Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

[Rodoorn]

@Jaska

Koch (2020):

By ~1500 BC Southern Scandinavia had become a brilliant
participant in the Bronze Age. Leading up to this, we must suppose
that young men who were native speakers of Pre-Germanic (most
of whom probably lacked comfortable inheritance) sought their
fortunes by undertaking long travels beyond the lands of their
native dialect. These journeys included two types: (a) expeditions to
acquire metals in Central Europe or the Atlantic West and (b) service
as ‘mercenaries’ in warbands recruited by foreign potentates.

Linge (2019):

Hence, it is perhaps more logical to assume that copper from the Italian Alps was transferred by Tumulus middle men, at the southern branch of Weser, and from there they could have used the copper to trade Baltic amber with the riverine travelling Scandinavians. Another potential scenario was that Tumulus groups transported the copper to the river mouth of either Weser or Rhine for further exchange with other groups from Northern Europe.

As Koch suggests, they were already speaking pre-germanic, so this represents how pre-germanic speakers learned "celtic" words and ideas, right?

As a tangential remark, I think there's also an interesting distinction between these narratives: Koch 2020 is a narrative wherein Southern Scandinavian adventurers make long-distance expeditions to secure their fortunes, while the Linge 2019 is more of a network involving middle-men and generally shorter travel. Ultimately probably inconsequential to this conversation, but I think it raises interesting questions about interactions at the time.

Indeed Cejo, this how they most likely  picked up some italo-celtic/ celtic!

And I read: "expeditions to acquire metals in Central Europe or the Atlantic West "

Well in those days (to some extent even now) quit a travel.....and it's quite remarkable the Scandics used the Weser and Rhine and not the Elbe or Oder, which are as such much more close. And they continue to use this even unto Viking times, talking about continuity in networks....

[Orentil]

Do I see it right that also Thuringians, Baiuvarii and Alemanni should primarily belong to the same Southern Scandinavian IA, cluster 0_1_2_1 (Mecklenburg, Northern Germany) as the Langobards (plus of course remnants of shattered other Germanic tribes and local non-Germanics)? Anything that speaks against it?

[Bollox79]

Do I see it right that also Thuringians, Baiuvarii and Alemanni should primarily belong to the same Southern Scandinavian IA, cluster 0_1_2_1  (Mecklenburg, Northern Germany) as the Langobards (plus of course remnants of shattered other Germanic tribes and local non-Germanics)? Anything that speaks against it?

For what it's worth... 

According to this paper: Altheim ALH 1 - who was a subgroup under DF96 (brother group to DF98) and was from that ACD Baiuvarii paper is SouthScan, AED204 (Altenerding) - SouthScan, AED106 who is Z306 (under that is Z304 and then DF96 and DF98) is SouthScan, AED92b who is U106 is SouthScan, AED1119 is SouthScan, AED249 is SouthScan, AED1108 is EAsia, AED513 is Baltic, STR248b ( Straubing- Bajuwarenstraße )  is SouthScan, STR316b who is under U106 Z18 is SouthScan, STR480 is SouthScan, STR486 is SouthScan, STR220c is EastScan...

At 6 Driffield we have 6DT18 who is WEuls, 6DT21 is WEuls, 6DT23 is WEuls, 6DT22 is WEuMI, 6DT3 is WEuMI, 3DT16 is WEuMI, 3DT26 is WestMed. 

The Valkenburg site seems to be a mixture of WEuMI, one EWEu, oh interesting that CGG107753 at Valkenburg is WestMed - a similar situation to Driffield?, CGG107762 is Baltic, and a few SouthScan including the DF98+ guy, one WEuls... so a mixture. Still I find it interesting there is a WestMed at Valkenburg just like Driffield had their outlier WestMed 3DT26 - this is perhaps the army bringing people from further afield? 

Just random thoughts, but figured at least the Baiuvarii samples have to do with your comment! Granted Y-DNA groups can be part of any background...

[Dewsloth]

Do I see it right that also Thuringians, Baiuvarii and Alemanni should primarily belong to the same Southern Scandinavian IA, cluster 0_1_2_1  (Mecklenburg, Northern Germany) as the Langobards (plus of course remnants of shattered other Germanic tribes and local non-Germanics)? Anything that speaks against it?

Honestly, I find the paper's groupings a bit confusing, and the tribes you list may be North or South or WEuMI.  
The paper-assigned positions seem almost inverted, or at least SouthScan looks more west.

Just looking at the DF19s, as they and their stomping grounds are ground zero for the contact zone of Scandinavian and whatever was south/west of the area:

Table 2 Paper groups as 
WEuMl:
Distance to: Netherlands_MBA:I26830 DF19>DF88
0.03541089 Norwegian
0.03554400 Swedish
0.03647264 Icelandic
0.03708407 Danish
0.04186675 Irish
0.04209700 Dutch
WEuMI But No G25 data yet:
CGG107761 Valkenburg Marktveld WEuMl DF19>DF88
CGG107763 Valkenburg Marktveld WEuMl DF19>DF88


WEuIs:
Distance to: England_IA_Roman.SG:6DT23_noUDG.SG DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02733832 English
0.02768568 English_Cornwall
0.02793634 Orcadian
0.02846997 Scottish
0.02990972 Welsh
0.03005691 Irish

South Scandinavian(?):
Distance to: Italy_LA_o3CentralEuropean.SG:R31.SG  DF19>Z302
0.03408754 Welsh
0.03456648 Dutch
0.03501640 Danish
0.03597701 English
0.03641697 German
0.03657445 French_Brittany

Distance to: England_EarlyMedieval:I17277  DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02699474 Irish
0.02703899 Icelandic
0.02790870 Norwegian
0.02890259 Scottish
0.02932768 Danish
0.02980760 Orcadian

Distance to: Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval:IND002.A_noUDG DF19>Z302
0.02264113 BelgianA
0.02328833 French_Brittany
0.02399607 Orcadian
0.02429744 Welsh
0.02462169 English_Cornwall
0.02482226 Afrikaner

Distance to: Sweden_Viking.SG:VK333_noUDG.SG  DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02424640 BelgianB
0.02580782 French_Paris
0.02660059 French_Nord
0.02662883 French_Alsace
0.02699234 BelgianC
0.02711633 Swiss_German
SouthScan But No G25 Data yet:
CGG019200 Illerup_weapon_sacrifice_site Denmark_Jutland SouthScan DF19>Z302

Not in paper (but maybe should be)
Distance to: Germany_Hiddestorf_Saxon_EMedieval:HID001.A_noUDG DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02297083 Danish
0.02337727 Icelandic
0.02351212 Swedish
0.02373926 Norwegian
0.02814307 German_Hamburg
0.02906568 Dutch

Distance to: Germany_Hiddestorf_Saxon_EMedieval:HID002.A_noUDG DF19>DF88
0.02938798 Icelandic
0.03242407 Danish
0.03278972 Norwegian
0.03321097 Scottish
0.03334194 Orcadian
0.03412944 Shetlandic

Distance to: Austria_Klosterneuburg_Roman.SG:R10657.SG  DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02813083 Norwegian
0.02823519 Icelandic
0.03048690 Danish
0.03214705 Swedish
0.03217249 Irish
0.03283320 Orcadian

Distance to: CZE_IA_Hallstatt_low_res:I17607  DF19>DF88
0.05102052 Shetlandic
0.05129149 Norwegian
0.05308370 Danish
0.05321384 Swedish
0.05363114 Icelandic
0.05386936 Irish

Distance to: Netherlands_LNB_BellBeaker:I13028  DF19>DF88
0.04313812 Swedish
0.04335837 Norwegian
0.04474766 Icelandic
0.04637783 Danish
0.04761762 Shetlandic
0.04831769 Orcadian

Distance to: Netherlands_BellBeaker:I5748  DF19>Z302
0.04803485 Swedish
0.04834112 Icelandic
0.04854748 Norwegian
0.05047160 Danish
0.05182485 Shetlandic
0.05197906 Irish

[Rodoorn]

Do I see it right that also Thuringians, Baiuvarii and Alemanni should primarily belong to the same Southern Scandinavian IA, cluster 0_1_2_1  (Mecklenburg, Northern Germany) as the Langobards (plus of course remnants of shattered other Germanic tribes and local non-Germanics)? Anything that speaks against it?

Honestly, I find the paper's groupings a bit confusing, and the tribes you list may be North or South or WEuMI.  
The paper-assigned positions seem almost inverted, or at least SouthScan looks more west.

Just looking at the DF19s, as they and their stomping grounds are ground zero for the contact zone of Scandinavian and whatever was south/west of the area:

Table 2 Paper groups as 
WEuMl:
Distance to: Netherlands_MBA:I26830 DF19>DF88
0.03541089 Norwegian
0.03554400 Swedish
0.03647264 Icelandic
0.03708407 Danish
0.04186675 Irish
0.04209700 Dutch
WEuMI But No G25 data yet:
CGG107761 Valkenburg Marktveld WEuMl DF19>DF88
CGG107763 Valkenburg Marktveld WEuMl DF19>DF88


WEuIs:
Distance to: England_IA_Roman.SG:6DT23_noUDG.SG  DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02733832 English
0.02768568 English_Cornwall
0.02793634 Orcadian
0.02846997 Scottish
0.02990972 Welsh
0.03005691 Irish

South Scandinavian(?):
Distance to: Italy_LA_o3CentralEuropean.SG:R31.SG  DF19>Z302
0.03408754 Welsh
0.03456648 Dutch
0.03501640 Danish
0.03597701 English
0.03641697 German
0.03657445 French_Brittany

Distance to: England_EarlyMedieval:I17277  DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02699474 Irish
0.02703899 Icelandic
0.02790870 Norwegian
0.02890259 Scottish
0.02932768 Danish
0.02980760 Orcadian

Distance to: Germany_AltInden_Saxon_EMedieval:IND002.A_noUDG DF19>Z302
0.02264113 BelgianA
0.02328833 French_Brittany
0.02399607 Orcadian
0.02429744 Welsh
0.02462169 English_Cornwall
0.02482226 Afrikaner

Distance to: Sweden_Viking.SG:VK333_noUDG.SG  DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02424640 BelgianB
0.02580782 French_Paris
0.02660059 French_Nord
0.02662883 French_Alsace
0.02699234 BelgianC
0.02711633 Swiss_German
SouthScan But No G25 Data yet:
CGG019200 Illerup_weapon_sacrifice_site Denmark_Jutland SouthScan DF19>Z302

Not in paper (but maybe should be)
Distance to: Germany_Hiddestorf_Saxon_EMedieval:HID001.A_noUDG DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02297083 Danish
0.02337727 Icelandic
0.02351212 Swedish
0.02373926 Norwegian
0.02814307 German_Hamburg
0.02906568 Dutch

Distance to: Germany_Hiddestorf_Saxon_EMedieval:HID002.A_noUDG DF19>DF88
0.02938798 Icelandic
0.03242407 Danish
0.03278972 Norwegian
0.03321097 Scottish
0.03334194 Orcadian
0.03412944 Shetlandic

Distance to: Austria_Klosterneuburg_Roman.SG:R10657.SG  DF19>DF88>>>Z17112
0.02813083 Norwegian
0.02823519 Icelandic
0.03048690 Danish
0.03214705 Swedish
0.03217249 Irish
0.03283320 Orcadian

Distance to: CZE_IA_Hallstatt_low_res:I17607  DF19>DF88
0.05102052 Shetlandic
0.05129149 Norwegian
0.05308370 Danish
0.05321384 Swedish
0.05363114 Icelandic
0.05386936 Irish

Distance to: Netherlands_LNB_BellBeaker:I13028  DF19>DF88
0.04313812 Swedish
0.04335837 Norwegian
0.04474766 Icelandic
0.04637783 Danish
0.04761762 Shetlandic
0.04831769 Orcadian

Distance to: Netherlands_BellBeaker:I5748  DF19>Z302
0.04803485 Swedish
0.04834112 Icelandic
0.04854748 Norwegian
0.05047160 Danish
0.05182485 Shetlandic
0.05197906 Irish

Apples and oranges Dewsloth, imo you mix too much the ancients with the moderns...And DF19 is imo not a kind of ground zero because it pops up in from Hallstatt CZE to BB Oostwoud NL,  and from Hiddestorf to Kloster Neuburg, that represents in autosomal sense no kind of unity fare from that. So no wonder the paper confuses you. Excuse me for my Dutch blunt directness.

[Dewsloth]

Do I see it right that also Thuringians, Baiuvarii and Alemanni should primarily belong to the same Southern Scandinavian IA, cluster 0_1_2_1  (Mecklenburg, Northern Germany) as the Langobards (plus of course remnants of shattered other Germanic tribes and local non-Germanics)? Anything that speaks against it?

Apples and oranges Dewsloth, imo you mix too much the ancients with the moderns...And DF19 is imo not a kind of ground zero because it pops up in from CZE to Oostwoud NL,  and from Hiddestorf to Kloster Neuburg, that represents in autosomal sense no kind of unity fare from that. So no wonder the paper confuses you. Excuse me for my Dutch blunt directness.

I'm not mixing anything, I'm just showing where they group.  And if you think I17607 and R10657 are natives of their burial grounds of AUT and CZE, I can't help you.

[Orentil]

Do I see it right that also Thuringians, Baiuvarii and Alemanni should primarily belong to the same Southern Scandinavian IA, cluster 0_1_2_1  (Mecklenburg, Northern Germany) as the Langobards (plus of course remnants of shattered other Germanic tribes and local non-Germanics)? Anything that speaks against it?

For what it's worth... 

According to this paper: Altheim ALH 1 - who was a subgroup under DF96 (brother group to DF98) and was from that ACD Baiuvarii paper is SouthScan, AED204 (Altenerding) - SouthScan, AED106 who is Z306 (under that is Z304 and then DF96 and DF98) is SouthScan, AED92b who is U106 is SouthScan, AED1119 is SouthScan, AED249 is SouthScan, AED1108 is EAsia, AED513 is Baltic, STR248b ( Straubing- Bajuwarenstraße )  is SouthScan, STR316b who is under U106 Z18 is SouthScan, STR480 is SouthScan, STR486 is SouthScan, STR220c is EastScan...

At 6 Driffield we have 6DT18 who is WEuls, 6DT21 is WEuls, 6DT23 is WEuls, 6DT22 is WEuMI, 6DT3 is WEuMI, 3DT16 is WEuMI, 3DT26 is WestMed. 

The Valkenburg site seems to be a mixture of WEuMI, one EWEu, oh interesting that CGG107753 at Valkenburg is WestMed - a similar situation to Driffield?, CGG107762 is Baltic, and a few SouthScan including the DF98+ guy, one WEuls... so a mixture. Still I find it interesting there is a WestMed at Valkenburg just like Driffield had their outlier WestMed 3DT26 - this is perhaps the army bringing people from further afield? 

Just random thoughts, but figured at least the Baiuvarii samples have to do with your comment! Granted Y-DNA groups can be part of any background...

Great, many thanks. Than Thuringians and Alemanni must be SouthScan too. Fascinating how this can be analyzed nowadays.

[Rodoorn]

Was there an Italo-Celtic branche, according to the compu linguist Don Ringe (2002) for sure it was, even with more coherence than Germanic....

The tree in the paper:



Mark that Kuhn in his book about the NW Block made the whole time references from the NW block language towards Toscan and Umbrian.

So it's a pretty well possibility that the pre-Germanic speaking Scandics picked up several words (see posting ^^^^) and language phrases from the NW block!

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

And Merlijn de Smit speaks even about an interaction with Finnic:
https://www.academia.edu/40045312/Contac...and_Celtic

Of course the question stays were ends Italo-Celtic and starts Italic and Celtic. And with regard to the NW block language, as is contained a "core" Bell Beaker population how long did they prolonged with their "italo-celtic" branch and changed it into what Schrijver called North Sea Celtic (in IA).

Linguists go ahead!

[alanarchae]

while I love Koch’s paper about Germanic and admire the way he tried to tackle head on the long contact between Celts and pre proto Germanics, i’ve always felt he is a lot less able when he dabbles in archaeology for dating purposes. I feel there is a bit of a ‘pluck date out of the air’ about it as most of the Celto-Germanic vocab doesn’t lend itself to dating. Dating also changes with new finds. For example he cites shields and shield symbols as late bronze age but one of those classic notched round shields was retrieved from an Irish bog and is now dated to something like 1500BC which is the early-mid bronze age transition. You just have to go to a museum and see a rapier sword with a foot and a half long blade or the already pretty deadly looking socket and looped spearheads from that era to see why even in 1500BC you would have wanted a shield! You could even argue that specialist warrior weapons (likely very expensive) started as early as 2300BC with rapiers. I’d advise to take Koch’s archaeologically based dating as extremely speculative.

[Ebizur]

Was there an Italo-Celtic branche, according to the compu linguist Don Ringe (2002) for sure it was, even with more coherence as Germanic....

The tree in the paper:



Mark that Kuhn in his book about the NW Block made the whole time reference from the NW block language to Toscan and Umbrian.

...

Linguists go ahead!

The hypothesized link between the Italic and Celtic forms on the one hand, and the Greek and Armenian forms on the other, looks like a bit of a stretch, but I can at least imagine the implied sound changes. The hypothesized link between the Indic and the Iranian forms looks irregular, but not necessarily implausible.

However, how in the world could one imagine that the Albanian form might be related to the Germanic form? It seems utterly groundless. Based on my knowledge of Albanian rhotacism, I could imagine the Albanian form being connected to the Balto-Slavic forms via a hypothetical pre-proto-Albanian *dongə or something like that.

[Rodoorn]

Was there an Italo-Celtic branche, according to the compu linguist Don Ringe (2002) for sure it was, even with more coherence as Germanic....

The tree in the paper:



Mark that Kuhn in his book about the NW Block made the whole time reference from the NW block language to Toscan and Umbrian.

...

Linguists go ahead!

The hypothesized link between the Italic and Celtic forms on the one hand, and the Greek and Armenian forms on the other, looks like a bit of a stretch, but I can at least imagine the implied sound changes. The hypothesized link between the Indic and the Iranian forms looks irregular, but not necessarily implausible.

However, how in the world could one imagine that the Albanian form might be related to the Germanic form? It seems utterly groundless. Based on my knowledge of Albanian rhotacism, I could imagine the Albanian form being connected to the Balto-Slavic forms via a hypothetical pre-proto-Albanian *dongə or something like that.

No idea.Indeed the case you mention looks fare fetched to me.

Nevertheless let's focus on Italo-Celtic (and Germanic of course).






For what it's worth our friend Angles would say

[Rodoorn]

while I love Koch’s paper about Germanic and admire the way he tried to tackle head on the long contact between Celts and pre proto Germanics, i’ve always felt he is a lot less able when he dabbles in archaeology for dating purposes. I feel there is a bit of a ‘pluck date out of the air’ about it as most of the Celto-Germanic vocab doesn’t lend itself to dating. Dating also changes with new finds. For example he cites shields and shield symbols as late bronze age but one of those classic notched round shields was retrieved from an Irish bog and is now dated to something like 1500BC which is the early-mid bronze age transition. You just have to go to a museum and see a rapier sword with a foot and a half long blade or the already pretty deadly looking socket and looped spearheads from that era to see why even in 1500BC you would have wanted a shield! You could even argue that specialist warrior weapons (likely very expensive) started as early as 2300BC with rapiers.

Pre-historic languages and timeframes is imo hazardous anyway (no sources/ evidence).

But the communis opinion here is that is nagging by Rodoorn   So on this point I'm not going into the rabbit hole again  

So imo leave the timing aside. 

Nevertheless:
The option by Koch that Scandic metal expeditions towards the Weser (and Rhine) brought more @ home than just the metal makes sense to me. And this network was there all through BA/IA even unto Viking ages....

[Bollox79]

Some interesting stuff per Valkenburg... for those interested. There was a layer of burning aka destruction between period 3 and 4 I think timed with the Batavian revolt... "Julius Civilis still commanded one of the Batavian auxiliary units in Roman service, and the commander of the Rhine army, Marcus Hordeonius Flaccus, did not know that Civilis conspired against Rome (although he sensed that something was going on; above). This offered Civilis an opportunity: he induced the Cananefates, the tribe that lived between the Batavians and the sea, to revolt, hoping that Flaccus would send him to suppress the rebellion. Tacitus tells how the war against the Romans started in August of 69.

Among the Cananefates was a foolish desperado called Brinno. He came from a very distinguished family. His father had taken part in many marauding exploits [...]. The mere fact that his son was the heir of a rebel family secured him votes. He was placed upon a shield in the tribal fashion and carried on the swaying shoulders of his bearers to symbolize his election as leader. Immediately calling upon the Frisians, a tribe beyond the Rhine, he swooped down on two Roman auxiliary units in their nearby quarters and simultaneously overran them from the North Sea. The garrison had not expected the attack, nor indeed would it have been strong enough to hold out if it had, so the posts were captured and sacked. Then the enemy fell upon the Roman supply-contractors and merchants who were scattered over the countryside with no thought of war. The marauders were also on the point of destroying the frontier forts, but these were set on fire by the commanders because they could not be defended."

Among the two camps that Brinno destroyed was that of the Third Gallic cavalry unit at Praetorium Agrippinae (modern Valkenburg near Leiden), where archaeologists have discovered the burning layer. Among the other frontier forts that were destroyed by the Romans themselves, was Traiectum (modern Utrecht). A telling detail is the treasure of fifty gold pieces that was buried by an officer who was never able to recover his money. (See below; they coins were rediscovered in 1933 in the ruin of the house of a centurio.) Tacitus continues his story:

"The headquarters of the various auxiliary units and such troops as they could muster rallied to the eastern part of the Island under a senior centurion named Aquilius. But this was an army on paper only, lacking real strength. It could hardly be otherwise, for Vitellius had withdrawn the bulk of the units' effectives."

This was found here https://www.livius.org/articles/concept/...-revolt-4/

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:

Was there an Italo-Celtic branche, according to the compu linguist Don Ringe (2002) for sure it was, even with more coherence than Germanic....

They do not claim that, so why do you?
https://www.cs.rice.edu/~nakhleh/CPHL/RWT02.pdf


Rodoorn:

Pre-historic languages and timeframes is imo hazardous anyway (no sources/ evidence).

Only because you refuse to read studies about the topic.

[pelop]

Among the two camps that Brinno destroyed was that of the Third Gallic cavalry unit at Praetorium Agrippinae (modern Valkenburg near Leiden), where archaeologists have discovered the burning layer.

The archaeological paper I linked previously -albeit not a very recent one- mentions that the dead at Valkenburg didn't show signs of violent death and they were buried randomly amidst the more numerous cremation burials (so doesn't seem like a mass grave either). It speculates that they could have been prisoners, labourers or outcasts of some kind, maybe something like a penal unit of the Roman legion stationed there. The good news is that (per the supplementals) there's going to be a separate paper about the site so I'm sure these questions are going to be tackled there