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

[Orentil]

There would be a very helpful publication by Hans-Ulrich Voß but I couldn't find it online: "Die Gräber von Häven in Mecklenburg und ihre Beziehungen zu Skandinavien."

[Orentil]

From the same author is also a map separating an "anglischer Formenkreis" from a "holsteinisch-westmecklenburgische Gruppe". It seems that he based his holsteinisch-westmecklenburgische Gruppe mainly on ceramics of the type "Knopfhenkelschale".

[JonikW]

Thanks for that Orentil. I suspect this image from Malcolm Todd might be even better because it takes into account several aspects of material culture. There's nothing wrong with relying heavily on one object class of course. Did you have any views on the DNA post I made on this thread this morning? Curious on your ideas and those of others. Anyway, here's the Todd pic. You'll notice part of Fyn for the Angles and what I would think is quite a good reflection of the Warini area:

[Orentil]

Thanks for that Orentil. I suspect this image from Malcolm Todd might be even better because it takes into account several aspects of material culture. There's nothing wrong with relying heavily on one object class of course. Did you have any views on the DNA post I made on this thread this morning? Curious on your ideas and those of others. Anyway, here's the Todd pic. You'll notice part of Fyn for the Angles and what I would think is quite a good reflection of the Warini area:

No special input from my side in the moment. In general I fear that Angles and Warnes are to close to each other to resolve any differences genetically. By the way, did I mention that two Heslerton U106 L48 individuals are among my top ten ancient connections acc. to myFTDNA (besides other well known places like Niederstotzingen, Schleswig, Lakenheath, Oakington, Szolad)?

[Orentil]

"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’

Thanks for your two posts, Ambiorix! Very valuable for me as I realize that the Elp-Hilversum culture appears not so prominently esp. in German sources as the Southern German tumulus culture or the Northern Bronze Age. Indeed very interesting to understand the interactions and differences between these cultures.
Specifically for the name ambaxtos 'servant', I was thinking about knowing a German equivalent and now I found what I had in mind. E.g. in Skírnismál the name ambátt appears with the same meaning servant, slave. So maybe a joined Celtic-Germanic word.

[Orentil]

There would be a very helpful publication by Hans-Ulrich Voß but I couldn't find it online: "Die Gräber von Häven in Mecklenburg und ihre Beziehungen zu Skandinavien."

I just found a short review of this article:
"Hans-Ulrich Voß suspects that those buried in the Late Imperial chamber tombs in Häven come from southern Scandinavian region. He sees the Häven graves in connection with a new network of elites that had formed since the end of the Marcomannic Wars, with the grave goods showing connections to central Germany, the Danish islands and the regional surroundings."

[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!!!!

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

Beterschap!
I don't deny this all. But I agree with Butler who states that Drouwen was at the end of the Nordic rainbow. And as a local (with a mother born next to Drouwen) I know that it's the most NE part of Drenthe. Drouwen is remarkable because of:

1. The BA Unetice grave with a man that belonged to the highest ranks of that culture.
2. A LBA sword that connected Drouwen with the LBA chiefdoms of NBA.

So when it was a chiefdom that ruled about a part of the Hunze-Ems region mark that is really an outlier of NBA. Nevertheless it was NBA!

As shown Harpstedt-Nienburg was in two phases drawn into the Suebi world, the eastern part in IA, and Friesland, Groningen and Drenthe in migration time.

See for the Germanization of Drenthe:

Het vroegmiddeleeuwse grafveld van Zweeloo. Met bijlagen van W.A. van Bommel-van der Sluijs en L. Smits

Summary:
The site, threatened by sand extraction, was excavated in 1952 under the direction of Professor A.E. van Giffen. Not only graves were uncovered, but also the remains of a settlement of the Middle and Late Roman Period. The earliest graves date from the same period, but most are early medieval. Initially cremation was the only rite. Inhumation was introduced towards the end of the Roman Period. The cemetery is composed of grave clusters, which probably correspond to the 'houses' or family households in the settlement. Unfortunately the cemetery could not be excavated in its entirety, as sand extraction had already destroyed part of it before the investigation started. From the Roman Period we have only a few simple cremation graves, scattered across the site in small clusters and mostly without grave goods. Between AD 400 and 475, Zweeloo was the home of a household that maintained contacts with the Rhineland as well as the coastal areas of the northern Netherlands and Germany. This family left a cluster of inhumation graves, one of which is the rich grave of the 'Princess of Zweeloo'. A series of six horse burials may have been mortuary offerings to accompany her dead husband, whose grave probably was destroyed prior to the excavation.
After 475, a period of about two centuries followed from which we have no finds. It is unlikely that occupation at Zweeloo ceased during this time. Elsewhere in Drenthe, for example at nearby Odoorn, habitation continued, be it apparently on a smaller scale. Presumably a mortuary rite was practised that left no archaeologically detectable traces, such as the deposition of cremated remains upon or just below the surface. When the site was later used as arable land, this surface was incorporated into the topsoil.
Between about 675 and about 850, new graves were dug. There are exclusively inhumations, initially oriented south-north, and later west-east. Deposition of grave goods was practised up till the very end, but shows a peak in the 8th century. In the present article the grave goods are subjected to an elaborate chronological and functional analysis. In this period the cemetery was shared by three groups; the settlement probably comprised the households. The abandonment of the cemetery, which had served the local community for many hundreds, if not thousands of years, is due to the Christianisation of the region. The exact time of its dereliction is hard to establish, nor is it clear where its successor lay. It is generally assumed that burials henceforth took place in a churchyard; likely candidates for Zweeloo might be those of Sleen or Emmen - a comparison is drawn with Vries. However, the regional ecclesiastical organisation in the 9th century is insufficiently understood to allow any certainty.

https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25161


private remark I just ordered a Mtdna test for my mother, I went back for here in time and I could trace it to a woman born in 1590 in the same dingspil as Zweelo, a neighboring village. So I'm curios. Who knows....

[JonikW]

There would be a very helpful publication by Hans-Ulrich Voß but I couldn't find it online: "Die Gräber von Häven in Mecklenburg und ihre Beziehungen zu Skandinavien."

I just found a short review of this article:
"Hans-Ulrich Voß suspects that those buried in the Late Imperial chamber tombs in Häven come from southern Scandinavian region. He sees the Häven graves in connection with a new network of elites that had formed since the end of the Marcomannic Wars, with the grave goods showing connections to central Germany, the Danish islands and the regional surroundings."

Very interesting and also the fact that this review sums up better than I did what can pretty much all be deduced from just that one image of yours. It's wonderful how much can be told from a good collection of grave goods in that rough time and place.

I'm hungry to know more about Häven and wonder what "central Germany" refers to beyond potentially the glassware that we've seen. Of course it would be surprising anyway if the community's links didn't reach both north and south in several ways given the geographical position of Häven.

This strikes me as an important site for the region as a whole stretching into Scandinavia so it's frustrating that it's so hard to find out anything much about it with an online search.

[Orentil]

Right, the one brooch is not enough. It alone points only to exactly one place: Zealand (point 28 is Häven). All other places outside of Zealand I would explain with exogamy or Zealanders living abroad.

PS: you pointed out the geographical location. Häven is of course close to the river Warnow (!) with the river mouth to the Baltic Sea in Warnemünde (!). Therefore it might be no surprise if this microregion is culturally closer to the Baltic coast and the Danish isles then to the Elbe valley people and Warini could be the right tribal choice.

[Rodoorn]

"Hans-Ulrich Voß suspects that those buried in the Late Imperial chamber tombs in Häven come from southern Scandinavian region. He sees the Häven graves in connection with a new network of elites that had formed since the end of the Marcomannic Wars, with the grave goods showing connections to central Germany, the Danish islands and the regional surroundings."

From Angles:

"
right pops:
Villabruna
Vestonice16
Ust_Ishim_published.DG
Kostenki14.SG
GoyetQ116-1_udg_published
MA1.SG
GanjDareh
BOT14.SG
Kostenki
S_Mbuti-3.DG
A_Papuan-16.DG
A_Han-4.DG
Andaman.SG
left pops:
finndad_NL
Denmark_IA
Ansarve_Megalithic (I wanted to have a "farmer" source. The choice of Ansarve can be disputed, but anyway, according to the results the question has no real importance ...)
best coefficients: 1.025 -0.025
totmean: 1.025 -0.025
boot mean: 1.027 -0.027
std. errors: 0.100 0.100
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 11 5.192 0.921515 1.025 -0.025 infeasible
01 1 12 5.260 0.948719 1.000 0.000
10 1 12 113.107 1.45072e-18 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.921515 - -
best pat: 01 0.948719 chi(nested): 0.068 p-value for nested model: 0.793938
left pops:
finnmum_NL
Denmark_IA
Ansarve_Megalithic
best coefficients: 0.984 0.016
totmean: 0.984 0.016
boot mean: 0.986 0.014
std. errors: 0.097 0.097
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 11 6.040 0.870674 0.984 0.016
01 1 12 6.066 0.912698 1.000 0.000
10 1 12 122.121 2.33258e-20 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.870674 - -
best pat: 01 0.912698 chi(nested): 0.026 p-value for nested model: 0.871204

The p-values of the nested models are astronomic. According to this analysis Finn's (=Rodoorn) parents are "pure" Danish from the Iron Age. Btw Denmark_IA is for the three individuals from Margaryan. Of course I used imputed genomes for Finn's parents (947035 SNPs). For the experts, I've taken the risk to keep the transitions."


Häven and the Frisians/Friso-Saxons:

[Rodoorn]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...on_Zealand

[Ambiorix]

"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’

Thanks for your two posts, Ambiorix! Very valuable for me as I realize that the Elp-Hilversum culture appears not so prominently esp. in German sources as the Southern German tumulus culture or the Northern Bronze Age. Indeed very interesting to understand the interactions and differences between these cultures.
Specifically for the name ambaxtos 'servant', I was thinking about knowing a German equivalent and now I found what I had in mind. E.g. in Skírnismál the name ambátt appears with the same meaning servant, slave. So maybe a joined Celtic-Germanic word.

Thanks for sharing Orentil! The whole "Nordwestblock" (for lack of a better term) area is of course something I hope to demystify, and the fact my own Y-DNA is attested in the Bronze Age Netherlands has played a nontrivial role in motivating me to read up on the archaeology (in addition to my closest aDNA Y-match being a Batavian; perhaps also because of my Frankish ancestry?  ). Hilversum is a different story compared to Elp, as their rites, traditions, and material culture are rather "Atlantic" (but probably interpreted as southern goods by the recipients) yet they clearly had ties with Hoogkarspel, but from memory were horribly affected by factors such as changing climate and population decline, resulting in colonists from the RSFO Urnfield tradition settling in their area (U152?), followed by several more population waves - by contrast, IIRC the Elp area had fairly stable numbers followed by a rather impressive demographic boom by the start of the Iron Age.

While rereading the paper, I immediately took note of the name Nertomarius among the Celtic names because of our conversation at the old site RE: the origin of the Ingvaeones/Irminones/Istvaeones triad, and I remembered that you mentioned Inguiomerius (Inguomer) was the name of Arminius' uncle (the name, of course, invoking the god Ingwaz). I do know of at least one other dedication attesting a P. Nertomarius Quartus (in Slovenia), and the usage of it as a nomen gentilicium followed by a cognomen of course points to a Gallic provenance in accordance with a Gallo-Romance naming tradition (3 names), but it is important to keep in mind that at least when we talk about devotees to Nehalennia, we are talking about an entire cultural sphere of groups with varying degrees of mixed ancestry between IA Dutch and Celtic groups (+ Jastorf elements if we think of Cimbric introgression), and the same is true of the Belgae even if they seem to have taken on more Celtic speech, so I think it is at least interesting to consider the possibility that the aforementioned Nertomarius might also reference the goddess Nerthus and have a dual meaning due to semantical interferences between Celtic and Germanic in the Iron Age. Just a stray thought!

[JonikW]

"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’

Thanks for your two posts, Ambiorix! Very valuable for me as I realize that the Elp-Hilversum culture appears not so prominently esp. in German sources as the Southern German tumulus culture or the Northern Bronze Age. Indeed very interesting to understand the interactions and differences between these cultures.
Specifically for the name ambaxtos 'servant', I was thinking about knowing a German equivalent and now I found what I had in mind. E.g. in Skírnismál the name ambátt appears with the same meaning servant, slave. So maybe a joined Celtic-Germanic word.

Thanks for sharing Orentil! The whole "Nordwestblock" (for lack of a better term) area is of course something I hope to demystify, and the fact my own Y-DNA is attested in the Bronze Age Netherlands has played a nontrivial role in motivating me to read up on the archaeology (in addition to my closest aDNA Y-match being a Batavian; perhaps also because of my Frankish ancestry?  ). Hilversum is a different story compared to Elp, as their rites, traditions, and material culture are rather "Atlantic" (but probably interpreted as southern goods by the recipients) but they clearly had ties with Hoogkarspel but from memory were horribly affected by factors such as changing climate and population decline, resulting in colonists from the RSFO Urnfield tradition settling in their area (U152?), followed by several more population waves - by contrast, IIRC the Elp area had a fairly stable numbers followed by a rather impressive demographic boom by the start of the Iron Age.

While rereading the paper, I immediately took note of the name Nertomarius among the Celtic names because of our conversation at the old site RE: the origin of the Ingvaeones/Irminones/Istvaeones triad, and I remembered that you mentioned Inguiomerius (Inguomer) was the name of Arminius' uncle (the name, of course, invoking the god Ingwaz). I do know of at least one other dedication attesting a P. Nertomarius Quartus (in Slovenia), and the usage of it as a nomen gentilicium followed by a cognomen of course points to a Gallic provenance in accordance with a Gallo-Romance naming tradition (3 names), but it is important to keep in mind that at least when we talk about devotees to Nehalennia, we are talking about an entire cultural sphere of groups with varying degrees of mixed ancestry between IA Dutch and Celtic groups (+ Jastorf elements if we think of Cimbric introgression), and the same is true of the Belgae even if they seem to have taken on more Celtic speech, so I think it is at least interesting to consider the possibility that the aforementioned Nertomarius might also reference the goddess Nerthus and have a dual meaning due to semantical interferences between Celtic and Germanic in the Iron Age. Just a stray thought!

I for one loved your stray thought on Nertomarius and would bet you're right about the link. I've always been curious about the obvious correspondence between Nerthus and the later male Njord. Anyone got any insights into how that came about? I assume it wasn't just something that happened as the Vanir fertility gods and goddesses made way for Odin and co in key regions, and after a bit of mansplaining from the male powers of the time it was finally decided that Nerthus had been male all along.

ADD: just to elaborate, although I assume that wasn't the case, as I said, all my amateur runic studies have convinced me that there was indeed some kind of power or network of authority that was somehow able to enforce standardisation in that field for hundreds of years right through the changes in both futharks, so perhaps also beyond into other areas of belief and communication in some regions. But anyway, back to Nerthus and Njord...

[Ambiorix]

I for one loved your stray thought on Nertomarius and would bet you're right about the link. I've always been curious about the obvious correspondence between Nerthus and the later male Njord. Anyone got any insights into how that came about? I assume it wasn't just something that happened as the Vanir fertility gods and goddesses made way for Odin and co in key regions, and after a bit of mansplaining from the male powers of the time it was finally decided that Nerthus had been male all along.

ADD: just to elaborate, although I assume that wasn't the case, as I said, all my amateur runic studies have convinced me that there was indeed some kind of power or network of authority that was somehow able to enforce standardisation in that field for hundreds of years right through the changes in both futharks, so perhaps also beyond into other areas of belief and communication in some regions. But anyway, back to Nerthus and Njord...

I’ve been trying to develop my thoughts on the Vanir on and off for a while now and think their key characteristics ultimately stem from interactions with Finnic groups (whether that is an older or younger layer of Finnic-Germanic contact I do not know, but I will continue to develop my ideas). As it concerns Nerthus and Njǫrðr: I am of the mind that Njǫrðr probably originally represented the Proto-Germanic founder figure Mannaz, father of Ingwaz, Irminjaz, and Istwaz (Istraz?), since Yngvi-Freyr is later attested as son of Njǫrðr and a member of the Vanir. In my opinion, Mannaz would have been partitioned into Njǫrðr and Borr in the North Germanic tradition, with the former taking on the divine pair/Divine Twins motif from the Indo-European days while the latter retained the motif of three alliterating brothers as his sons – due to this phenomenon, Mannaz simply became Njǫrðr to match the name of his consort/wife Nerthus; I follow Hopkins (2012), “Goddesses Unknown I: Njǫrun and the Sister-Wife of Njǫrðr” (https://www.academia.edu/2315070/Goddess...ABr%C3%B0r), where the author argues that the name of Nerthus evolved into Njǫrun or *Njärð (the latter form being attested in toponymy) and relays the possibility that the story of Hadingus and Harthgrepa in Saxo Grammaticus’ Gesta Danorum recounts the relationship between Njǫrðr and Njǫrun-Njärð, so it is not like Nerthus disappeared entirely, but she became more obscure as other figures gained greater prominence in Norse mythology. One of the ideas I have seen suggested for the Vanir is that they are supposed to represent some category of deified proto-humans since they seem to have a strong association with the elves while Yngvi’s name probably originally meant “mortal” at the Proto-Germanic stage; it would certainly mesh quite well with my hypothesis that Njǫrðr derives at least in part from the progenitor figure Mannaz, and the quasi-incestuous relationship between Hadingus (who is fostered in Sweden by the giant Wagnofthus – Malaren? ) and Harthgrepa (Wagnofthus’ daughter) would then relate to some story of Mannaz being taken in by some category of divinities.

Still getting the hang of quotes so forgive me if the formatting of your reply looks a bit odd in this post @JonikW! As an aside, if you are interested in Scandinavian place names related to the Norse pantheon and their distribution, I highly recommend the following paper: (PDF) How uniform was the Old Norse religion? | Stefan Brink - Academia.edu - info on Njorun/Njard/Niaerþer can be found on pp. 118-119

EDIT: I am surprised that it worked quite well, I take back the remark RE: formatting!

[Rodoorn]

I for one loved your stray thought on Nertomarius and would bet you're right about the link. I've always been curious about the obvious correspondence between Nerthus and the later male Njord. Anyone got any insights into how that came about? I assume it wasn't just something that happened as the Vanir fertility gods and goddesses made way for Odin and co in key regions, and after a bit of mansplaining from the male powers of the time it was finally decided that Nerthus had been male all along.

ADD: just to elaborate, although I assume that wasn't the case, as I said, all my amateur runic studies have convinced me that there was indeed some kind of power or network of authority that was somehow able to enforce standardisation in that field for hundreds of years right through the changes in both futharks, so perhaps also beyond into other areas of belief and communication in some regions. But anyway, back to Nerthus and Njord...

I’ve been trying to develop my thoughts on the Vanir on and off for a while now and think their key characteristics ultimately stem from interactions with Finnic groups (whether that is an older or younger layer of Finnic-Germanic contact I do not know, but I will continue to develop my ideas). As it concerns Nerthus and Njǫrðr: I am of the mind that Njǫrðr probably originally represented the Proto-Germanic founder figure Mannaz, father of Ingwaz, Irminjaz, and Istwaz (Istraz?), since Yngvi-Freyr is later attested as son of Njǫrðr and a member of the Vanir. In my opinion, Mannaz would have been partitioned into Njǫrðr and Borr in the North Germanic tradition, with the former taking on the divine pair/Divine Twins motif from the Indo-European days while the latter retained the motif of three alliterating brothers as his sons – due to this phenomenon, Mannaz simply became Njǫrðr to match the name of his consort/wife Nerthus; I follow Hopkins (2012), “Goddesses Unknown I: Njǫrun and the Sister-Wife of Njǫrðr” (https://www.academia.edu/2315070/Goddess...ABr%C3%B0r), where the author argues that the name of Nerthus evolved into Njǫrun or *Njärð (the latter form being attested in toponymy) and relays the possibility that the story of Hadingus and Harthgrepa in Saxo Grammaticus’ Gesta Danorum recounts the relationship between Njǫrðr and Njǫrun-Njärð, so it is not like Nerthus disappeared entirely, but she became more obscure as other figures gained greater prominence in Norse mythology. One of the ideas I have seen suggested for the Vanir is that they are supposed to represent some category of deified proto-humans since they seem to have a strong association with the elves while Yngvi’s name probably originally meant “mortal” at the Proto-Germanic stage; it would certainly mesh quite well with my hypothesis that Njǫrðr derives at least in part from the progenitor figure Mannaz, and the quasi-incestuous relationship between Hadingus (who is fostered in Sweden by the giant Wagnofthus – Malaren? ) and Harthgrepa (Wagnofthus’ daughter) would then relate to some story of Mannaz being taken in by some category of divinities.

Still getting the hang of quotes so forgive me if the formatting of your reply looks a bit odd in this post @JonikW! As an aside, if you are interested in Scandinavian place names related to the Norse pantheon and their distribution, I highly recommend the following paper: (PDF) How uniform was the Old Norse religion? | Stefan Brink - Academia.edu - info on Njorun/Njard/Niaerþer can be found on pp. 118-119

EDIT: I am surprised that it worked quite well, I take back the remark RE: formatting!

With regard to Nerthus and Njörd. I know  that's an old comparison. 

I guess that Nerthus has older cards and is something like mother earth. Njørd is something for more testosterone   for pirates and vikings  

Nerthus seems to have fare echo's in Frau Holle. Quite plausible imo.