Talk:Germanic peoples/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Germanic peoples. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

An anonymous user has repeatedly inserted the following text:

By contrast current onomastic research (study of the origins of names) suggests that early germanic names of water bodies and locations centre around the northern edge of the german low mountain range (Prof. Jürgen Udolph).

The text appears to inform that somewhere in Germany there is a centre of early Germanic water and location names. The purpose is probably to promote a theory of autochtonous German origins somewhere in Germany. As it now stands, it is however confusing and if notable the theory ascribed to Udolph should be both better referenced and the thinking should be better explained.--Berig 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

called *walha- (this word survives in cognates across the Indo-European spectrum, such as alien, other, Gk. allo, Latin ille/olle/ollus, Romance demonstratives like quale and quel,

I'm almost certain that the identification of *walha- with the Greek allo- etc is all wrong; I can't see a mechanism for the identification. Djnjwd 16:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a mixup of several unrelated root words. Alien/allo- etc is related to English "else" etc, the demonstrative seems to derive from Latin quālis, which of course is from the unrelated interrogative pronominal root *k^wo- / *k^wi-, cf. que, English what and which etc. *Walha- is believed to be derived from the name of a certain Celtic tribe. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 09:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why word "peoples" is used here. Actually, there is no such a word in English. "People" is the plural form of "man" (here: individual human). Fixing any "peoples" occurrence within this article is not a problem. I guess that article name should also be fixed whereas current name should be left as a redirection. Furthermore, article that lead to this article should also be changed. Any ideas? --Volphy 12:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the explanation of "peoples" meaning in Wiktionary:

 Plural form of people (already a plural form) - a race, group or nationality.

Therefore everything is fine and I am leaving the comments/questions above for the reference. --Volphy 12:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we know anything about the style of war? did they use primarily axes and went berserk or what? Mallerd 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They used sticks and stones (for the poorer part of the warriors) and bone-, flint-, or iron-tipped spears for both throwing from a distance and stabbing in combat. The richest few may have had swords and pieces of iron armor (this being more common towards the beginning of the middle ages). Probably all had shields made of wood and leather. Axes probably weren't used much untill the fourth century, when they became popular as throwing weapons. Later on they were used more and more as melee weapons untill in the viking age it was a popular weapon for the poorer Scandinavians. If you're interested in the subject: M.P. Speidel, Ancient Germanic warrior styles (London 2004). A routledge book. Krastain 12:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! All I heard was as far as I knew only fantasy. Mallerd 15:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01 has changed cited information here, and he has subsequently added what looks like original research based on inconclusive references to genetics and discussions on a Dutch continuity theory. Since it is difficult for me to assume good faith when people change referenced information, I will restore the section, and I hope for a fruitful discussion here involving several parties.--Berig 08:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are not specific about your accusal of "changed cited information". The Butler reference I cite does not mention any Scandinavian invasions or influence in the NW continental areas, not even in bronze-age time. It mentions some kind of local continuity to the Elp culture, and features that link to northern and eastern features. A germanic-like language at best or at worse, maybe intermediate between "Belgic" or Celtic and Germanic, has been proposed by writers - I have to admit Butler did not belong to this writers, since his book is confined to bronze age, but I did not mean to suggest a reference to this source here, if this is what you mean. Please put ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› ^{[citation needed]} in case of doubt. I think those views of a Nordic origin of Germanic here are quite tainted and not supported by any evidence or valid sources. To the contrary, there is really no reason to assume that for instance Batavians did not belong to the Germanic people, using Germanic words as can be deducted by studies on information of gods and placenames. Sorry, I do not agree with your point of view and insist on good faith. Me references are valid and I can't help it contradicts most of the out of Scandinavia theories. Rokus01 09:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not interesting which theory may seem most "supported" or most "tainted" to you. You have to respect cited information. None of the sources referred to before your change mentioned anything about any Dutch continuity.--Berig 09:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

PS. Do not revert back to a version that misrepresents cited information.--Berig 09:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope this will do. Note you reverted a lot of mistakes, including statements on Funnelbeakers. Most of the information here is unsourced, and now you revert edits for being misunderstood? Please show a more positive attitude and don't engage in an editwar. Rokus01 09:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Archeological investigations, in the Netherlands at least, do not evidence direct cultural unity with Scandinavia later than Hügelgraber (1800-1200). However, this does not impede the existence of related languages ever since early PIE times: compare for instance the Indo-Iranian group of languages whose diverging at 1800BC into its main branches has been attested. The proximity of the Nordwestblock and Scandinavia would not encourage the languages of both regions to drift apart as far, or even to develop into new genetic groups. It is not enough just to assume migrations without evidence. Besides, much of the views on Germanic origins is tainted or obsolete. Rokus01 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am not interested in any edit wars either. I am, however, extremely tired of seeing cited information changed. I think I have had my share of editing on wikipedia, and I don't know why I bother, anymore.--Berig 11:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

there are several things wrong with your version Rokus. To begin with, the LBA doesn't begin in 1800 in Europe, that's the LBA date for the Near East. It is completely offtopic to discuss the 2nd millennium here anyway, this may relate to IE arrival to Europe, but certainly not to anything "Germanic". You have been known to twist articles before to suggest a Proto-Germanic or even PIE Netherlands. Proto-Germamic may well have been spoken in the Netherlands and in northern Germany as well as in southern Scandinavia, but that would be in the 1st c. BC, not "Hallstatt". It may be time to critically review the purist "out of Scandinavia" scenario here, but just adding more dubious material is not the way to do that. Reverting you, I am also removing the unsourced proposition that the TRB(!) culture is somehow considered proto-Germanic "by linguists". It may be fair, even if stretching things a bit, to refer to the corded ware culture as ancestral to the NBA which is ancestral to proto-Germanic society, but we should definitely draw the line at TRB. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I would appreciate very much if you would make the difference between TALK and article edits. Anybody should feel free to put forward information in TALK as is, just for making clear a stance without anybody invalidating that information with Wikipedia policy or attacks ad hominem. "Off topic" facts I only forwarded in a good faith attempt to make people understand the facts behind the edits. Also, please do not confuse research with original research. I am not creating new realities here and I can't help forwarded facts being contradictory to other mindsets.

If you consider Bronze age off topic, then please delete all references to this period in the article as well, since the exclusive link between Nordic Bronze Age and Proto-Germanic is biased. As for the date 1800BC, I am not talking about the middle east and neither about cultural time framing. All archeological areas have separate LBA, MBA and whatever dates (some confusion with NBA here?). Indeed, this 1800 BC date is considered in the Netherlands to be the MBA startdate to some important nordwestblock cultures. The Elp Culture is considered MBA+LBA, thus to have continued until the Hallstatt in the Netherlands: 800BC. Coincidence with the date of the Mitani linguistic evidence was merely forwarded to show the Indo-Iranian branches had already differentiated and to stress such a timeframe to a much older relationship would not contradict the credibility to any Germanic unity to be pushed back, especially as no evidence to the contrary has been produced so far! Most statements on this are biased and obsolete. Since Indo-Iranian languages are still considered a unity, I reason there is also no NEED to assume a very recent common origin of all Germanic languages. To call such a statement OR while not even published is against AGF and I utterly reject this kind of arguments against TALK discussion to be applied against edits.

Why not illustrate my understanding of Dutch reviews on the subject with even more "OR" on this TALK? I am not intimidated yet to restrain from free speech. So please compare Roman languages, my Spanish is sufficient to understand Portugues, Italian and even Romanian and Moldavian. I know the same applies to Slavic languages. However, being a native Dutch, I don't understand a word of Swedish or Norse, and even less of Icelandic, not even written down. compared with other genetic groups I could imagine such a close a unity with German and Dutch, but not to most other Germanic languages. To my opinion Germanic languages just are not as very closely related as the naming of "Germanic languages" suggests, but at this moment I am not bothered to quantify this differences, even though maybe somebody already did. My point: why forge our facts to far-fetched theories that lack any evidence? Why quell facts that happen to contradict such out-of-Scandinavia bias? The genetic and archeological (counter) evidence is valid and very much worth mentioning, especially when such bias will continue to be included in this article. Thus, either the article has to be rephrased or properly sourced, or the published counter evidence has to be restored. Anyway, since most of my edits were removed out of bad faith, I insist on restoring all that is properly sourced.

Next: I think this twisting of my words on PIE Netherlands should be worth a total revert. My statements on PIE including Corded Ware areas are sourced by valid references and still we, you and I, discussed this on TALK only. Your abuse of the "generally accepted" things in a war against anything you choose to be untrue could be challenged by this single quote of Mallory: "Appeals to authority, naturally, only help underwrite the seriousness with which the hypothesis should be considered, not its validity."

By the way: feel free to remove the bias about TRBK, since this is not mine. The previous versions I corrected on this were obviously wrong: "Belonging to the Indo-European family of languages, they developed towards the end of the Neolithic culture of Western Europe, including the Funnel-necked beaker culture", since the Funnelbeakers are not considered PIE: thus the subsequent conclusions about placenames are also utterly nonsense. The same would apply to the Netherlands, where all placenames are definitely Germanic, including the Batavian placenames. Actually, the statement on placenames suggests TRB would be proto-Germanic. I mean, the fact is interesting and should be preserved, but the conclusions forwarded in this article are not supported by references and OR. Rokus01 14:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Any scholar that agree to this theory as if Germanic was taught by North Germanics to some obscure tribes located within the nordwestblock, should have an answer to recent investigation showing the first attested traces of Germanic within this region did obviously not derive from North Germanic. Worse, reading this [1] (The West Germanic hypothesis) you would realize an already differentiated West Germanic already existed. Culturally these tribes were very different from the Germanic tribes of Scandinavia, maybe even appearing "Celtic". Indeed some Celtic words have been borrowed by West Germanics, but this rather points to Celtic influences on a Germanic-like substratum instead to Celts being germanized by North Germanics. Actually, if insisted, the theorized "intermediate language" between the Germanics to the North and Celts to the south could easily be any kind of proto-West germanic, at least north of the Rhine, with the Belgae to the south another member of this theorized indo-european language continuum or Sprachbund. Not any other indo-european or other group of languages has been attested in this region.

The Germanic languages moving south before Christ? The opposite might be true, Runes around the North Sea and on the Continent AD 150-700 - Looijenga, Jantina Helena: "At around 200-150 BC, a remarkable development in burial practices took place in the North German Plain, in Denmark and in Southern Scandinavia (Parker Pearson 1989:202). In certain cremation graves, situated at some distance from other graves, Celtic metalwork appears: brooches and swords, together with wagons, Roman cauldrons and drinking vessels. The area of these rich graves is the same as the places where later (first century AD) princely graves are found. A ruling class seems to have emerged, distinguished by the possession of large farms and rich gravegifts such as weapons for the men and silver objects for the women, imported earthenware and Celtic items." Added to this, the rune inscriptions in Denmark show a rather northern penetration of West Germanic (Looijenga). So, who were this "Celts"? Wouldn't archeological remains of nordwestblock "indigious tribes" reveal rather Germanics moving to the north?

Unfortunately I miss the time to source and work all of this out right now. I would be happy just to cut the bias of any alleged scaninavian infiltration in nordwestblock territories, or even exclusive scandinavian claims for being the one and only source of proto-germanic. Rokus01 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

what is your point Rokus? This isn't the place for idle speculation. Yes, it is well-known that there has been a strong Gaulish influence on the early Germans, who is denying this? As for your "intermediate" Belgae language, this is pure speculation. If it is some great scholar's speculation, we may mention it, but it really doesn't tell us anything either way. dab (𒁳) 09:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This Talk is for putting things straight. For instance, to appeal to the intellectual delicacy to distinguish between Gaulish (pertaining to ancient Gaul), Celtic and La Tene. Celtic influence on the early Germanics is quite different from early Germans being Germanized Celts, don't you agree? And what would have been the result of the observed similar weak Celtic influence on archeologically related Belgae? Both Belgae and the nordwestblock "West Germanic" tribes seem to share some common archeological backgrounds. The proposal of "other" languages within the nordwestblock certainly influenced scholarly publications and thinking, at least I would not dare to call this "idle". The "Celtic" identity of Belgae has not yet been fully established, some are still in doubt about their proposed mixed Germanic identity and "great scholars" should better watch out: as far as I read publications they certainly do. Better understanding of the Hallstatt migrations, the La Tene cultural change and the superstratum impact on local population will help to give answers, that's why I deem it valuable to supply circumstancial facts.

Another point: this article still did not source any evidence of pre-Roman Nordic Germanic migrations to the south. I only know of migrations or influence going north: Hügelgraber (1800-1200), Urnfield (1200-800), Hallstatt (800-450), La Tene (200-150BC). Are we indeed only talking about Great Migration period East Germanic tribes? Or about another "block" to the east not accounted for? Rokus01 15:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to feel very strongly against a Scandinavian origin, which I find a bit odd. Encyclopedia Britannica (Germanic languages) locates the earliest Germanic settlement c. 750 BC in Scandinavia and on the coast going from the Netherlands in the west to the Vistula in the east, whereas the Penguin Atlas of World History, volume 1, from the Beginning to the Eve of the French Revolution (1988:109) says that they originally lived no further south than Holstein. These are the sources that I have at my disposal, and I must say that I wonder why you react so strongly calling their information "tainted". Is there some kind of ideological problem here for you?--Berig 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. Scandinavia is beautiful and I like the people. I just dislike theories that depend on blue eyes. The information to my disposal is more recent, more specific and just does not point at all to a Scandinavian origin: genetics, archeology, historic references, linguistics. It is sad to see writers backing off from generic statements, too scared of the backlash of generic Big Theories (most of all just some diehard popular views) that might harm their carreer. However, I am convinced progress will put more and more valuable publications on our way. Sure, I think it is tainted to assume a Scandinavian Herrenvolk coming down with bare hands (read: no archeological remains) to bully poor locals into talking Germanic, just for the sake of popular view. Rokus01 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So it's all about politics and race to you...--Berig 12:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read my next topic you'll find out this whole fuss might have been caused by the improper wikipedia coining of the nomer "Nordic Bronze Age". This should be "Northern Bronze Age" and includes a lot more than Scandinavia. I think this should be corrected on all wikipedia articles. I have the strong feeling this "Nordic" Bronze Age does not even exist. If so, my accusal of this out-of-scandinavia thing being tainted will be confirmed. Otherwise, I think this "Nordic" seems to be wrongly used here or abused to distort the scope. By the way, strange summary of my words you just made. Rokus01 12:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If I have a problem with Berig's "out of Scandinavia", it is the tendency to subsume the NBA under the term "Germanic", while in reality it is the main predecessor of Germanic culture. There is no doubt that one major pre-500 BC predecessor culture of the historical Germanic peoples would be the NBA. But it is flawed to try to find the Bronze Age proto-Germanic culture. We can talk of Germanic peoples from maybe 200 BC. Before that, the term simply has no meaning. The NBA will be a major influence, but "Germanic peoples" only come into existence by amalgamation with major West/Central European (Gaulish) contributions, both culturally and genetically I suppose, in the course of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Berig's treatment is perfectly valid, he just places emphasis on the Scandinavian element because that's his area of interest. Far from being a "Herrenvolk", the NBA component at this stage was rather the culturally less advanced substrate. The area of contact was Lower Saxony and the Netherlands, so that it might be fair to say that the transition from pre-Germanic to Germanic proper crucially involved the region of the "Nordwestblock". You can concentrate on the amalgamation process leading up to the rise of Germanic, along the lines of "Germanic" = Jastorf x La Tene, or you can focus on the center of expansion, in Denmark and South Sweden: both are valid aspects, and not contradictory. What I will oppose here is the notion of "Bronze Age Germanic": the NBA is notable as Germanic pre-history, but it shouldn't be summarily treated as "Germanic" itself. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dieter, you know full well that it is not *my* theory. I can't help that this is how the proto-Germanic origin is presented in Encyclopedia Britannica and the Penguin Atlas of World History, volume 1, from the Beginning to the Eve of the French Revolution. If there are other theories of the same notability, please add them.--Berig 13:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

no, no, I am not objecting to the theory as such. It is just the presentation of the theory that may sometimes be misleading. Rokus here quite apparently misreads it as a sort of "ex septemtrione lux". I quite agree that the distinguishing character of proto-Germanic culture derives directly from the NBA. What might be made clearer is that this doesn't mean that it is identical to the NBA. And, needless to say one would think, that proto-Germanic culture wasn't in any way "superior" to Gaulish culture. The Romans romanticized the Teutons as "noble savages" from the 1st century or so, but this didn't imply an admission of cultural superiority any more than would be the case in a Victorian admiring the Apache. dab (𒁳) 14:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with dab that going back too far in time the nomer Germanic does not have any meaning, however, this mainly because around 1800-800 the Indo-European languages of the region would not have differentiated too much yet and would rather have formed a Sprachbund, with dialects converging or diverging at choice, without losing mutual intelligibility or having clear clues on which related dialects would finally amalgamate to Germanic and which would passover to other groupings or simply disappear. Keystone would be the capacity of those related dialects to convey a soundshift, for this is what really distinguish one group from another - even though some soundshifts might have been confined to certain areas or blurred out by subsequent shifts. Since we neither have any clue on dating the first important germanic soundshift, I think it would be safe to adhere to a grouping that could be derived from one single archeological horizon, normally supposed to tie together genetic groups. Corded Ware would be to too comprehensive, Barbed Wire Beaker probably too unsettled. The Northern Bronze Age mentioned by Britannica would have my support, since it encompass the cultural diverging provoked by Hallstatt towards a Nordic and a southern archeological area. This definition does not need as much migrational fantasy and is pretty recent (then we could drop the obsolete Penguin Atlas of World History).Rokus01 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

you are being very fuzzy linguistically again. Your options are limited: if you accept Italo-Celtic, the MBA would be about the right timeframe for that. Alternatively, you can postulate a lost "Old European" branch with Krahe. Failing that, you'll just have to say that the language of MBA Central Europe was unspecified centum ("Illyrian"...). The first Germanic sound shift almost certainly dates to the Pre-Roman Iron Age, or possibly to the very late Bronze Age. Case in point, iron is likely a pre-proto-Germanic loan. Your Batavi might very well have spoken some Italo-Celtic or "Italo-Celto-Germanic" dialect that did not leave any trace, but you cannot build any argument on that assumption. dab (𒁳) 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What I dislike in this kind of discussion is that some seem to assume that the spreading language would have implied any "superiority". In what way were the Turks "superior" to the Greeks when they spread Turkish into Asia Minor? I strongly dislike such discussions and hope we leave racial thinking and assumptions about implied "superiority" out of this discussion.--Berig 14:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy talking. What I like to avoid are unsourced phrases like "Scholars include in the Nordwestblock the Chatti, Hermunduri and Cheruscii. By the first century, these tribes were culturally German and it is possible they were being led by men of actual Germanic origin." First, a differentiated and specific early West Germanic lexigraphy has already been extracted to such tribes (Batavians) in the Netherlands. Second, the other way round, assuming a spread on basis of prejudiced superiority, would compromise - and might already have compromised - facts. Rokus01 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

so do I, and I hope you recognize that Rokus has brought up the topic, apparently because he dislikes the idea himself, but for some reason concluded the concept was somehow present in the article. It is really not an issue, and I agree the whole discussion is futile. What is not futile would be a sourced discussion of what can be said archaeologically of the "contact zone" between Jastorf, La Tene and "Nordwestblock". You would be a great help, Rokus, if instead of idly alleging supremacism (on whose part?) you could just help us build the Elp culture and Nordwestblock articles, guiding us to scholarly archaeological publications. dab (𒁳) 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have some difficulties with the chronology. It says: "Regarding the question of ethnic origins, evidence developed by archaeologists and linguists[citation needed] suggests that a people or group of peoples sharing a common material culture dwelt in Southern Scandinavia and Schleswig during the late European Bronze Age (1000 BC-500 BC).[1] This culture group is called the Nordic Bronze Age."

Ok, now we know this 1000 BC-date is sourced and confined to Late Bronze Age. However, Britannica mentions a Northern Bronze Age as probably proto-germanic, starting at 1700BC and to include Northern Germany (20:67). Here I can see some confusion. To my understanding the Elp Culture was part of it, maybe started a littlebit earlier (1800), and lasted until it was replaced by Hallstatt about 800 - while the Northern Bronze age continued until 450 BC. Since Britannica explicitly names this Northern Bronze Age to be a likely candidate to proto-germanic, I suppose the 800-450 BC timelapse is not contradictory to a local West Germanic development following continental "Celtic" developments as attested by Rhineland Germanic archeology. Britannica does not account for the period in between 450/300 and Roman observation, and I am very much against applying fantasy to fill this gap. No exclusive Jastorf derived cultures are necessary to explain the southern onslaught of Germanics, even more so since the Celtic archeology of the "Germanized" Middle and Southern German regions is not very distinct from Rhineland regions neighboring to the north that share at least part of the Northern Bronze Age prehistory. This not because I wish to risk OR, just to make clear I will continue to insist on sourced references if anybody choose to fill this gap in any particular out-of-scandinavian way.

Anyway, I will ask your kind understanding and collaboration to change Nordic Bronze Age to Northern Bronze Age and to synchronize the period to 1700-450. Rokus01 09:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

your preoccupation with "Nordic" vs. "Northern" is misplaced here. It's a matter of terminology. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. Nordic refers exclusively to Scandinavia. The Northern Bronze Age reference of Britannica includes both Scandinavia and Northern Germany, the territory of the contemporary Elp Culture (also proposed to have included Holstein and parts of Denmark). I would prefer the wider Britannica definition of Northern BA above the unsourced use of Nordic BA.Rokus01 13:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Rokus01, but Dieter is right. You also have to understand that during the 800-1200 years that the Nordic/Northern Bronze Age existed, it did not have a static and immovable southern border, nor a southern border that is easy to delimit. From 1300 BC and onwards northern Germany and northern Poland is occasionally included.--Berig 13:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica does not specify moving borders, it defines: "Northern Bronze Age, centred in northern Germany and Scandinavia." Next page (during Roman times), it says they "led a largely settled agricultural existence." I don't think these definitions allow borders to be as flexible going up and down as you suggest. Let us just stick to this definition and it would be okay. Rokus01 14:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, please accept that such definitions vary between secondary sources and that we are talking of a time span of 1200 years.--Berig 14:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, why do are you suddenly a stickler to the exact words of Britannica, while you can't accept their definition of the geographic origin of Proto-Germanic?--Berig 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am reading Britannica 15th edition, 20:67, and think the geographic definition of Northern Bronze Age is well enough. The rest: Britannica is a tertiary source, I prefer recent primary and secondary sources (as is the policy of WP), but in case people are reluctant to adhere to specialists, a tertiary source like Britannica should serve well to reach a compromise.Rokus01 14:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised. Anyone familiar with reading secondary sources about "anything" knows that definitions vary, while you appear to believe that there is only *one* idea of the southern border of the Northern/Nordic Bronze Age.--Berig 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about borders, I am talking about (sub)cultures in scope. Agricultural minded cultures are normally pretty confined to certain areas and I would not mind the exact borders to be unresolved. However, borders drawn between cultures are susceptible to the taste of the artist. Clearly you and I have different tastes, but especially I think you lack the proper sources to actually exclude the cultures centred in Northern Germany. Rokus01 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Point out where I have said said that I have "the proper sources to actually exclude the cultures centred in Northern Germany"? The definitions of the southern extension of the Nordic/Northern Bronze Age varies between author and naturally varied during 1200 years. You are not going to gain any credibility here by putting words in other users' mouths.--Berig 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Nordic according to my dictionary: "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a Germanic people of northern European origin, exemplified by the Scandinavians." Northern Germany etc. is not Nordic. Or do non-Scandinavian Germanics just make a poor representation in comparison to exemplified Scandinavians? Are semi-Germanics like us just talking some kind of broken Swedish? I'd rather propose another group of languages for you. Something like Nordic. Germani used to be predominantly West Germanic. Rokus01 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

this is the Nordic Bronze Age, Rokus: there were no Germanic peoples. "Germani used to be predominantly West Germanic" is pure nonsense and shows you guilty of precisely the sort of witless local patriotism you are alleging (without basis) in Berig. "Nordic Bronze Age" is a term for an archaeological horizon, coined by Montelius (so he was Swedish, sue him), I suppose as "Nordisk bronsålderskultur". Even the Germans and Polish have "Nordische Bronzezeit" / "Kultura nordyjska", and if they don't think the term carries unwanted implications, I don't see why anyone else should. It's an archaeological specialist term, alright? Can we talk about something else now? dab (𒁳) 10:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Britannica represents proper English language better than Montelius and they were right to change the nomer originally coined in another languages to a more concise and less tainted English equivalent. I just wish Wikipedia would follow this example. By the way, I think you missed my reasons for equating the majority of the (first) Germani known to Romans to West Germanics. Some recent investigations could establish this as a fact and apply this knowledge to a working model. North Germanic (Nordic) is just not generic enough to represent the Germanic lexicon of those traditional Germani: we are really talking about two different branches that diverged at an early stage, without one being derived from the other. If you skip the Dutch introduction I bet this [2] would supply some interesting reading and new views on the subject. Rokus01 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rokus, can you please try to maintain a minimum of coherence? I am aware of Looijenga's book. She favours a West Germanic origin of the runes. I have duly referred to this as "West Germanic hypothesis" at Runes#Historical. This concerns the 2nd century AD. What on earth does this have to do with the "Nordwestblock", the Bronze Age, or the "majority of Germanics known to the Romans"? We cannot show there even was a North vs. West division in Germanic before the 1st century. In Proto-Germanic there was no such division by definition. This is all completely confused and without consequence. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

re Nordic vs. Northern, fwiiw, google count is about 4,300 to 700 for "Nordic". Google scholar 64:54 for "Nordic". I admit both terms are current, and I have no objection to "Northern": What is unacceptable is your opposition to either term on grounds of private ideology. Since "Nordic" seems to be at least marginally more current in English, I see no reason to move the article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL dab (𒁳) 12:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could make the difference between serious English publications and translations or foreign publications (without counting the numerous Wikipedia references)? I am sure this name must be officialy standardized somewhere. About coherence: you subscribe to the statement in the Runes article that 1st century Germanic having West Germanic features are also proto-Norse? Less I understand the claim Rhineland Germanics were germanized by Nordic leaders! My curiosity is really triggered now: what about a more thorough research to the line drawn between the Atlantic-Alpine and Northern European regions of cultural influences? For the moment I will refrain from making things even more confusing to you with sources mentioning some serious objections to popular Celtic homeland theories and evidence of rather local continuity in Britain/Ireland. First some nice holidays! Rokus01 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why do I have the impression you vehemently oppose to consider not-so-late Bronze Age to be important to the Germanic formative stage? This would be in contradiction to what we know of other Indo European people that had already emerged and differentiated.Rokus01 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, not only Dbachmann finds your argumentation incoherent and confusing, because I do so too. You say: I am sure this name must be officialy standardized somewhere. Do you really imagine that there is an "official regulatory body" for archaeological terminology? Moreover, as Dieter says, it is totally irrelevant to separate West Germanic from North Germanic when talking of the Bronze Age. Such a separation is not assumed to have happened before the 1st century AD. Please, stick to a subject you actually know anything about.--Berig 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I know such a body exists in Holland, I only assume this exists in the (civilized)English world as well. Why else would Britannica explicitly and exclusively use Northern? I don't have time to persue this at this moment but since it seems nobody else seems to take this issue seriously I will try to find out later. And please, restrain from personal attacks. I won't take your reversals serious like this. Rokus01 20:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in stating that you show a striking lack of knowledge about the transition of Proto-Germanic into Proto-Norse. Your claim that it appeared in the Bronze Age is very original. Please, consult WP:OR.--Berig 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are putting words in my mouth. The period of this transition is inconclusive, as stated by Britannica. Anybody stating something else, like suggesting Bronze Age could be excluded, is doing OR. Stop making a mess with your POV. Rokus01 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should heed the criticism that Dbachmann is directing towards you. Your argumentation is highly confusing and incoherent and you conflate both the Bronze Age and the Iron Age into one single state of affairs (where the Dutch were a distinct West Germanic entity all the time) whereas we are talking of thousands years.--Berig 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind Nordic languages to derive from any kind of common Germanic spoken until 500 AD, however, I don't think this sooths your view of a northern descend of Rhineland West Germanics either. This just implies conservative Nordic languages deviated quite a lot from the common source, I would say especially in vocabularity and how words are written - in comparison with German and Dutch anyway. Rokus01 06:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am unable to make any sense of this statement. Rokus, you know what, why don't you just tell us what it is you want, plainly and up front, by reference to actual academic or encyclopedic sources (as opposed to students' websites on their ideas of "racial types")? This debate is going nowhere, patience is wearing thin, just give us your sources and be done. dab (𒁳) 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

that said, the role of cultural contact between Gauls and "pre-Germaics" along the Rhine in the emergence of Germanic proper, in particular Celtic loans, might well be discussed in more depth. Your "by writers including Joke Delrue, University Gent" is a good start, but what we need is not a gesture at a supposed team of "writers", it is references to a handful of specific papers. So please guide us to Delrue's relevant opinions. Indicentially, your "Scandinavia vs. the Netherlands" approach is completely flawed. When we say "Scandinavia", we don't mean the extent of modern Sweden+Norway. Anything north of 60 degrees doesn't enter into consideration. Uppsala was probably equally marginal to "Common Germanic" as was Amsterdam. I think of Jutland/Schleswig-Holstein as "central" to Common Germanic (Thorsberg-Vimose?). The Rhine was the "Welsh fringe", Uppsala was the "Finnic fringe". dab (𒁳) 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I find it preposterous and anachronistic to project a modern idea of Dutch vs Scandinavian onto the bronze age and the early iron age. BTW, I personally imagine the centre of proto-Germanic as the historical Denmark (Jutland, the Danish isles and Skåneland).--Berig 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason why a people do something is as important as what they did. And there are times where this article (among others) is rather vague on the why for a given behavior. Take for example this sentence: "A deteriorating climate in Scandinavia c. 850 BC-760 BC and a later and more rapid one c. 650 BC might have triggered migrations to the coast of eastern Germany and further towards the Vistula." What as the climate like before 850? How did it change? Is there an article talking about this change? If so, where's the link to it? What was this "more rapid" climate shift in 650? Some depth is called for here, if only in the form of links to articles about this. The Gemanic tribes had a number of migrations and the reason why they did these things is, IMO, rather important to understanding them and the history of Europe in general. RobertM525 02:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of this "why" considerations outlived a former deficiency of facts. Traditionally here has been an pre-assumption of Germanic tribes coming from more polar regions: as a result, scholars looked for the reasons why. However, modern archeology does not point to important movements from Scandinavia, at least it doesn't west of Weser. Genetic evidence is even contradictory. Around 850BC the Frisian coastal regions were populated from more inland regions. So now we have a potential "why", a supposed migration beause of a changing climate, that merely resulted to the "what" of misconceptions, myth and popular views insisting on the Scandinavian origin of all Germanic people. Rokus01 10:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This page is full of errors and pure fantasies. It starts of with trying to identify Germanic peoples as an ethnic branch. Based on what? A German-speaking Swiss, an English-speaking Irishman and a Swede all have more in common with their immediate, non-Germanic speaking neighbours than with each other. Then it just gets better. The Germanic peoples (sic) formed Europe? What about the Latin and Greek peoples, laying the cultural foundations? Or the Slavic peoples (sic), the largest group in Europe. After that, we get to know that Germanic peoples were likened to American Indians. More than 1000 years before America was discovered. According to whom were the Germanic peoples similar to American Indians? There are some good points in the article regarding archeology and linguistics, but far too much fluff has bee inserted.

OK, I now know the answer to this is "Proto-Indo-European", but I feel it necessary to remind everyone that Wikipedia is directed to a general audience. It is my opinion (and standard practice according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style), that ANY acronym should be clarified parenthetically at least once on the page.

I would make this change myself, but since I'm at a Panera Bread and someone chose to use this IP address for vandalism, I cannot.

I agree with earlier discussions stating that it is ABSURD to say that Spaniards are a German people. The gothic tribes that invaded spain were numerically quite small. They were merely a ruling elite that kept quite seperate from the native Catholic Romano-Celt_Iberians.

They're only contribution was limited to providing the nobility class. But eventually they were absorbed into the mass of Spanish people, or rather the natives married in to the ruling class, so eventually it was ;Spaniardised' .

To say that the majority of spanish people are descended from these goths is simply wrong and ignorant. Spanish are latin mediterranean peoples culturally, linguistically, religiously and ethnically

The English question is a bit different. English is a germanic 'language'. However English are NOT germanic PEOPLE. There is certainly some germanic cultural influence in England - the ANglo_saxons, then Danish, then the partly Germanic Normans.

However, most English people are descended from the native Britons, which were celticised Paleolithic natives of the land. The anglo-saxon 'invasion' did not leave much GENETIC impact, as the native celts were not replaced or wiped out.

The 'germanic' genes are largely confined to the old areas of East anglia, ie eastern coast of England. But even here, it contributes only 30% of genetic contribution, the rest being native. As you move further and further west, this german contribution becomes negligible. So, scientifically, one would be hard-pressed to say that English are German

Socially, I;m sure a Pom would punch you if you called him a Crout.

The case is similar in Scotland. The cultural influence was limited to the lowlands, and the genetic contribution even smaller, and more attributed to Norse than Anglo-Saxon

I agree. The English are not a germanic people. And yes, you're right, telling an english person that they are related to a german is unlikely to win you much favour these days.--XCassX 14:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If you define a Germanic people as a people that speaks a Germanic language, then the English, the North Americans etc. are Germanic people regardless of race and origin of the individuals in question. As a metter of fact, there is no proper definition of Germanic that would include other modern nations and not the English-speaking nations. Speaking about Germanic genes is, to my mind, either ridiculous or dangerous (or both).

The problem is that the English-speaking people tend to confuse the words "German" and "Germanic", and for some reason, they don't want to be categorised together with the Germans. It is, however, a linguistic fact that the English language is a Germanic language. Enkyklios 07:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversial topic regarding England and the UK but suffice to say that the UK has repeatedly been deeply influenced by Germanic tribes (the Norse also being Germanic) over and over again. That includes the Saxons, the Angles, the Normans and the various Norse tribes. It was far more limited in Spain. England is both culturally, linguistically and largely ethnically Germanic to a very large extent, whereas Spain has only traces of customs. :bloodofox: 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

English a germanic language? There is at least as much influence from romance and other languages to make that statement questionable. Culturally the UK is more generally north-west european with as much imfluence from ireland and france etc. as from far flung places such as scandinavia and germany. As for the ethnic make-up in england, it really shouldn't make a difference one way or the other, should it?

North Americans classed as germanic? Well I suppose that there is such a mix of cultures, languages, and ethnicities over there that they could get away with calling themselves whatever they want!--XCassX 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

While Latin was a substantial influence on English, the vast majority of words used from day to day are pretty obviously Germanic. I recommend you look into the history of West Germanic languages and you will see what I mean. Culturally, the same goes. The famous British common law system is Germanic, quite a lot of British city names are derived from Germanic names, most holidays are Germanic and so forth. North America was also largely settled by Northern Europeans and so the majority of white North Americans are ethnically Germanic - most obviously the Germans, the 2nd largest ethnicity in the US next to those descending from the UK. You should look more into the history of these subjects. :bloodofox: 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That same argument could be put to the Roman period. They all spoke Latin and wore togas back then, but we don't think of Britain as being a primarily Italian or Meditteranean influenced culture do we?

I don't for one moment deny the 'Germanic' period happened in England and altered the country greatly, but that time ended nearly a thousand years ago and has been completely supplanted by what has followed.

What with all that has happened over the centuries to England and the other countries in the United Kingdom since that time, do you really think that we should be grouped with a loose bunch of unfamiliar European countries when in reality we went our own way a long time ago.

'England a Germanic country' is an outdated anachronism.

P.S. Maybe you should look up on the history of post-conquest England. I'm sure that the articles supplied in Wikipedia would be a good start for you.--XCassX 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the evidence against a large Anglo-Saxon migration is as solid as portrayed by a few of the posts above. There are still many historical and genetic studies that show evidence to the contrary and support the traditional theory of an Anglo-Saxon mass migration. I think when one begins these studies they bias it so that they will get the results they want to find. I believe this is true because since WWII, for obvious reasons, many have sought to find a Celtic connection to their national ethnic identities in place of a Germanic one. From reading some of these theories and studies I am beginning to think the Germanic tribes were either mythical or simply disappeared 1,500 years ago, thus leaving behind only Celts. For those interested here are a few links and websites supporting the old and I believe correct theory:

link 1 link 2 link 3 link 4 link 5

--Scott (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

its really ridiculous to say English isnt a germanic language ... its a prooven and well known fact it is since hundreds of years

for the one lazy to google or search in books some basic words in both languages

german english arm arm hand hand axt axe wir we uns us du you haben have schwert sword sehen sehen und and hören hear schlafen sleep stehen stand nase nose ohr ear mund mouth ...

recent studies suggest that anglo-saxons prohibitted celts to marry and to have children.. also many celts fleed to wales, cornwall and brettony

about 60-70% of geneseast and south english genes are identical with the ones of north-west germany, lower denmark another study revealed

the anglo-saxon invasion took place between 420-600 so many people must have come to England (derived from Anglaland btw)

this also explains why there has been such a strong rivalry between the celtic welsh and germanic english

if you take the danes, norwegian, norman invasions into consideration England must be called a germanic country...

but many English seem to have a problem with it- something that makes no real sense... just cause english and german share a common ethnicity it doesnt make english crouts or opposite... the distinguish took place 500 AC for example see Beowulf

by the way.. the royal family is German —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.94.241.240 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For exaggerated claims of a "genocide" inflicted on the Britons by the hands of their Germanic overlords, have a look at Stephen Oppenheimer's book "The Origins of the Britis". The genes are closely related, but this is a relationship that probably predates the emergence of what we call the Germanic or Celtic peoples, pointing to diverging gene flows right from the outset of post-glacial settlement of the British Isles. Trigaranus (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Only sideways related, but I was taught in school that the ethymology of the above words traces back to "people" or "language of the people". Note that this might be a later meaning caused by the aristocracy speaking French though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.159.74.100 (talk) 19:46, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Why is there that terrible painting at the top of the article? It's ugly, bad art, and exemplifies some of the silliest cultural stereotypes that nationalist mythology has loaded up the concept of "Germanic" with. Why does this have to be at the top of the article, uncontextualised? (Rather than in, say, a section dealing with 19th-century national mysticism.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a painting of Thor, a historically major indigenous deity of the Germanic peoples. I think it's pretty appropriate with this in mind. We could also consider some sort of depiction of Odin, which has also been a very constant deity for the Germanic peoples prior to Christianization. Of course, we could consider only placing images of archaeological finds here if that troubles you.

With that said, from what I can tell there's absolutely nothing nationalistic about this image. It's a depiction by a Swede of a story that survived in Icelandic text of a historical figure native to most likely all Germanic tribes - see Thor's Oak for example. :bloodofox: 09:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I find irritating is that this is not an image that shows anything remotely authentic about how the ancient Germanic tribes imagined their gods, but a highly romanticised, modern, 19th-century re-imagination of it. And yes, in the 19th century this romanticised image of ancient Germanic lore would have been implicitly linked with modern national ideologies, be they Swedish or whatever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this image parallels historical accounts of depictions of Thor pretty closely. For example, the unique shape of Mjolnir is taken directly from archaeological finds of ancient depictions of the hammer. Such attention to detail is actually pretty rare for such depictions during the time period. To me it just looks like it's an Eddic depiction, which is deeply rooted in the oral traditions of the Germanic tribes. Thor is slaying Jotun, also Eddic. He is being led by rampant Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr, more Eddic references. If it were obvious Swedish nationalism we were facing here, wouldn't it be something like a blue and gold decked depiction of Freyr strangling Holger Danske instead? :} :bloodofox: 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Well,... If you know a bit about 19th-century art history and iconography, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the painting evokes, above all, 19th-century hero worship, mixing together blond + blue-eyed aryans with a good portion of Christian iconography (I mean, come on, that aureole around him and his pose, the guy is taken straight out of Michelangelo's Last Judgment...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In other words, it's about as authentic as if we were to use this image to illustrate the top of our article on Sparta. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that this is not only on the mark pretty closely (it fits historical depictions of Thor pretty closely) but it doesn't seem to point out to any nation in particular. It's simply a Germanic figure as he's described by surviving sources. One could argue it's a beam from a storm, since Thor is etymologically and historically associated with storms. 300 wasn't exactly historically-minded - that's not a very valid comparison in my opinion. If you want to move the image to the a section regarding "modern revivalism," go ahead. However, I don't agree with it due to the reasons you mention but only because it's more appropriate there due to the time period when it was created. :bloodofox: 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

whether the image is "ugly" is of course a subjective judgement, but it does appear very offtopic. It may or may not be appropriate at the top of the Thor article, but I must agree with Fut.Perf. that it is perfectly unclear what it is doing here. dab (𒁳) 16:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the image was placed there because Thor is a common and major indigenous god amongst the Germanic peoples. However, I won't argue the placement of it in favor of something else. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed dab's new roman picture. It is no more relevant that the eeky 19th century romantic image. Either no image or an image depicting germanic art (from the Germanic Iron Age). 19th century art and roman art does not belong here. Dylansmrjones (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. This isn't the Germanic art article, it's the Germanic people one, and the Marcus Aurelius column shows a contemporary depiction of Germans, by people who had first hand experience. Consider de:Germanen: They show de:Bild:Germanische-ratsversammlung 1-1250x715.jpg, a reconstructed version of the column image, which I would have used if I had found it on commons. I find it difficult to imagine any image that would be more relevant to this article than a contemporary depiction of "Germanic peoples" as seen by the Romans. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Hitler and his theories have spoilt this kind of art for us. It is reminiscent of the brave Germanic (Arian) warrior crushing his enemies and so we aren't allowed to like it since 1039 :p However, I think there should be a nice representative picture at the top of the article. It makes the whole article look nicer. I think a Roman statue (or relief more likely) or a picture of a representative 'Germanic' object would be best. Maybe someone has time to check out Trajans's column? Krastain (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

look, Hitler doesn't enter into it. The point is that this image illustrates Thor and Romantic painting, but it simply doesn't illustrate Germanic peoples. dab (𒁳) 08:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As an attempt at compromise I've inserted a photo of a guy who is about as close we'll come to a bona fide "Germanic" - the Tollund Man. It is true of course that we cannot know his ethnicity - but I would say the odds are pretty good that he can aptly represent Germanic people form the early iron age.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! I can definitely support an image of the Tollund Man. Dylansmrjones (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tollund man picture has been removed three times by an anonymous user, who now states that "no picture is the best compromise"...·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

let him participate in this discussion first. If he keeps reverting without arguing, we'll just semi-protect. dab (𒁳) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe Snowballa68 is intending to vandalise or troll this article, I am sure he feels he has pertinent information to add to the article. However the language of his edits is hardly understandable, and I am not completely sure what the point in his changes are? Would you care to explain in further detail what it is that you find lacking in the current state of the article? Is it a question of the article exaggerating the germanic influence in france? I think we can find a way to describe Frankish influence in a more detailed manner if you supply some references about the extent of frankish culture in alsace, wallonie etc.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the worry doesn't come from a source lacking but from some wrong sentences. Namely "Entire regions of France (such as Alsace, Burgundy and Normandy) were settled heavily by Franks, contributing to their unique regional cultures and dialects, (...)" is inaccurate. Burgundy is a given exonym for the modern region were probably settled the ancient Burgundians thereby the presumed germanic superstrat within oil dialect is from Eastern Germanic roots and surely not from Frankish ones. Concerning Normandy the region has got as few frankish legacy as its french neighbours regions (except for Brittany that is mainly celtic). What the Vikings left behind them in Normandy have no connection with the Franks traces. The Norsemen and the Franks are two distinctive germanic peoples. Finally is kinda true concerning Alsace, except the fact that the region is mainly build up of Alemannic legacy alike the modern swabian inheritage in Germany. Nowadays Alsace is considerated by the Frenchmen themself like the sole entire germanic region. Franks language had a great impact on the modern franconian dialects spoken from the northern Alsace up the Holland, and from Luxembourg to Thuringen. Just notice that article doesn't advert several others areas in Europe that are still remained very more Germanic than France such as South Tyrol, Moravia, East-Pomerania, Prussia,...--Snowballa68 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern - and I will try to think about a way to include it in the article. As I ujderstand it you believe that the section on the Franks overstate frankish influence in some areas and leaves out influence of other germanic tribes in other areas? To be honest a big part of the problem lies in your lacking command of the English language - It is really difficult to understand what you write - I mean no offense by this, English is also not my first language, but if you do not want your edits to be reverted you will have to write them in a way that doesn't make parts of the article unintelligible. Let's wait till some of the other editors who have worked on the article here state what they think about your concerns of the Frankish influence in parts of France being overstated or overly simplified.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have evaluated the situation less kindly, Maunus. You are right to observe WP:BITE of course, but we should not let WP:BITE stand in the way of WP:SPADE: erratic nationalist pov-pushing in broken English and without the merit of academic sources being mentioned at least in passing is not useful anywhere on Wikipedia, period. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure you would. I, however, want to give him the chance to check up on sources and grammar and try to convince us that he has something useful to add. I personally didn't recognize any explicit nationalist pov in his edit, but granted that may be because I don't really understand what he's trying to say.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here you are all sentences that I amended :
"France saw a great deal of Germanic settlement in northeast and east country along with the French-speaking Belgium. (...) Moselle and northern Alsace were settled heavily by Franks, contributing to their unique regional cultures and modern franconian dialects. The rest of Alsace is made up of Alemannic culture and Alsatian language, an upper germanic dialect acquired since the Ariovist's onslaught as it went along."
What is ambiguous about it? I've noticed the chapter "Assimilation" is deemed as an article with no original research or unverified claims which is true. Some people here blame me of vandalizing the article or to do not use reference following my information but I don't see any reference quoted in the whole chapter. Since you've asked me to emphasize it so you'll find below several links over the frankish legacy in modern France:
The Franks impact in the Gauls (scientist work) --> Langue et littérature des anciens Francs, Gérard Gley (1814)[3] (in French)
The Alemanni settlement in the quasi-whole Alsace --> Matyszak, Philip, The enemies of Rome, ISBN 0-500-25124-X
Speak about Burgundian language from the extinct East Germanic language of the Burgundians on --> Histoire de l'idiome Bourguignon et de sa littérature propre, Bernard De La Monnoye (1856) [4] (in French)
Some modern Europe areas --> Franconian languages, Langues d'oïl, Alemannic languages
I've modified information relating to France because I'm sure of what I say by contrast with Spain, Portugal, or some others countries. Now I've proved what I propounded, I would know yours. In conclusion if these sentences shall remain like this, it should be as much stupid as to see in a Encyclopedia that Danes and Italians have got the same forebears and that theirs languages spring from the same root. I let for the moment this article pending replies with counter-arguments or else I'll rather alter it once again with sources enclosed. --Snowballa68 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Danes and italians DO have the same forebears and DO share the same roots. And I still fail to see your point, not because it is ambiguous, but because it is not really intelligible. Maybe you should rather work on the wikipedia in your mothertongue (French?). Anyway I am afraid that any edits to the article that you make which aren't written in intelligible english can and will be reverted at once. So if you begin editing the article without being able to explain on the talk page what your point is you will be wasting your time.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answer to my question? What is the problem with the two sentences above-quoted. Is the following tournure "as it went along" you can't understand or what else? These two short sentences are though quite so constructive and intelligible. I've rather the impression you're dishonest and you have since the begining of this talk a preconception leading up to a constant disagree with me. I put there several interessant sources but all you just find to retort is about my English. Where are your references proving the similar culture in Alsace, Burgundy and Normandy? Where are your reference about the similarity between Franks and Alamanni, Franks and Ancient Burgunds, Alamanni and Ancient Burgunds? Unless you think like me? If it's the case and you think your English is better than mine, why don't you alter with your own words? I wait on a clean-cut reply now. --Snowballa68 (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would write it in my own words if: 1. I understood what you were talking about. And 2. If you provided references to make your intentions more explicit. If you want the article to clearly distinguish Frankish settlements/influence from burgundian, Alamannian, Gothic and Vandalic then that is completely fine - certainly this article should make such a distinction where it is appropriate. But it is not clear that that is your point. Anyway - User:Dbachmman has now began to prune the assimilation section which was underreferenced and messy, as you yourself pointed out. Lets see if we can't work proper mentions of the different historic germanic cultures of france into the article as we go along.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

just because you speak a Romance language doesn't mean your ancestors were Romans from Rome. French speaking French and Italian speaking Italians (of northern Italy) will have lots of Germanic people in their family trees. Do not mix up physiological human ancestry with linguistic history. Beyond that, I have to agree with Maunus that Snowballa68's comments do not parse in English. We cannot have a debate if one side cannot form a coherent sentence. This does not preclude Snowballa68's participation, since all he has to do is point us to a reference making his point for him. If he has such a reference, he does not need to phrase the point in his own words. If he has no such reference, he doesn't have anything of substance, no matter how eloquently he should put it. From his edit, I presume he wants to have the Alemanni mentioned. No problem with that. The area of modern France was settled by Goths, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks and Alemanni. I don't see a dispute. To call the Normans "Gallo-Roman" is ahistorical nonsense. dab (𒁳) 11:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that the "Gallo-Roman" was not Snowballa68's fault. We need to recognize that the "Assimilation" section as it stood was a sad mess, and should do something about it (I have made a start). dab (𒁳) 12:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the comments on this talk page are quite hare-raising (even for Buggs). The article as it stands now has obviously been concocted by a rather vast number of cooks, some of whom seem to be really special people, to say the least. Nevertheless, I think the bulk of the article is quite alright, especially when one considers the many fancy ideas about the Germanic peoples that seem to be out there.

I'd suggest that most of the work by the more prudent folk (such as dab and others) should now focus on two sections of the article:

a) the section "Mythical Foundations", which is quite nice, but why is it there? One could save this section by turning it into a short essay on the different "traditional" ethnogonies (such as the Out-Of-Scandinavia stories), as most of these were once considered to be historical.

b) the section "Assimilation" is not even nice. It pongs very badly of those people who find it tragic that not all Germanic expansion has lead to Germanisation. Quite evidently, many less passionate editors have tried to perfume it with reason, but I'd say the entire section needs cleanup. Trigaranus (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC) (Was me)

yes the "mythical foundations" should be turned into something more coherent, such as "early traditions" or similar. The "Assimilation" section isn't quite so bad as it used to be. It is a matter of record that the Germanic kingdoms were much more widely distributed than Germanic Europe today. Much of Western Europe was (re)-Latinized after the Migration period. There's nothing ideological in giving an account of how this happened. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

When I clicked on that page, I was shocked for the first moment. Is it necessary to show a large image of a mummified corpse in detail? Any necrophilia people here? I don't see how the image improves the article, it just shows that a man existed there. The information about that single person can be included in the history section. --Unify (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another user has just removed it with the somewhat... (looking for a word here) wrong claim that bog bodies were a staple of the Celtic Iron Age. I know about the slightly misleading comment on the bog bodies page:

"More than a thousand bog bodies have been found in regions associated with the Celts of the Iron Age. (...) By far the majority of the bog bodies belong to the Celtic Iron Age, some as late as the 4th century bc"

As far as the age is concerned, that may well be true, but not all parts of Europe were arguably Celtic during that "Celtic Iron Age", as I'm sure we all know. Many bog bodies have been found so far, but only a certain number of them are arguably "Celtic" (those from Ireland or the UK), while most come from Denmark. I am well aware that User:SenseOnes does in fact come from Denmark, but the claim that the Tollund man is more fittingly associated with the Celts than with the predecessors of the Germanic peoples seems rather debatable. Other opinions? Trigaranus (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming this person is simply confused. I've since reverted them. Jutland has, as you've mentioned, produced a number of bog bodies. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I am kind of disturbed by the face of a dead corpse on the front of this page. 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.214.121 (talk)

I don't know why this page is protected. It can't get any worse. It's nothing but a bunch of crap stuffed together and this "thing" you call image is the final drop in the glass full of crap. Are you trying to give people heart attacks or just to annoy them? Too bad people use Wikipedia for references daily. PaunchyPaul (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Some specifics regarding content outside of this would be helpful. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose a map of the countries where a Germanic language is spoken as a first image. That's the way the page on the Slavic peoples starts. It gives a basic idea of which countries can be classified as having germanic heritage, to one extend or another. PaunchyPaul (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, dab's suggestion, the image from the Colonna Antonia [5], is the best one so far. If not that, then a map of some kind would be appropriate. Aryaman (☼) 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the idea, but it doesn't work. While we can refer to the "Slavs" and mean the modern Slavic speaking nations, the term "Germanic peoples" refers to the past. Germans, English, Danes etc. aren't called "Germanic peoples" today. At best, they are "Germanic-speaking nations". The term "Germanic peoples" has validity at best until the beginning of the High Middle Ages. For this reason, a map of the modern distribution of Germanic languages doesn't adequately illustrate this article (while it is of course perfectly fine at Germanic languages). If you want a map illustrating the distribution of "Germanic peoples", Image:Pre Migration Age Germanic.png would be more to the point. dab (𒁳) 12:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the bookworms win, you'll have it your way, happy now? I guess this fulfils your purpose. Fortunately, although history might be written by nerds and dorks, history isn't made by them. You may re-write things all you want, time and again, but you'll never change history or become part of it. You know, I'm done with this farce, I don't owe anyone anything here, as long as I stay upright I wouldn't care about parasites like you. So I'm leaving with a clean consciousness and... may the Force be with you! (but I won't give up without a fight). PaunchyPaul (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess his 'fight' equates to random acts of vandalism, which are being reverted as I type... Aryaman (☼) 00:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

wth, PaunchyPaul, are you one of nature's skulkers? We try to compromise on what image to place in the lead of the "Germanic peoples" article (presently none), and you rant about nerds rewriting history? It that's your attitude, and with puerile outbursts like this one (I'm sure that's the way to make your way into the history books...), it may be as well you are done here. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To the comments on my edits, I can only say that you obviously have not read as much as one in depth book on the ethnology of Jutland in the time periods of the Celtic Iron age to the Roman Iron age, a thousand years of history essential to the understanding of the ethnology of modern as well as ancient Jutland. The fact is that the tribes in these periods were of Celtic language, culture and extraction - were even referred to as the Germanii by early Roman sources (often confused with what is today called "Germanic" or "Teutonic" peoples, two major misnomers in modern ethnology), in reference to them being genuine Celts (Germani meaning genuine in a dialect of Latin). These tribe include the Cimbri, Ambroni, Tovtonos/Teutoni and a number of other minor tribes. Anyone who has any perspective in the philology of "Teutoni" (Tovtonos) knows that it stems from a Celtic linguistic context, as in the Celtic form of the IE *teut-, attested in the *eut- and *iud- forms in Germanic dialects, the Teutoni ethnonym clearly being in the Celtic category comparable to elements of identical derivative, such as Tovtatis/Teutates, a god in Celtic mythology. This, of course, was never denied by any ethnologist with just a minimal linguistic perspective, and was merely explained and debunked by the germanophiles as a result of a "Celtic intermediary" in the formation of the ethnonym. Of course, the Tovtonenstein and similar attestations do contradict this, and the explanation is generally inadequate, unreductionistic and serves only a political agenda, and is not accepted in a true ethnological pursuit of truth.

Of course I am not claiming that the modern Jutes are Celtic in language - they are clearly the result of two "Germanicization"-steps, one being the formation of the Jutish culture after the defeat of the Cimbric tribes and the downfall of the aboriginal Celtic culture, the second being the danicization of the Jutes. Nevertheless, when some basic considerations have been made as to the intellectual solidity of the "Germanic" meta-ethnicity (as well as certain other meta-ethnicities within Europe), there are some unchallenged problems that should be respected in this intellectually irresponsible article, which just blabbers one-sidedly for what people think is "established". SenseOnes (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

come again? Why do you think this article is "intellectually irresponsible"? What is a "meta-ethnicity"? So you claim Roman era Jutland was Celtic speaking. Any WP:RS? I am aware of the Cimbri/Himmerland question. I am aware that Roman era Germanii cannot be taken as identical to modern "Germanic". But your claim that Germanii means "genuine [Celts]" is a bit surreal. Yes, it is impossible to decide who exactly was "Celtic" and who was "Germanic" in the prehistoric period. Duly noted. But your various claims are just that, claims, presented without any kind of credible source. The Cimbri article correctly lays out how the question of the language of the Cimbri is unresolved and unresolvable. I really don't see the merit in debunking "Germanophilia" by immediately plunging into wild-eyed "Celtophilia". Some pragmatism is always useful. dab (𒁳) 13:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

SenseOnes wants to give us the impression that he is an expert in this question. I don't know his credentials, but it is obvious that he is not a comparative linguist. What he writes is not in accordance with the handbooks (I have read quite a few). The assertion that Germanic *eutõz comes from Celtic teutã would appeal only to a person unfamiliar with the history of the Indo-European languages: What has happened to the initial t, and why has the internal t been retained in the ethnonym while it has become a fricative in the appellative *þeuðō "people"?

I agree with dab: The question of the language of the Cimbri cannot be solved with our present knowledge. I suspect that the Cimbri whom the Romans met in the 2nd cent. BC were largely Celtic-speaking, but even if that is true, it does not follow that the Cimbri of the Cimbric peninsula were Celtic-spekaing as well. We have no evidence supporting the presence of Celtic language in Jutland, and the Jutish dialects do not have any Celtic loanwords that do not exist in the other Germanic dialects as well (like Danish rig "rich", embede "office"). And please, don't come up with the vigesimal system (common to French, Welsh and Danish)! Enkyklios (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yours truly has to concur with these gentlemen, SenseOnes. Linguistically, the IE "people" root (Celtic. *teut-/tout- / Germ. *þeuð-) simply cannot be the basis for the ethnonym of the Jutes. If you wish to maintain further claims to a "Celticity" of pre-historic Jutland, then these would have to be corroborated by a layer of Celtic toponyms (e.g. some with deleted IE p) in the area. If linguistics cannot provide traces of the Celtic language that set Jutland apart from other areas of "Germania", you cannot make a profound claim to its supposed past as a Celtic-speaking region. (Unfortunately, the Gundestrup cauldron does not tell us a thing about the language of the people who last used it.) And don't start into a rant against Germanophiles. Most of us find the Celts way cooler than the Germans — let's be honest ;-) —, and if there was any shred of proof for your theory we'd rightaway jump at it. Trigaranus (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Strabo, the Romans introduced the name Germani, because the Germanic tribes were the authentic Celts (γνησίους Γαλάτας; gnisíous Galátas).

OK, but according to the Celt article, and others, the Greek plural for "Celts" is Κέλται or Κελτός. If you put Γαλάτας into http://babelfish.altavista.com/ and do a Greek to English translation it comes up "Milkmen". Unless the modern Greek word comes from an alternate one for Gaul or some such, this might be subtle vandalism. I just want someone to help confirm it isn't via etymology. 67.5.157.89 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

see Names of the Celts -- the Galatas are the Galatians. dab (𒁳) 18:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that the Germanic peoples are considered to be a historical ethnic group, while the Indo-Aryans are considered to be a modern one on Wikipedia? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 01:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Which is why I think this article should be called "Ancient Germanic peoples" (which would follow the related Category:Ancient Germanic peoples, Category:Ancient Germanic people, Portal:Ancient Germanic culture, etc.). But I'm not about to start throwing snowballs into hell just to watch them melt. ;) —Aryaman (Enlist!) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

the reason is that the Germanic people have diversified into the English, the Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians, while the Indo-Aryans remain pretty much a socio-linguistic continuum (the "Hindi belt"). Except for the Roma, that is. I agree this is all debatable. It may also just be common English usage due to an inherent "Western-centric" finer resolution of groups more close to home. Don't know, find sources discussing the point. --dab (𒁳) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I support removing this paragaph. It is not supported by any source, and contradicts the actual situation. For example: "The Germanic populations survive today as the modern Germanic peoples." Well, the historical Germanic people do not have much in common with modern peoples speaking Germanic languages. Since historic times many new immigration waves arrived in Europe, completely mixing up the population. Moreover, it is not at all clear, whether all the historic groups call "Germans" by the Romans actually in all cases really spoke Germanic languages. The Romans simply called EVERYBODY from north-east of their empire "German". Also the phrase "bound together by a similar culture and languages" seems to suggest some kind of unity between modern Germanic peoples, which does not exist at all. In fact, Swedes have much more in common with (non-Germanic) Fins than (e.g.) with Austrians, who in turn are much closer to other (non-Germanic) Central European peoples than with Swedes. Nahabedere (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Were there any contacts between those involved?I read that some tribes intermarried and thats how was made the Germanic tribes.I really dont know if its correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.1.62 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In what century are we living to say that people in Belgium and Luxembourg have a Celtic and Romance minority? I strongly doubt that anyone between 400 AD and maybe 1800 AD in those countries would ever have thought of themselves as Celtic. Any such affinities are a romantic re-creation. It's a long-established fact that much of Europe's population is a mixture between various historical peoples, nobody doubts that, and certainly much of Europe was at one stage Celtic in language and culture. But at least on the continent (outside Brittany) any Celtic identity has been lost since Roman times. All we are using nowadays to determin ethnicity in Europe is language (and maybe for Sinti and Roma, who are losing their languages, culture), which makes the inhabitants of francophone Europe Romance peoples. Not many traces of Celtic languages surviving the Roman Empire in those areas. The ancient Celts, as much as you and I may like them, are not Celts anymore, and no demographical survey would ever find a "Celtic minority" in Luxembourg. Trigaranus (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

you have convincingly established that the present article was written after AD 1800. But you are also right that talk of a "Celtic minority" is silly. The proper term would be Celtic substratum. --dab (𒁳) 10:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Luxembourg and Liechtenstein are regarded as fully Germanic. And if France is fitted into this cattegory, why not Spain or Italy, both with Germanic Kingdoms and ethnic influence in several regions?. And the statement But at least on the continent (outside Brittany) any Celtic identity has been lost doesn´t not hold true for Brittany.--Xareu bs (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion for Germanic Europe. This article is supposed to focus on Germanic antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Makes me a happy bunny the way it looks now. Thanks for the edits. Trigaranus (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)