About Proto-Germanic

[old europe]

Rodoorn:

“The scientific principle of history writing is based on that a historical narrative needs sources (based in reality of the past). For writing a novel this is not the case. That's the difference between scientific and not. Quit simple.”

Of course, that is the autistic nature of history science. You accept it, and similarly you must accept restrictions of other disciplines, too.

Rodoorn:

“For pinpointing languages in time and space (core task of the historian!!!!) we need original sources from the past, inscriptions etc (that are the sources).”

Prehistoric languages cannot be reached by history science – it is the definition of history vs. prehistory. So, linguistic methods for dating and locating must be applied then. You cannot deny the linguistic results based on criteria of history science. They are two different disciplines, independent from each other.

Rodoorn:

“But it goes wrong when based on only the reconstruction as such statements are being made about when and which a certain kind of language spoken in a certain area. Because this can't be based on a reconstructed language like proto-Germanic: the reconstructed language proto-Germanic isn't a original source. We have no evidence what someone in Sweden spoke about 500 BC.  And such evidence- an original source- is needed to write in a responsible, scientific way history. Again for that we need inscriptions from time and place (=original sources).”

Of course it is “original source” – just not historical but prehistoric. We have the historical temporal anchor: early runic inscriptions in Southern Scandinavia since the first centuries CE. During the previous centuries Proto-Germanic disintegrated into Northwest Germanic and East Germanic, which both seem to have been spoken in Scandinavia. Therefore, Late Proto-Germanic can also be located in Southern Scandinavia.

There is nothing in history, archaeology, or genetics, which could even in theory question or overrule these linguistic results. You just have to accept them, if you want to continue scientific discussion.

Rodoorn:

“The thing is that you seem to propose that a reconstruction equals reality (= a certainty that Sweden 500 BC spoke the reconstructed proto Germanic). We assume it, but we don't now for sure, because the lack of evidence to be able to check this.”

You have misunderstood this. Proto-Germanic was a real language in time and place, even though our reconstruction could not reach every word or feature of it. And we have long continuum of Germanic contacts with Finnic and Saami until the early runic era and even after it. That is locationally relevant evidence, together with old Germanic placenames in Sweden and Southwestern Finland. You cannot ignore this evidence, if you want to remain in the scientific discussion.

Rodoorn:

“So from the perspective of a historian you act in non-scientific way!”

No, just the opposite. It is scientific to recognize limitations and possibilities of different disciplines. Here you do not seem to recognize the limitations of history science and possibilities of historical linguistics. Therefore, your method is unscientific: you erroneously consider linguistics as a sub-branch of history science.

I hope you read my arguments with thought. It may be difficult to change one’s views on things, but it is always rewarding to be intellectually honest and to be able to change one’s views, when those have been proven erroneous.

FWIW given the fact that I have no horse in the race on the issue of proto-germanic I would say that it could not be accurate to say that the first evidence of proto germanic is attested only in Scandinavia in the first centuries CE. There is the Negau helmet inscriptions in Slovenia dated at circa 300/200 BC and at the same latitude of northern Italy. The inscription in now universally considered germanic:

The first part most researchers agree on; it's a Germanic name before the first sound shift took place: *Harigasti(z). It consists of two parts: hari (= army, host; the word can be found in Old Norse herjan - to make war, to plunder, hernað - warfare; or in German Heer - army) and gasti(z) (= guest). The name lives on in Hergest and similar forms.

The second part is more tricky. A widely if not unanimously accepted interpretation has been presented by Tom Markey in 2001 (1). He reads it as *teiwa(z) (= god; Indoeuropean *deiwos, also to be found in the Norse Tyr, Anglosaxon Tiw). Thus the inscription would read: "Harigasti, [the priest of] the god".

One argument in favour of this reading are the Celtic inscriptions on the Negau A helmets. Several of those are of the structure: name + 'the diviner', name + 'astral priest of the troop', etc. (since I don't know any Celtic, I've to accept those readings; their Celtic nature at least is undisputed). So the Germanic inscription would follow the same pattern.


Personal consideration: it was a scandinavian mercenary among the celts?
Since we are speaking of Slovenia the case of proto germanic speakers in between the southern Alps and  southern Scandinavia is also very strong. Occam's razor suggests that the celts of Noricum would have got their mercenaries from nearby  regions. So the presence of protogermanic folks in 500 BC in the Elbe region is quite sure.
Of course everything depends on WHEN exactly protogermanic is dated.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn:

“The scientific principle of history writing is based on that a historical narrative needs sources (based in reality of the past). For writing a novel this is not the case. That's the difference between scientific and not. Quit simple.”

Of course, that is the autistic nature of history science. You accept it, and similarly you must accept restrictions of other disciplines, too.

@Jaska history is about what and when. If you aim to write scientific history, there is the need of sources, evidence, traces from the past.
It is not different from solving a crime, you need traces, evidence.
I don't see the urge or need to segment it all because the reality is interrelated  not segmentated. in in

Rodoorn:

“For pinpointing languages in time and space (core task of the historian!!!!) we need original sources from the past, inscriptions etc (that are the sources).”

Prehistoric languages cannot be reached by history science – it is the definition of history vs. prehistory. So, linguistic methods for dating and locating must be applied then. You cannot deny the linguistic results based on criteria of history science. They are two different disciplines, independent from each other.

@Jaska indeed and pre-historic language cannot be reached by no one. We have no traces from the past of proto Germanic.
Proto Germanic is: a. a reconstruction b. is based on later on languages not on traces from the past.


Rodoorn:

“But it goes wrong when based on only the reconstruction as such statements are being made about when and which a certain kind of language spoken in a certain area. Because this can't be based on a reconstructed language like proto-Germanic: the reconstructed language proto-Germanic isn't a original source. We have no evidence what someone in Sweden spoke about 500 BC.  And such evidence- an original source- is needed to write in a responsible, scientific way history. Again for that we need inscriptions from time and place (=original sources).”

Of course it is “original source” – just not historical but prehistoric. We have the historical temporal anchor: early runic inscriptions in Southern Scandinavia since the first centuries CE. During the previous centuries Proto-Germanic disintegrated into Northwest Germanic and East Germanic, which both seem to have been spoken in Scandinavia. Therefore, Late Proto-Germanic can also be located in Southern Scandinavia.
There is nothing in history, archaeology, or genetics, which could even in theory question or overrule these linguistic results. You just have to accept them, if you want to continue scientific discussion.

@Jaska
It is not the original, it is a remake. And a remake, a reconstruction is not the original.
Just like a painting of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa herself.
So that's the thing, that's the fallacy!


Rodoorn:

“The thing is that you seem to propose that a reconstruction equals reality (= a certainty that Sweden 500 BC spoke the reconstructed proto Germanic). We assume it, but we don't now for sure, because the lack of evidence to be able to check this.”

You have misunderstood this. Proto-Germanic was a real language in time and place, even though our reconstruction could not reach every word or feature of it. And we have long continuum of Germanic contacts with Finnic and Saami until the early runic era and even after it. That is locationally relevant evidence, together with old Germanic placenames in Sweden and Southwestern Finland. You cannot ignore this evidence, if you want to remain in the scientific discussion.

@Jaska, the people @500 BC spoke a real language. Now we only have a reconstruction. That doesn't equal each other.
The fact that there are long-standing contacts between Sweden and Finland, for example, does not alter this.

Rodoorn:

“So from the perspective of a historian you act in non-scientific way!”

No, just the opposite. It is scientific to recognize limitations and possibilities of different disciplines. Here you do not seem to recognize the limitations of history science and possibilities of historical linguistics. Therefore, your method is unscientific: you erroneously consider linguistics as a sub-branch of history science.
I hope you read my arguments with thought. It may be difficult to change one’s views on things, but it is always rewarding to be intellectually honest and to be able to change one’s views, when those have been proven erroneous.

@Jaska I guess you don't accept the limits of linguistics. A perfect science for a language as such, and for a reconstruction of a language like proto-Germanic. But if you aim to pinpoint a (pre-historic) language in time and place, you are beyond the limits of your science. You have to face it: no traces= no evidence so we can't solve the quest, so only assumptions....don't pretend this would be science (it's again the crystal ball on this point).

[Anglesqueville]

Rodoorn:

“The scientific principle of history writing is based on that a historical narrative needs sources (based in reality of the past). For writing a novel this is not the case. That's the difference between scientific and not. Quit simple.”

Of course, that is the autistic nature of history science. You accept it, and similarly you must accept restrictions of other disciplines, too.

Rodoorn:

“For pinpointing languages in time and space (core task of the historian!!!!) we need original sources from the past, inscriptions etc (that are the sources).”

Prehistoric languages cannot be reached by history science – it is the definition of history vs. prehistory. So, linguistic methods for dating and locating must be applied then. You cannot deny the linguistic results based on criteria of history science. They are two different disciplines, independent from each other.

Rodoorn:

“But it goes wrong when based on only the reconstruction as such statements are being made about when and which a certain kind of language spoken in a certain area. Because this can't be based on a reconstructed language like proto-Germanic: the reconstructed language proto-Germanic isn't a original source. We have no evidence what someone in Sweden spoke about 500 BC.  And such evidence- an original source- is needed to write in a responsible, scientific way history. Again for that we need inscriptions from time and place (=original sources).”

Of course it is “original source” – just not historical but prehistoric. We have the historical temporal anchor: early runic inscriptions in Southern Scandinavia since the first centuries CE. During the previous centuries Proto-Germanic disintegrated into Northwest Germanic and East Germanic, which both seem to have been spoken in Scandinavia. Therefore, Late Proto-Germanic can also be located in Southern Scandinavia.

There is nothing in history, archaeology, or genetics, which could even in theory question or overrule these linguistic results. You just have to accept them, if you want to continue scientific discussion.

Rodoorn:

“The thing is that you seem to propose that a reconstruction equals reality (= a certainty that Sweden 500 BC spoke the reconstructed proto Germanic). We assume it, but we don't now for sure, because the lack of evidence to be able to check this.”

You have misunderstood this. Proto-Germanic was a real language in time and place, even though our reconstruction could not reach every word or feature of it. And we have long continuum of Germanic contacts with Finnic and Saami until the early runic era and even after it. That is locationally relevant evidence, together with old Germanic placenames in Sweden and Southwestern Finland. You cannot ignore this evidence, if you want to remain in the scientific discussion.

Rodoorn:

“So from the perspective of a historian you act in non-scientific way!”

No, just the opposite. It is scientific to recognize limitations and possibilities of different disciplines. Here you do not seem to recognize the limitations of history science and possibilities of historical linguistics. Therefore, your method is unscientific: you erroneously consider linguistics as a sub-branch of history science.

I hope you read my arguments with thought. It may be difficult to change one’s views on things, but it is always rewarding to be intellectually honest and to be able to change one’s views, when those have been proven erroneous.

FWIW given the fact that I have no horse in the race on the issue of proto-germanic I would say that it could not be accurate to say that the first evidence of proto germanic is attested only in Scandinavia in the first centuries CE. There is the Negau helmet inscriptions in Slovenia dated at circa 300/200 BC and at the same latitude of northern Italy. The inscription in now universally considered germanic:

The first part most researchers agree on; it's a Germanic name before the first sound shift took place: *Harigasti(z). It consists of two parts: hari (= army, host; the word can be found in Old Norse herjan - to make war, to plunder, hernað - warfare; or in German Heer - army) and gasti(z) (= guest). The name lives on in Hergest and similar forms.

The second part is more tricky. A widely if not unanimously accepted interpretation has been presented by Tom Markey in 2001 (1). He reads it as *teiwa(z) (= god; Indoeuropean *deiwos, also to be found in the Norse Tyr, Anglosaxon Tiw). Thus the inscription would read: "Harigasti, [the priest of] the god".

One argument in favour of this reading are the Celtic inscriptions on the Negau A helmets. Several of those are of the structure: name + 'the diviner', name + 'astral priest of the troop', etc. (since I don't know any Celtic, I've to accept those readings; their Celtic nature at least is undisputed). So the Germanic inscription would follow the same pattern.


Personal consideration: it was a scandinavian mercenary among the celts?
Since we are speaking of Slovenia the case of proto germanic speakers in between the southern Alps and  southern Scandinavia is also very strong. Occam's razor suggests that the celts of Noricum would have got their mercenaries from nearby  regions. So the presence of protogermanic folks in 500 BC in the Elbe region is quite sure.
Of course everything depends on WHEN exactly protogermanic is dated.

We have every reason to believe that Scandinavians have been travelling on the trade routes leading to the Alps (or even to Greece) since at least the middle of the second millennium. On this question, you should read Engedal's thesis https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._of_Bergen, or Kristiansen's texts on the NBA. Particularly on the royal tomb of Kivik, or on the Swedish rock carvings and their incredible similarity with those of Val Camonica, it is difficult to believe that Aegean boats docked in Sweden around -1600, although some have supported this thesis, or that “Italian” artisans went to Scandinavia to give drawing lessons to the natives. The most serious hypothesis is that Scandinavians were in direct contact with these people very early on. The presence here or there of presumably Scandinavian genomes or Germanic artefacts therefore in no way constitutes proof of a continuous and stable Germanic presence in these places.
As for the fact that PGmc was the language of groups settled on the banks of the Elbe around 500 BC, there is nothing to suggest this. On this point, it is not even useful to appeal to the argument of lexical interference with the Finno-Saamic branch. We are reconstructing a plethoric maritime vocabulary for the PGmc (as far as I know, of a non-substratal nature). It is difficult to imagine how this could be reconciled with such a location. The truth is that no one can seriously say what the linguistic landscape of this region of Germany was before the first centuries AD. As for the Elbe-Germanic, it rightfully belongs to the history of West Germanic. Suffice to say that then, as far as the PGmc is concerned, the mass has already been said.

[Rodoorn]

Angles:
"As for the fact that PGmc was the language of groups settled on the banks of the Elbe around 500 BC, there is nothing to suggest this. On this point, it is not even useful to appeal to the argument of lexical interference with the Finno-Saamic branch. We are reconstructing a plethoric maritime vocabulary for the PGmc (as far as I know, of a non-substratal nature). It is difficult to imagine how this could be reconciled with such a location. The truth is that no one can seriously say what the linguistic landscape of this region of Germany was before the first centuries AD. As for the Elbe-Germanic, it rightfully belongs to the history of West Germanic. Suffice to say that then, as far as the PGmc is concerned, the mass has already been said."

Rodoorn:
@Angles, we know that the Suebi were there between 600 BC and 600 AD (afterwards the Slavic expansion).
In this time we witnessed for sure an ethnogenesis of the Suebi. In migration time the Northern ones (Angli, Warini) scummed around the North Sea and stood at the foundation of old English, old Frisian, old Saxon. The Southern ones (Cherusci, Chatti, Macromanni, Allemani, Baiuvari etc etc ) spread all over the Deutsch and Dutch (Batavi) place (and towards the Southeast and South West of Europe) and were founding for High German.
These are certain things.

[Jaska]

old europe:

“FWIW given the fact that I have no horse in the race on the issue of proto-germanic I would say that it could not be accurate to say that the first evidence of proto germanic is attested only in Scandinavia in the first centuries CE. There is the Negau helmet inscriptions in Slovenia dated at circa 300/200 BC and at the same latitude of northern Italy. The inscription in now universally considered germanic:”

I have only said that the early runic inscriptions are Northwest Germanic > Proto-Scandinavian.

There are indeed earlier attestations of Germanic words and names. These represent very archaic language stage, practically Proto-Germanic. 

old europe:

“So the presence of protogermanic folks in 500 BC in the Elbe region is quite sure.
Of course everything depends on WHEN exactly protogermanic is dated.”

Yes, I agree that the presence of Germanic lineage in Central Europe is that early, and probably even much earlier (since Pre-Germanic times). But this cannot change the result that Northwest Germanic and East Germanic expansions seem to have begun from Scandinavia. Therefore, all the later and still extant Germanic languages are descendants of these proto-dialects from the north. By definition, this means that all the earlier representatives of the Germanic lineage in Central Europe are labeled Para-Germanic ( = cousins or aunts of the actual Germanic languages).

So, there was an update of closely related language form from the north, leading to the known West Germanic languages, and Para-Germanic itself has no survived offsprings. Still, the early written examples most probably represent Para-Germanic languages.

[Jaska]

Rodoorn, I am sad that you could not understand a word I wrote.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn, I am sad that you could not understand a word I wrote.

Likewise obviously you can't grasp my point.

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

Dispelling the Myth of the Suebi Tribe

The so-called Suebi tribe, as depicted in history books, is nothing more than a result of Roman confusion. The Romans, encountering anarchistic northern clans, attempted to fit them into the more organized framework of Celtic tribes. However, the Suebi, as a singular or proto-tribe in the Celtic sense, never actually existed. This misconception arises from a misunderstanding by the Romans.

The root of the term "Suebi" is derived from the Proto-Germanic term *sibjō, which translates to one's extended family or clan, possibly including deceased ancestors. Modern German "sippe" (extended family) and English "sibling" (of the same blood) share the same root. When Romans questioned these northerners about their identity and origin, the response was, "we are from *sibjō," indicating their own group of people. The Roman scribe, or perhaps even Caesar himself, misinterpreted this as a reference to a tribe called Suebi with kings and structures akin to the Celts, fitting it into the closest context they could comprehend.

This initial misunderstanding led to subsequent confusion. While the Romans portrayed the Suebi as a large and numerous tribe, in reality, there was no such tribe. Instead, there were scattered clans with local chiefs known as *kuningaz. Ariovistus might have been among the first to unite more than one *sibjō under his leadership, earning him the title "Rex Germanum," adding to the Roman confusion.

Rather than seeking an organized tribal movement of the Suebi, it is more accurate to perceive this as a phenomenon of independent clans with their own allies and enemies within their linguistic group, resembling a form of anarchy, although these clans certainly preferred to see themselves as freemen of *sibjō.

An example of these inter-*sibjō relations can be found in Julius Caesar's own words: "[4.7.3] 'We Germans are not initiating hostilities against the Roman people, but neither shall we be slow to fight if provoked. It is a custom handed down from our forefathers to resist any aggressor and to ask no mercy. [4.7.4] One thing, however, we wish to say: we came to Gaul not from choice, but because we were driven out of our homes. If you Romans wish to be on friendly terms with us, we can be of use to you. Either assign to us land to live in or allow us to keep that which we have fought over and won.'"

The notion that these clans were driven out of their lands sheds light on a continuous wave of small groups, *sibjō at a time, migrating from Scandinavia to various CNE regions. As the Goths made their journey from Scandinavia to Wielbark, it becomes conceivable that these groups claimed their own land, creating a continuous cycle where previous inhabitants had to either fight for their lands or migrate southward deeper to Celtic lands. This cycle of new arrivals also explains how the language kept updated to latest edition from Scandinavia by the latest new comers.

[SeriesOfExtraordinaryEvents]

Aftermath of such family gathering:

New archaeological excavations at Alken Enge, Jutland, in Denmark have revealed a comprehensive assemblage of disarticulated human remains within a 75-ha. wetland area. A minimum of 82 individuals have been uncovered. Based on the distribution, the total population is estimated to be greater than 380 individuals, exclusively male and predominantly adult. The chronological radiocarbon evidence of the human bones indicates that they belong to a single, large event in the early first century AD.

The bones show a high frequency of unhealed trauma from sharp-edged weapons, which, together with finds of military equipment, suggests that the find is of martial character. Taphonomic traces indicate that the bones were exposed to animal gnawing for a period of between six months and one year before being deposited in the lake. Furthermore, the find situations including collections of bones, ossa coxae threaded onto a stick, and cuts and scraping marks provide evidence of the systematic collection and treatment of the human corpses after the time of exposure.

The finds are interpreted as the remains of an organised and possibly ritually embedded clearing of a battlefield, including the physical manipulation of the partly skeletonised bones of the deceased fighters and subsequent deposition in the lake. The date places the finds in the context of the Germanic region at the peak of the Roman expansion northward and provides both the earliest direct archaeological evidence of large-scale conflict among the Germanic populations and and a demonstration of hitherto unrecognized post-battle practices.

https://www.alkenenge.dk/

[Rodoorn]

Everybody just have to accept these results. It is futile, unscientific, and nearly trolling to play in a parallel universum, where these linguistic results do not exist.

Secondly, this is even quite insinuating and insulting (even with an accusation of trolling, which is absurd). First of all, I do look at linguistics. However, it has its limitations, especially for a reconstructed language. Because where you see a parallel universe, for me, it is taking reality as a starting point. And it may indeed be parallel to that of an "abstracted universe" in which you live. A model is not reality itself Jaska. You and Angles have a hand in that. @PopGenist82 has a striking term for that: "crystal ball linguistics". But it is more than that because it does not leave an inch of room for other approaches. That's more bad. I could add, based on your statements, that it resembles a form of "Asperger science approach" in the sense of an absolute kind of rigidity. Not my cup of tea.

Although I’ve been converted and find the arguments of Angles and Jaska persuasive, I agree there's room for other approaches and don't see your recent posts as trolling in any way. On the contrary, you're adding to the debate for me and there's obviously something important about the Suebic confederation, as you've been highlighting. 

I'm interested in any clues on how far that Suebic grouping went back, how it formed and spread as well as how far south of Sweden the PGmc area may have reached. Unless I've missed something, while I now believe PGmc was spoken in Sweden, I don't yet know how central that part of Scandinavia was to the formation of PGmc and its predecessors. It seems possible to me that Sweden may even have been one of the peripheries.

Thanks JonikW! I guess you summed up my quest very well. There is a big contradiction to the supposed position of the "umbrella  tribe" Suebi which had for sure an ethnogenesis and the knowledge about their language. Their key players role  along the Elbe (c.q. Jastorf) must have had an impact on the language in the Germanic world. The Angli with the Suebian knot were for 100% sure Germanic speakers (even founding for your and my mother tongue)......So I guess we are still missing big pieces of the puzzle Jonik!

With regard to your question:

Rico Kruger (2022):

"According to current research, the origins of the Semnons go back to the pre-Roman Iron Age, the so-called later Hallstatt period (approx. 500 B.C.E.). However, recent finds, such as the Germanic pit house unearthed in Berlin-Köpenick in spring 2017, date this origin by a further 100 years , around 600 B.C.E. back.

The Semnones can therefore look back on a history of over a thousand years, which is an impressive period of time even on a global scale.Not many cultures in world history can look back on thousands of years of settlement continuity.

Even Tacitus knew in his ca. 100 AD. The resulting “Germania” tells of the “oldest and most venerable tribe of the Suebi”, whose area of expansion is said to have been huge and encompassed “one hundred districts”.It is astonishing that the knowledge of the age and origin of the Semnons survived into the Tacitean period, as the Semnons had already existed for more than five hundred years at that point.It cannot be ruled out that Tacitus obtained his information regarding the Semnones first hand, because at least during his time as a senator under Emperor Domitian he would have had the opportunity to exchange ideas with Semnon dignitaries in Rome, since visits of this kind are for the term of office of the Domitian reports.

To this day, Tacitus's portrayal has not changed; rather, research has been able to substantiate his statements.
The Semnons are still considered to be the core tribe of the so-called Elbe Suebi, or Elbe Germans, whose peoples populated pretty much the entire area of what is now East Germany, as well as lands beyond the Elbe and Oder, as well as south of the East German low mountain ranges."

This correspondences completely with  the historical narrative of Wolfram, Die Germanen und Ihre Herkunft (1999). The pinpointing by Ringe to Schleswig and the south of it is the area of what Tacitus called the Northern Suebi (Angli, Warini etc). The Suebi- core tribe the Semnones- had obviously prestige:

"These Semnones had a special charisma, but also a large tribal area, so that they considered themselves to be the main tribe of the Suebi (Tac. Germ. 39: Sueborum caput). A peculiarity of the Suebi tribal costume, which was adopted and maintained by many peoples, including the Bastarnians on the Black Sea, is the artfully braided Suebi knot, which is also an expression of a special prestige that groups originally from outside the tribe also wanted to share in. The example of the Suebian expansion within Germania, which led to Suebi and Germanic people largely being identified with each other in Caesarian times, could also provide an explanation for the previous Germanization of Celtic, Venetian and unidentifiable Old European groups."

"The Semnones administered the Suebian "origins of the tribal group, initia gentis, where at the same time the supreme almighty God, regnator omnium deus, rules. Those peoples who adhere to the same "The people who felt they belonged to the community of descent, the sanguinis populi, sent their ambassadors at fixed times to take part in the cult activities."

"The fact that Tacitus' observations (Germ. 39) were still relevant long after him is confirmed by the fact that the Suebian Quadi, defeated by Marcus Aurelius, wanted to give up their East Moravian-Slovak settlement area and emigrate to the Semnones who settled between the Elbe and Havel, which the emperor wanted but supposedly could prevent it (Cassius Dio 71, 20, 2)."

I'm seriously interested in them and which language they spoke, they had a quit long (more than 1000 years) obviously settled position in the Germanic world. Still in language pretty enigmatic!


NB with regard to Berlin-Köpenick the archeologist at stake even mentions 800 BC (so LBA):

Google translate:
"At a depth of 2.30 meters, the lead archaeologist Dirk Friebe(38) identified a pit house that he dated to around 800 BC. Dated. Friebe: “The finds indicate that we have found one of the first German settlements in the area.” A surprise, because the researchers had expected remains of Slavic settlement, which has already been proven in Köpenick.


But Friebe emphasizes: “There are no traces of Slavic or pre-Slavic origin to be seen here.” The fact is: the finds proved for the first time that Germanic peoples also lived in what is now Köpenick during the Iron Age.

The archaeologists suspect that the pit house was used as an economic building by the Germanic tribes. In addition, they also found traces of further settlement in layers, from wooden half-timbered houses from the Middle Ages to brick buildings from the 19th century."

https://www.bz-berlin.de/archiv-artikel/...freigelegt

[Rodoorn]

@Jonik and Part II

"In the late Bronze Age, the Teltow was densely populated  by the Lusatian culture. However, a massive decline in settlement activity occurred at the beginning of the Hallstatt  period. At this time, it was the Early Iron-Age Billendorf group and the Spree River estuary group, which was under their cultural influence, which settled in the region. Only a few finds from the older stage of Billendorf I (Ha C‒D1) have been found in the region for this period The Teltow and the directly adjacent areas seem to have been at times almost devoid of settlements during the younger stage Billendorf IIa (Ha D2)

Later on in Ha D2, the Jastorf culture began to repopulate the Teltow. After the hiatus, there was a clear increase in the number of sites. Cultural references to the Havel River region suggest that there was an infux of population groups from this area. In the pre-Roman Iron Age (approx. 550‒50 BC), the Teltow formed part of the distribution area of the Mittelelb-Havel group and thus to the core area of the Jastorf culture."

https://www.academia.edu/80628125/The_Te...rf_Culture

[Orentil]

With all respects, the Berliner Zeitung might not be the best source. The article is based on a press release from the same day where Iron Age and 600 BC is mentioned for the pit house. Friebe just wanted to say that they expected rather remains from the Slavic middle ages, this is a bit misleading in your citation.

Also Rico Krüger might not be the best source to cite even he surely digged deep into the topic as an amateur - and I like his surname ;-)
I also don't see that the Lusatian culture contributed a lot to the Jastorf culture.

[Anglesqueville]

Guys, this thread is going in all directions, and I think the time has come for a necessary clarification.
The subject of this thread is very explicitly the proto-Germanic language.
1) If he applies to himself the rule that he claims to impose on others ("No Source -> No Theory"), Rodoorn has nothing to say on this subject, and short of a miracle this is not likely to change.
2) As soon as there are "sources" (that is to say if I correctly understood written sources), it means that we very significantly post-date the time window within from which a question relating to proto-Germanic may arise. This is particularly true for all groups described as "Germans" by Roman sources. These subjects, although quite fascinating, are out of place here.
On the previous forum Rodoorn had opened a thread dedicated to the questions mentioned in 2). I urge him to revive this thread on our new GenArchivist.

[Rodoorn]

With all respects, the Berliner Zeitung might not be the best source. The article is based on a press release from the same day where Iron Age and 600 BC is mentioned for the pit house. Friebe just wanted to say that they expected rather remains from the Slavic middle ages, this is a bit misleading in your citation.

Also Rico Krüger might not be the best source to cite even he surely digged deep into the topic as an amateur - and I like his surname ;-)
I also don't see that the Lusatian culture contributed a lot to the Jastorf culture.

I'm open to alternative sources Orentil! Well let's say reasonable alternative sources  

I quoted literally no big thumb. But I agree the 200 years in between is strange....but may be archeologist are humans too.....

In the end 600 BC and the article on academia (I guess qualified) cope 100%.  From the Elbe Havel group a influx about 600 BC.


PS in the academia article you can read that the Lusatians disappeared and Jastorf/ Elbe Havel Gruppe came in.....

[Rodoorn]

Guys, this thread is going in all directions, and I think the time has come for a necessary clarification.
The subject of this thread is very explicitly the proto-Germanic language.
1) If he applies to himself the rule that he claims to impose on others ("No Source -> No Theory"), Rodoorn has nothing to say on this subject, and short of a miracle this is not likely to change.
2) As soon as there are "sources" (that is to say if I correctly understood written sources), it means that we very significantly post-date the time window within from which a question relating to proto-Germanic may arise. This is particularly true for all groups described as "Germans" by Roman sources. These subjects, although quite fascinating, are out of place here.
On the previous forum Rodoorn had opened a thread dedicated to the questions mentioned in 2). I urge him to revive this thread on our new GenArchivist.

With regard to 1. I like to speculate about time and place of proto Germanic, but I'm honest this is speculation not science!
With regard to 2. I accept that with regard to proto Germanic things are with marges and not with certainties.

For the rest, about a scientific attitude. You are not open to countervailing information and in fact you are not afraid to cover your dogmas with fake stories. Angles' big thumb.....huh scientific?