famous carvings from the Oseberg wagon. Here's one of my own pics of that as a reminder:



The ornament on the Gotland tool handle itself puts me in mind of the earlier Roman headstud brooches of the 2nd century. I wonder whether the Gotland craftsman/woman had ever handled one. This image is from one of my favourite books, Hattatt's catalogue of ancient brooches:

[Ambiorix]

Ambiorix:
For what it's worth, I do think that the Elp and Hoogkarspel folks identified themselves with the Nordic network more generally, the difference being merely the face these were related microcultures situated within a macrocultural identity (a trade network, persisting into the Iron Age period and to some extent weakening after the full maturation and proliferation of Proto-Germanic speech, at least weakening for these northwestern folks).


Rodoorn:

I guess that Harpstedt-Nienburg -and in the North Dutch case may be the only most NE part what Butler called if I'm well the Hunze-Ems-Hunte group, was part of a (pre) Germanic network (see the Unetice grave and LBA/NBA sword unique in the North Dutch area). For Hoogkarspel is this questionable.

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". 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."

Phase II. The western part of Harpstedt Nienburg as Hoogkarspel became Germanized in the early middle ages during migration ages, due to the most Northern Suebi (Tacitus) aka the Anglo-Saxons. See the princes of Zweelo in a previous posting here, with amber necklace....

Nicolay (2007)


(Sorry for this exposé Ambiorix because this is my affiliated heartland area!!!!

No need to apologize! Unfortunately I am quite sick right now so my response is not going to be as in depth as I’d like to imagine it could be if I were in better shape. A few comments (including some remarks on urnfields and the BA):

1) Statements such as “unisono Scandic copycats” distract from the larger issue of networking in the context of the Nordic Bronze Age and project a negative connotation onto the behaviours and choices of the Elp culture (if we want to exclude Hoogkarspel from the equation). Elp and Hoogkarspel are of course not “Germanic cultures” in the strictest sense of the term and it is anachronistic to claim that they are; instead, they represent the Bronze Age predecessors to the traditions archaeologists consider Germanic in the relevant areas in the Iron Age, specifically using terms such as Harpstedt-Nienburg, Ems culture, Rhine-Weser-Germanic pottery, Gallo-Germanic ware (I caution that this specific term is sometimes used to describe several different phenomena), etc., so the affiliation with what would become Germanic culture and identity stems from the fact they remained in intense, long-term contact with groups to their (north)east. For what it is worth, I view them either as being pre-Germanic or para-Germanic speakers, which means that they were well integrated into the koine of the north and even helped to influence aspects of NBA material culture (here we can think of farming and housing traditions especially). For example, “Urnfield socketed knives” are a bit of a misnomer and in fact point to intensive contacts between southern Scandinavia and the NE Netherlands:

“The double-T-handled knives may have been a local recreation of the morphologically related southern German knives of the Aub type (Hohlbein, 2008: 112, note 3, 117). A closely related (yet open-handled) knife was found around 1851 in a barrow at Klokkerholm (Lanting, 2001: 372; Thrane, 1972: 180, no. 21, fig. 8:b-e), together with a Raupenbügelfibel and a tutulus – not unlike that of the Drouwenerveld hoard (see above). It shows that the Netherlands (and adjacent Germany; i.e. Region 1) related to southern Scandinavia in ways that allowed Region 1 to be both a destination area for Nordic artefacts (Butler, 1986) and a source of inspiration (or origin) for types of knives found in the Nordic area proper” (Butler, Arnoldussen, & Steegstra 2012, p. 88).

“Why it was important to combine local items with objects of supra-regional associations, remains obscure (cf. Thrane, 2001: 556). Fontijn (2008: 15) has argued a convincing case that some hoards, such as the famous Voorhout hoard, may represent sub-sets from larger collections of (scrap) items; part of the latter may have been sacrificed in order to legitimize (render ‘morally positive’; sensu Parry & Bloch, 1989) the smelting and reworking of foreign metalwork into local new objects. From this point of view, the presence of scrapped single-edged socketed Urnfield knives in the hoards of Havelte, Elsenerveen, and Bruggelen (fig. 9) and the presence of metal-working debris – casting jets in the hoards of Havelte and Drouwenerveld – would not be coincidental” (Ibid., 91).

“To start, it seems that to label these knives single-edged socketed Urnfield knives may be a misnomer. Indeed, the palafitte concentration (Region 3) and the Main-Rhine confluence area (Region 2) are well within most reconstructions of the ‘Urnfield’ or ‘north-Alpine’ interaction sphere (fig. 13A), yet almost as many knives have been found in Regions 1 and 2 as originated from the palafitte settlements proper. Evidently the distribution can no longer be seen as radiating out from there (Butler, 1986: 146); other regions too must have seen their production, most notably Region 1, as proven by the recovered moulds. Moreover, if the distribution of a typical ‘Urnfield’ ornamental element such as the ‘XIIIX’ motif on Late Bronze Age knives is mapped (fig. 8), this distribution poorly matches that of the single-edged socketed knives. Whereas the (tanged) knives decorated with this motif indeed have a Central European ‘Urnfield-culture’ centre of gravity, the distribution of single-edged socketed knives40 shows a distinctly more westerly centre of gravity.

The second result is that the distribution of single-edged socketed knives proves difficult to align with a traditional ‘Atlantic/Continental/Nordic’ interaction zone. For a start, only a modest number of single-edged socketed knives are known from Brun’s (1991: fig. 3) Atlantic zone, and these knives may represent a periphery of core areas situated eastward in Region 3 and centrally in Region 1 (fig. 13A). The uneven distribution of single-edged socketed knives in different regions suggests that more local factors were at play than a simple ‘north-Alpine versus Atlantic’ interface, with different regions seeing single-edged socketed knife production at different moments, with different distributions and on differing scales. Moreover, Region 1 is situated at the very interface of the traditional ‘Nordic’, ‘Atlantic’ and ‘Urnfield’ traditions (fig. 13A), and the density of single-edged socketed knives (and their moulds) recovered there suggests a rather more prominent role than that of a mere exchange-zone periphery. The links between the Dutch-German lowland areas and the southern Scandinavian area in Region 1 may very well have roots predating the single-edged socketed knives, as – at an earlier date – this was also the core region of double-T-handled knives (fig. 13C) and maintained connections documented by the distribution of the Bunsoh-type knives (fig. 13C). Considering the contexts of the recovered knives (in the Netherlands and Belgium seldom in graves, in Germany and Denmark in graves; fig. 13A), it is evident that Region 1 in itself is already too large to expect uniformity in the role of single-edged socketed knives” (Ibid., p. 93).

So the Urnfield tradition in the NE Netherlands seems to point to a high degree of interconnectedness between this region and Scandinavia in particular (there are some indices, albeit limited ones, that this extended into the MBA too) – in fact, older scholarship problematized the relationship between this supposed group of northern “Urnfielders” in the Elp/Harpstedt-Nienburg area and argued that the funerary rites of these folks were more closely linked to contemporary traditions in NW Germany and Schleswig-Holstein:

“Jetons à présent un coup d'œil sur ce que les archéologues considèrent comme le groupe « septentrional » de l'Urnenfelder-kultur. Grâce aux méthodes rigoureuses et au nombre de fouilles (2) exécutées les dernières années dans les provinces de Drenthe et de Groningue, sous la direction de Van Giffen, ce groupe est en voie de devenir le mieux connu ; la nécropole de Gasteren-Anlo a fourni des éléments pour une séquence des types de la céramique et des tombes. La céramique, très homogène et partout presque sans intrus du groupe Sud, comprend les types suivants : l'urne bico[1]nique, l'urne pyriforme à col tronconique, l'urne ansée du type Wessenstedt, l'urne basse et large à col cylindrique ou Ces types pourraient se classer entre les dates 850 et 500. Vers 600 apparaissent les Harpstedter Rauhtöpfe. Van Giffen a établi que les types du « groupe septentrional », étaient apparentés pour la plupart à ceux de l'Ouest et de l'Est du Hannovre et à ceux du Schleswig-Holstein (8). On peut donc à peine employer pour les nécropoles du « groupe septentrional », le terme « Champ d'Urnes » ; la céramique de ces nécropoles à incinération ne démontre en effet plus suffisamment d'affinités avec celle des autres groupes des Champs d'Urnes pour justifier l'emploi de ce terme. Le groupe NR pourrait se limiter par conséquent aux Champs d'Urnes de Belgique, des Pays-Bas au sud des grandes et à ceux de la Westphalie rhénane, c'est à dire à ceux dans le groupe « méridional »” (Mariën 1948, pp. 428-429).

Although Mariën very clearly establishes a maximal limit for the Niederrheinische Hügelgräberkultur in Belgium, the southern Netherlands, and Westphalia, there is some confusion in certain articles (especially in French academia) grouping these NE folks with their southern neighbours (as an aside, I think migration toward the southern areas had a dramatic effect on the demographics of the respective regions, especially as it concerns population movements from SW Germany/Bavaria, the RSFO Urnfield area, and further filtration from the north of France and central Germany in the Hallstatt period). Regardless, I cannot help but think of a scenario where these NE Dutch groups had a certain prestige in the LBA-MIA that waned with the expansion of Jastorf and other Iron Age groups southward, even mixing with some Harpstedt-Nienburg elements (here we can think of the Chatti especially, although the relationship seems to be Rhine-Weser-Germanic domination over Suebic and Celtic groups). 
 
2)   Even if we ignore the critique of taking up urnfields and cremating the dead as a justification for seeing the NE Netherlands as part of an Urnfield culture, the Dutch groups still visibly displayed a certain affinity with Nordic Bronze Age groups through their deposition practises. One of the most prominent examples in this case that I can think of is the Drouwen hoard, where, e.g., we find Nordic goods buried among the urnfield:

“After the gap of the preceding period [I.e., the Middle Bronze Age], there  is  a remarkable  series  of  finds  connecting  Drouwen with  the  North  European  cultural  area  in  the  Late Bronze Age. These include several urnfield burials, the two bronze hoards, and  one  probably  ritual deposit of a bronze sword. The Drouwen urnfield is a link between a number of  these  finds.  It is  unfortunate  that  the  urnfield  at Drouwen  is  not  one  of  those  that  was  excavated completely or even in large part, though a series of small  excavations,  occasioned  by  accidental  dis­coveries  during  heathland  reclamation  activities, have  given  some  sort  of  picture  (summarized  by Kooi,  1979:  pp.  90-96).  In  his  reconstruction,  the Drouwen  urnfield  must  rank  as  one  of  the  largest known in the north of the Netherlands. This need not necessarily imply a very large population (Kooi, 1979: pp. 167-174), but there must at any rate have been an as yet undiscovered (and, possibly, already destroyed)  settlement  of  some  consequence  close by. Of special interest in this context are the burials 4 and  8  from  the  excavation  of  1939  and  grave  57 from the excavation of 1941.Grave 8 (fig. 18) was in a pit with a stone packing (in  itself  a  most  unusual  grave  form  in  the  Netherlands)  and  contained  two  urns  of  the zweihenklige Terrine form. In one of the urns was a ‘Nordic’ single-edged razor  and  a  decorated  pincette:  the former  rare  in  the  Netherlands,  the  other  unique  in this  area,  and  both  very  probably  imports,  though their exact source cannot be localized. The razor is assigned, in the recent study by Jockenhövel (1980b: p.157, No. 572, Taf. 82D) to his type ‘einschneidige Rasiermesser mit S-förmigem Griff, Var. II (mitnach oben gebogenes Klingenende). It is dated by him to Period V, with reference to German finds at Wittenhusen, with  a  Period  V  socketed  knife,  and Albersloh,  with  a  Period  V kleine Kugelkopfnadel… (Butler 1986, pp. 151-154).

“[Drouwen]  was, perhaps, also then a  redistribution centre for scarce luxury imports from farther east. In this respect we can think of finds such as the Scandina­vian spectacle brooch from the Bonnerveen, ge-meente Gasselte, only 6 km to the north of Drouwen (fig.  30),  or  the  gold  bracelets  from  Hijkersmilde and  the  bronze  hoard  from  Hijken  (including  a socketed  knife,  bracelets  related  to  those  of  the ‘Princess’,  and  a  looped  button),  c.  25  km  farther west (Butler & van der Waals, 1960; Butler, 1965: figs 9-10). Obviously,  any  number  of  scenarios  different from  this  can  be  imagined  to  fit  the  same  facts. What  in  any  case  appears  certain  is  that  Drouwen had some sort of special relationship with the North European  area,  seemingly  persistent  over  a  long period,  but  reaching  a  remarkable  climax  in  the Late Bronze Age” (Ibid., p. 162).

3) Some of the Central European connections during the MBA seem to be more directly related to the fact the Netherlands lacks the ores required for bronze production:

“For the Sogel-Wohlde swords blades of Nordic affinity (Vandkilde, 1996, 156; Fontijn, 2003, 101; 345–347), alloy groups 11 and 14 were used exclusively (i.e. As-Ni alloys, with more (>0.1 %wt; alloy 14) or less (<0.1 %; alloy 11) antimony. This tallies well with the preference of AsNi alloys for swords of the Sogel-Wohlde ¨ group as published by Ling (et al., 2019, tab. 4), who moreover showed that lead isotopes suggested eastern/southern Alpine ores (OEM863/965: Ni > As), Slovakian ores (MA-071222; As > Ni), Mitterberg ores (MA-071243: As > Ni) as well as Southern Iberian ores (FG 050575: As > Ni) for these swords. The group with antimony over 0,1% (alloy 14), has parallels in other MBA-A swords types such as Hajdusamson-Apa ´ derivates and Valsømagle swords (e.g. ALM26/UM 40280_3006/B5469a: Ling et al., 2019 tab. 4), whose isotopic signals suggest Slovakian and Eastern Italian Alpine ores. Clearly, while the object styles (and their use in funerary assemblages) reflects an incorporation of the northern part of the Netherlands into a Nordic cultural realm (cf. Butler, 1986; Fontijn, 2003, 228; 345–347; Arnoldussen, 2015, 20–25; Arnoldussen and Steegstra, 2018, 37), to obtain the ores required to craft such blades central European and Italian Alpine contact networks were in place. Simultaneously, evident imports to the Netherlands from the Atlantic zone such as Treboul and basal-looped spearheads were mostly crafted in alloy groups 11 and 14, and can perhaps be linked to Great Orme exploitation (cf. Williams and Le Carlier de Veslud, 2019, 1184 fig. 4; 1185)” (Arnoldussen et al. 2022, p. 13).

“Although regional (festive or religious) gathering places may very well have existed, we currently know not a single site for which such a function has been or can be argued. It is nonetheless quite reasonable to assume that the exchange of marriage partners, breeding stock, food products and items of craft and adornment must have taken place beyond the scale of the household. The little attention that has been directed to the topic of interaction, usually entails the tracing of regions of origin for ‘exotic’ raw materials and objects or, alternatively, the study of regional styles. Bronzes are amongst the most obvious categories available for study, as the Low Countries lack the required ores for bronze production. The route, pace and number of stations along the way with which these object [sic.] traveled cannot be unraveled, yet some items – such as the aggrandized (ceremonial) dirks (Fontijn 2001) or faience beads (Haverman and Sheridan 2006) – vividly illustrate connections spanning large parts of Atlantic West Europe” (Arnoldussen and Fokkens 2008, p. 26).

4) As I have argued elsewhere, there are indices that cattle was being exchanged between the Northern Netherlands and groups to their north and east, and this is also true for the the Hoogkarspel area (Amerongen 2016, p. 156) - I can always reupload my post on bridewealth and cattle exchange if it is of interest  

5) The Hoogkarspel culture disappeared due to rising sea levels rendering the region uninhabitable, so it is wrong to speak of a Hoogkarspel area lasting into the Early Middle Ages, let alone that it would have become “Germanised” only by that point with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons; evaluating a variety of onomastic evidence (toponymic, epigraphic, and anthroponomastic), Mees (2023), “Nehalennia and the Marsaci” demonstrates that any such Germanisation was already established among the descendants of the Harpstedt-Nienburg tradition, with Mees arguing that many of the etymologies proposed for “Nordwestblock” names area erroneous and are clearly straightforward Gaulish or Germanic names (specifically in the context of dedications to Nehalennia). 

Sources:
Amerongen (2016), “Wild West Frisia : the role of domestic and wild resource exploitation in Bronze Age subsistence”, https://scholarlypublications.universite...1887/44180

Arnoldussen & Fokkens (2008), “Bronze Age settlement sites in the Low Countries: an overview”, https://www.academia.edu/2171162/Arnoldu...ford_17_40

Butler (1986), “Drouwen: end of a 'Nordic' rainbow?”, https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

Butler, Arnoldussen, & Steegstra (2012), “Single-edged Urnfield socketed knives in the Netherlands and Western Europe”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ern_Europe

Mariën (1948), Où en est la question des Champs d'Urnes?”, https://www.persee.fr/doc/antiq_0770-281..._17_1_2854

[Orentil]

On the topic of the Suebi and genetic continuity/discontinuity in Germany: What would Gretzinger's Häven samples qualify as? Warini, or Anglii perhaps? I hope someone more knowledgeable than me could give a more accurate statement about their tribal affiliation, if possible. It's quite an interesting site, and even more interesting is comparing them to the Bronze Age samples from the same region (Mecklenburg). 

Among the Häven samples are the oldest I1 samples from Germany thus far, and the samples from Häven are the oldest samples in Gretzinger 2022, as far as I'm aware. They're dated to around 200-400 AD. It's safe to say they don't resemble the Bronze Age samples from the same region in terms of uniparentals or autosomal DNA, whatsoever. It is also worth taking into account the archaeological context of these samples, as well as their subclades of I1 (including L22) and R-U106 (including Z18). Their subclades of I1 and U106 look quite "northern" in the sense of their geographical origin. Autosomally, some of them appear surprisingly northern as well. The SI mentions some loose archaeological connections, in this case to Zealand in Denmark:

"The site of Häven lies on a sandy hill in the moraine area north of the lake Keetz. Since the second half of the 19th century several graves were discovered at this site due to gravel extraction. The first three graves were discovered in 1868, another three graves came to light in the spring of 1869, one grave was examined in 1872 and in 1875 two further graves were discovered. The discoveries attracted a considerable interest, as the grave goods consisted of a wide range of Roman as well as local artefacts. Comparable grave inventories are known from Southern Scandinavia.

Until today 13 graves are known at Häven. Two of these are burials of children. All of the burials are inhumations with different tomb constructions including stone packages and wooden chambers. Based on the inventories, the graves are dated to the 3rd century CE. They can be divided into several spatially separated groups. Similarities in construction and associated grave goods point to a relationship with graves in Zealand, Denmark, as well as at the Central German sites of Haßleben and Leuna."

When the study was first published I was rather intrigued by seeing L22 in that location during that time. But then again, 200-400 AD isn't extremely early by any means. Still, I would expect the earliest DF29+ to start radiating out of Southern Scandinavia to be far more Z58 and Z63 subclade-wise, and that could have happened a good 700-800 years before the time the Häven samples are dated to, so they might not allow for any real inferences to be made. From what I understand, the Häven samples don't necessarily have to be fresh newcomers, but could rather have arrived hundreds of years earlier.

  
I think they'd be somewhat more likely to have been Warini than Angles. I seriously doubt anyone can say unequivocally either way though and we still can't say for sure exactly where the Anglian area ended at any given point. In any case both tribes belonged to the same cultural group early on as worshippers of Nerthus, and their interactions were presumably extensive. I'd love to see the Häven archaeological finds if you know where I can see them but again I think they'll be slightly too early to identify anything diagnostically Anglian (or non-Anglian).

Thank you, JonikW! Okay, so Warini seems more likely than Angles, but it can't be said with complete certainty, that makes sense. As for the archaeological finds from Häven aside from the rather limited piece of information that was available in the SI of the study, I am unfortunately clueless. I hope that our friend Orentil might be able to chime in here! 

Something that I forgot to mention in my earlier post and that is not to be neglected is the potential R-DF19 individual who was also found at Häven. I don't know whether the people at FTDNA have been able to corroboate those early calls for the DF19 individual from that site yet.

I hope Orentil can help us out too. On the certainty of identity in our regions of interest, I always enjoy this cautionary quote from the great Gwyn Jones, which I posted once on AG: "He would be a man supremely bold or learned who claimed to know the exact relationship, habitat, or even identity, of Danes, Jutes, Eruli, Heathobeards, and Angles."

Hi Strider99 and JonikW, let me take this out of the linguistic thread and answer here. First of all, yes, we should really keep this quote by Gwyn Jones in mind ;-) I think to remember some maps by ph2ter showing clear differences to CNE ancestry, therefore Anglian is surely the wrong label. Let me see if I find some data on the artefacts in the German literature but this can take some days.

[Ambiorix]

I just realised that I accidentally omitted a source for my previous post but cannot edit my post for whatever reason:

Arnoldussen et al. (2022), “A not so isolated fringe: Dutch later prehistoric (c. 2200 BCE-AD 0) bronze alloy networks from compositional analyses on metals and corrosion layers”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ion_layers

And a link to  (PDF) Nehalennia and the Marsaci | Bernard Mees - Academia.edu, where we find statements such as the following that demonstrate clearly Germanic and Celtic names among the devotees of Nehalennia during the Roman Period (and predating the arrival of Anglo-Saxons):

"Instead of preserving an admixture of ‘Old Belgic’, Celtic and Germanic (or even irregularly derived) roots, many of the names recorded as commissioners of the altars dedicated to Nehalennia are also either regular Celtic or Germanic formations. The names of dedicants that are transparently Celtic include Ambacthius, Exgingius, Exomnius, Exomnianus and Nertomarius (CI L XIII 8784,8788 & 8792; AE 1973, 362 and 1975, 642) each of which has a well-established Celtic etymology. Ambacthius is derived from Gaulish ambaxtos ‘servant’ and the gentilicium Exgingius continues the common Gaulish onomastic compound exscing - ‘warrior’ (Schmidt 1957: 110 & 221). Exomnius reflects a similar, widely attested Celtic compound exs-obno-  ‘fearless’ and the gentilicium Nertomarius derives from a commonly attested Gaulish name that literally means ‘having great strength’  (Schmidt 1957: 213 & 249). Other instances of the name Gimio (AE 1973, 380) include patronymics of two men from Italy and Germany with what appear to be Celtic given names (CIL V 7306 & XIII 7819)and despite a similar onomastic root clearly being evident in Germanic, Weisgerber (1935: 319–20) linked Gimio with a Celtic root *gimo- that Thurneysen(1931: 8) had argued may be reflected in the Old Irish variant spelling gem ‘winter’ (<* g ̑héi̯ōm ~* g ̑himés).

The clearly analysable Germanic names recorded on the altars from Zeeland are Ammacius Hucdionis, Andanhianiu(s) Severus, Ascattinius Rasuco, Dacinus Liffionis, Flettius Gennalonis, Freio Palusonis, Neuto Lucani, Sumaronius Primanus, Sumaronius Vitalis, Vacrenus and Barausius Ahucconis (CIL XIII 8779–80,8783, 8786 & 8795; AE 1975, 644; 1991, 1253; 1997, 1161 & 1164; 2001, 1499 & 1504). Ammacius appears to reflect *amma ‘grandmother’ or*ammо̄ną ‘to irritate, to incite’ (Förstemann 1900: 87) and his patronymic Hucdio, which is similar to the name Huctia found in 1962 on a tombstone from Derventio (Papcastle), Cumbria (RI B 3221), may continue the preterite stem *hukt- ‘squatted’ (Kroonen2013: 252). Comparable names are not attested in the medieval languages, but as Raepsaet-Charlier (2011: 211) observes, forms derived from *amm- are widely paralleled in Germano-Roman onomastics and include both simplex constructions such as Amma and Ammus, but also derivations including Ammius, Ammianus, Ammo, Ammil(l)o, Ammutius, Amminius, Ammiatius, Ammaca, Ammava, Ammalenus
 and Ammicia. A Vandal named Ammata, a Frank called Ammigus and a Goth called Ammius are known from sixth-century sources, but the onomastic use of the root *amm- seems to have fallen out of fashion in later times (Schönfeld 1911: 17–18)" (Mees 2023, pp. 6-7).

[Orentil]

On the topic of the Suebi and genetic continuity/discontinuity in Germany: What would Gretzinger's Häven samples qualify as? Warini, or Anglii perhaps? I hope someone more knowledgeable than me could give a more accurate statement about their tribal affiliation, if possible. It's quite an interesting site, and even more interesting is comparing them to the Bronze Age samples from the same region (Mecklenburg). 

Among the Häven samples are the oldest I1 samples from Germany thus far, and the samples from Häven are the oldest samples in Gretzinger 2022, as far as I'm aware. They're dated to around 200-400 AD. It's safe to say they don't resemble the Bronze Age samples from the same region in terms of uniparentals or autosomal DNA, whatsoever. It is also worth taking into account the archaeological context of these samples, as well as their subclades of I1 (including L22) and R-U106 (including Z18). Their subclades of I1 and U106 look quite "northern" in the sense of their geographical origin. Autosomally, some of them appear surprisingly northern as well. The SI mentions some loose archaeological connections, in this case to Zealand in Denmark:


When the study was first published I was rather intrigued by seeing L22 in that location during that time. But then again, 200-400 AD isn't extremely early by any means. Still, I would expect the earliest DF29+ to start radiating out of Southern Scandinavia to be far more Z58 and Z63 subclade-wise, and that could have happened a good 700-800 years before the time the Häven samples are dated to, so they might not allow for any real inferences to be made. From what I understand, the Häven samples don't necessarily have to be fresh newcomers, but could rather have arrived hundreds of years earlier.

  
I think they'd be somewhat more likely to have been Warini than Angles. I seriously doubt anyone can say unequivocally either way though and we still can't say for sure exactly where the Anglian area ended at any given point. In any case both tribes belonged to the same cultural group early on as worshippers of Nerthus, and their interactions were presumably extensive. I'd love to see the Häven archaeological finds if you know where I can see them but again I think they'll be slightly too early to identify anything diagnostically Anglian (or non-Anglian).

Thank you, JonikW! Okay, so Warini seems more likely than Angles, but it can't be said with complete certainty, that makes sense. As for the archaeological finds from Häven aside from the rather limited piece of information that was available in the SI of the study, I am unfortunately clueless. I hope that our friend Orentil might be able to chime in here! 

Something that I forgot to mention in my earlier post and that is not to be neglected is the potential R-DF19 individual who was also found at Häven. I don't know whether the people at FTDNA have been able to corroboate those early calls for the DF19 individual from that site yet.

I hope Orentil can help us out too. On the certainty of identity in our regions of interest, I always enjoy this cautionary quote from the great Gwyn Jones, which I posted once on AG: "He would be a man supremely bold or learned who claimed to know the exact relationship, habitat, or even identity, of Danes, Jutes, Eruli, Heathobeards, and Angles."

Hi Strider99 and JonikW, let me take this out of the linguistic thread and answer here. First of all, yes, we should really keep this quote by Gwyn Jones in mind ;-) I think to remember some maps by ph2ter showing clear differences to CNE ancestry, therefore Anglian is surely the wrong label. Let me see if I find some data on the artefacts in the German literature but this can take some days.

Sorry, I didn't find much. Only very general statements like "supra-regional networks". There were many Roman artefacts - not really helpful for our question.
Actually, the brooch on the picture belongs to Almgren's type X pointing generally to Denmark

[Orentil]

The Häven graves have to be seen in the context of the younger roman age elite graves (jüngerkaiserzeitliche Elitegräber) with  two centres, the Himlingøje-group in Denmark and the Hassleben-Leuna group in central Germany, see map, Häven number 13.

[JonikW]

  
I think they'd be somewhat more likely to have been Warini than Angles. I seriously doubt anyone can say unequivocally either way though and we still can't say for sure exactly where the Anglian area ended at any given point. In any case both tribes belonged to the same cultural group early on as worshippers of Nerthus, and their interactions were presumably extensive. I'd love to see the Häven archaeological finds if you know where I can see them but again I think they'll be slightly too early to identify anything diagnostically Anglian (or non-Anglian).

Thank you, JonikW! Okay, so Warini seems more likely than Angles, but it can't be said with complete certainty, that makes sense. As for the archaeological finds from Häven aside from the rather limited piece of information that was available in the SI of the study, I am unfortunately clueless. I hope that our friend Orentil might be able to chime in here! 

Something that I forgot to mention in my earlier post and that is not to be neglected is the potential R-DF19 individual who was also found at Häven. I don't know whether the people at FTDNA have been able to corroboate those early calls for the DF19 individual from that site yet.

I hope Orentil can help us out too. On the certainty of identity in our regions of interest, I always enjoy this cautionary quote from the great Gwyn Jones, which I posted once on AG: "He would be a man supremely bold or learned who claimed to know the exact relationship, habitat, or even identity, of Danes, Jutes, Eruli, Heathobeards, and Angles."

Hi Strider99 and JonikW, let me take this out of the linguistic thread and answer here. First of all, yes, we should really keep this quote by Gwyn Jones in mind ;-) I think to remember some maps by ph2ter showing clear differences to CNE ancestry, therefore Anglian is surely the wrong label. Let me see if I find some data on the artefacts in the German literature but this can take some days.

Sorry, I didn't find much. Only very general statements like "supra-regional networks". There were many Roman artefacts - not really helpful for our question.
Actually, the brooch on the picture belongs to Almgren's type X pointing generally to Denmark

Wow, thanks. The Roman empire artefacts are what really immediately jump out for me, with the glassware and skillets in particular. I don't know whether that particular glass vessel came from the Rhineland or further south, but either way within the Imperium. I've seen that brooch type before of course, or very similar ones, and they are indeed always Scandinavian of some variety. They're not typical of a southern Germanic area. I know I've got at least one example in a book and will dig it out after this post. 

So to me this looks very much like a community with both Scandinavian or northern Germanic connections and access to Roman luxuries. Either as a client or with wealth of some kind that it could use for trading with the Roman world. It looks typical of many other wealthier areas of "Barbaricum" in that way.

[Dewsloth]

And Häven is roughly a century or two older than the elite burial at Hiddestorf (which also had glasswares).

[JonikW]

Found it nice and easily in the end. "Third to fourth century; Denmark, Norway, north Germany".

[url=photo hosting sites

[JonikW]

And there's another one here on this pic that I took in Copenhagen of some of the finds from Himlingøje, which was a community broadly of the type I was describing. I'm only sorry that the phone camera I had at the time was so shockingly poor.



ADD link: https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledg...at-stevns/

ADD: looking back at Orentil's post where Himlingøje is also mentioned, based only on the image of the artefacts he also posted Häven would seem to belong to the northern group, which it closely resembles. I don't remember exactly what the Gretzinger aDNA evidence told us. I'll look it up in the morning but hopefully someone will beat me to it. The identity debate is interesting and tied to the artefacts so firmly on topic.

[JonikW]

I just looked back at Gretzinger after our posts here yesterday and Strider99's interesting question from last week on whether the Häven samples were more likely to have been Warini or Angles. I'd tentatively said, based on their location, that they may have been slightly more likely to have been Warini.

I can't see anything in Gretzinger that really illuminates the debate although I'd like to have another look at ph2ter's maps as mentioned by Orentil. The biggest obstacle to me would seem to be identifying an "Anglian" population with which to compare the Häven samples. 

Schleswig might appear to be the obvious one here, but those samples are way later than the Migration Period. Hines on Angeln and the Angles sums up well our knowledge on the change of population in and around Angeln between the fourth and eighth centuries: "Archaeology has a greater role to play in straightforward historical reconstruction; linguistic questions come more to the fore when we consider the implications of that reconstruction. Both of these sources, however, 
seem to agree with each other in painting a picture that agrees very largely with Bede's report of total emigration from and the abandonment of the area."

So I don't think a comparison with Schleswig would be a safe one here. That would leave us with identifying an Anglian site within Gretzinger's English sample groups. West Heslerton in Yorkshire would seem to be the safest one there, based on location and what we know of the archaeology in that part of England.

But looking at the samples from Heslerton quickly reveals hurdles to using some of them for this purpose. I'll start with the two samples that are S12289+ like me. (They might indeed look particularly promising because I explained several times on AG why I think that marker was mostly brought to Britain by the Angles. I believe I'm likely to be an exception to the rule because my Swedish Y matches suggest a later arrival from southern Sweden for my own forefather). 

Now these two Heslerton S12289 samples have high CNE but no NOR according to supplementary table S6.3. So does I2064. The rest of the samples are CNE heavy. NOR is around half for two CNE + NOR individuals. NOR features at lower but material levels in some other samples. WBI does too and a couple of individuals seem to be WBI. 

So what does that tell us for our purposes here? That the Heslerton potential Angles were high in CNE and in some cases had significant NOR. The big question is, does this make them typical of Angles in the Anglian home region of the Roman Iron Age? And the answer for me at least is that I'm unable to say.

Here's one of the problems when we look more closely at the Heslerton site and its surrounds. The text isn't from Gretzinger, it's from an archaeological assessment of the site: "The collective evidence from the Northern Anglian cemetery series is quite distinctive, in particular on account of the frequent incidence of prone burials rather than simple differences in the material culture. However, even here there are contrasts with the southern Anglian populations. There is clear evidence, both from the metalwork contained in the graves and from the accompanying mineral replaced textiles, of links with Scandinavia and, in particular, with Southern Sweden."

So those potential Scandinavian links might well mean that the Heslerton samples are not representative of the original Anglian population in its homeland. We could turn instead to other Gretzinger sites in search of our elusive Angles: Ely and RAF Lakenheath might be good. But this would involve a lot of work and I fear any conclusions would be shaky at best.

So to have any chance at all of answering the question of whether the Häven samples were more likely to have been Warini or Angles based on aDNA, it seems obvious that we would need a good range of samples from Roman IA Schleswig for the Angles (I would also include Fyn personally) and of the Warini (I'd want places quite close to the Warnow). We could then compare them all with each other. But of course we're going to come up a dearth of suitable remains for sampling, hampered further by cremation. 

I fear then that aDNA is unlikely to be capable of answering the identity question (in fact it would be incredibly tricky even if we had the samples). As for the material culture, I can't say from the one image that Orentil found, because those objects could potentially belong to any population group on the edge of Scandinavia. If I've missed anything obvious and someone has a good way of tackling the question, I'd love to know. Any other pictures of artefacts from Häven or from anywhere in Warini era Mecklenburg would be much appreciated too. The closer to the Migration Period the better for diagnostic purposes.