Jastorf culture

[motatalea]

1-Is it right that Jastrof culture was the cradle of germanic tribes and germanic languages?
2-Could you tell me Mr Maciamo which haplogroups were found predominantly in jastrof culture?

3- I have read that Jastrof cutlure evolved out from nordic bronze culture ,so please could you tell me what does that mean? does that mean that jastrof culture people were originally living in scandinavia where the nordic bronze age was found and then they suddenly decided to go more south (northern germany) to form their own culture which became jastrof later?

4-Is it only Jastrof cultur which were the cradle of germanic tribes or also Harpstedt-Nienburg group?

 

[Maciamo]

1. It depends what you call "cradle". There were other cultures in northern Germany and Scandinavia before Jastrof. The Jastrof culture is an Iron Age culture and only included a part of northern Germany. It was contemporary with the Harpstedt-Nienburg culture and Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe. All of them are Germanic.

2. There are no studies testing skeletons from these cultures, but judging from modern-day distribution, the main were I1, I2b, R1b and R1a.

3. It means that the Nordic Bronze Age expanded south to Germany, but also north, deeper into Sweden and Norway. The culture became a bit different in northern Germany and Scandinavia. That's why the former was called Jastrof culture and the latter Pre-Roman (Nordic) Iron Age.

4. Both + Pre-Roman (Nordic) Iron Age.

 

[motatalea]

1. It depends what you call "cradle". There were other cultures in northern Germany and Scandinavia before Jastrof. The Jastrof culture is an Iron Age culture and only included a part of northern Germany. It was contemporary with the Harpstedt-Nienburg culture and Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe. All of them are Germanic.

2. There are no studies testing skeletons from these cultures, but judging from modern-day distribution, the main were I1, I2b, R1b and R1a.

3. It means that the Nordic Bronze Age expanded south to Germany, but also north, deeper into Sweden and Norway. The culture became a bit different in northern Germany and Scandinavia. That's why the former was called Jastrof culture and the latter Pre-Roman (Nordic) Iron Age.

4. Both + Pre-Roman (Nordic) Iron Age.

Could you explain the forming of germanic tribes from the ending of halstatt time until expansion of germanic tribes? I know that during the haslstatt era ,there was an expansion of R1b -S116 from central europe to scandinavia ,so the point is how germanic tribes (northern,western,eastern germanic tribes) were formed as soos as ending of halstatt age in scandinavia until expansion of germanic tribes in to the roman empire borders?

 

[spongetaro]

Are there moves of the Jastrof culture northward recorded by archeology? How come there is so much R1b U106 in Denmark?
If it originated in Netherland/ Northern Germany, then a culture must have spread it northward to Jutland.
What is even more confusing is that there was maybe Celts in Jutland as some consider the Cimbri a Celtic people.
There is also that Nordvestblock theory which consider that the area of Netherland/ Belgium/ North West Germany was neither Celtic nor Germanic.
U106 might have originated in this Nordwestblock with non Germanic tribes like the Cimbri or Belgae. I believe that U106 was Germanicized by I1 when Scandinavian tribes moved southward as the level of the Baltic sea raised.

By the way, both U106 and S116 eveloved from R1b L11 so they might have spoken a closely related language at some moment of history. As Germanic have the strongest non ie substratum, we can concude that this substratum was brought by I1 people( from he Nordic bronze age?) while U106 people probably spoke some sort of Para-Celtic language first.

 

[Taranis]

Are there moves of the Jastrof culture northward recorded by archeology? How come there is so much R1b U106 in Denmark?
If it originated in Netherland/ Northern Germany, then a culture must have spread it northward to Jutland.
What is even more confusing is that there was maybe Celts in Jutland as some consider the Cimbri a Celtic people.
There is also that Nordvestblock theory which consider that the area of Netherland/ Belgium/ North West Germany was neither Celtic nor Germanic.
U106 might have originated in this Nordwestblock with non Germanic tribes like the Cimbri or Belgae. I believe that U106 was Germanicized by I1 when Scandinavian tribes moved southward as the level of the Baltic sea raised.

Regarding the Cimbri, it depends what view you have regarding when exactly the First Germanic Sound Shift (also called "Grimm's Law") occured. The traditionalist model assumes that it occured around 500 BC, but newer models assume that it occured only in the 1st century BC. If you go by the former, the name "Cimbri" cannot be Germanic because it would postdate the sound shift. If you go by the latter though, "Cimbri" very well makes sense as Germanic. For the Northwestblock, I was going to start a thread on that a while later, though what I wrote above in regard for Grimm's Law applies here as well.

 

[spongetaro]

Regarding the Cimbri, it depends what view you have regarding when exactly the First Germanic Sound Shift (also called "Grimm's Law") occured. The traditionalist model assumes that it occured around 500 BC, but newer models assume that it occured only in the 1st century BC. If you go by the former, the name "Cimbri" cannot be Germanic because it would postdate the sound shift. If you go by the latter though, "Cimbri" very well makes sense as Germanic. For the Northwestblock, I was going to start a thread on that a while later, though what I wrote above in regard for Grimm's Law applies here as well.

Cimri could have also been a generic name of Celtic tribes such as Cymru and Cumbria.
How do you interpret the names of their leader: Boiorix, Gaesorix and Lugius?
Isn't 'rix' a Celtic suffix?

Also what's your opinion on the Ambrones? I found on wikipedia that
"The Ambrones followed a Celtic custom in shouting the name of their tribe going into battle"

 

[Taranis]

Cimri could have also been a generic name of Celtic tribes such as Cymru and Cumbria.

The name "Cymru" and "Cumbria" in Brythonic (mind you: we are talking about Modern/Medieval Celtic languages here, not Classical) is generally thought to be a contraction of what would have been "Combrogi" in ancient Brythonic (literally, "together-homelanders", perhaps better "compatriots"). So, in the 2nd century BC, what we would expect is really "Combrogi", not "Cimbri".

How do you interpret the names of their leader: Boiorix, Gaesorix and Lugius?
Isn't 'rix' a Celtic suffix?

Also what's your opinion on the Ambrones? I found on wikipedia that
"The Ambrones followed a Celtic custom in shouting the name of their tribe going into battle"

And well, I did not say that there was an easy solution to the problem. I just suggested a possibly Germanic etymology for "Cimbri". In fact, a modern cognate for "Cimbri" may exist in the region of Himmerland in Denmark.

As for the overtly Celtic personal names of their leaders, this poses a significant problem not only with the Cimbri but with other tribes that are usually considered Germanic: of the Suebi (Ariovistus), as well as for instance of the Markomanni (Maroboduus, Ballomarus, Ariogaesus). What is the solution here? I would argue the solution is that the Germanic tribes in this stage were heavily culturally dominated by the Gauls, and that it was common for the upper echelons of Germanic society to speak Gaulish and have Celtic personal names. Given how the Suebi are apparently invited with ease to assist the Arverni during the Gallic War, you get the impression that the language barrier was really non-existent.

Is there any other evidence this really was the case? As a matter of fact, there is: the Germanic languages do have a sizable number of Celtic loanwords (notably the word for "iron" and the word for "foreigner"), basically all which date to before the First Germanic Sound Shift. Archaeologically, we could indeed see this in the shape of the Jastorf Culture.

Another evidence comes from Celtic place names: we do see Celtic name evidence extend deep into Central Europe, at the Rhine delta, along the Rhine, from the Danube northwards as far north as about the Main river, the Erzgebirge and the source of the Oder river. We get a clear picture that these regions must have been linguistically Celtic until circa the 2nd-1st century BC, and this also roughly corresponds also with the maximum extend of Hallstatt and La-Tene in these areas, however there is an "indent" that roughly corresponds to northern modern-day Hesse (as well as adjacent areas on the right-bank of the Rhine and north-bank of the Main) where no Celtic place names can be found, yet archaeological evidence for Celtic culture is ripe. The only sensible solution I see is that these areas in the north were not ethnic Celtic, but only culturally.

 

[spongetaro]

The name "Cymru" and "Cumbria" in Brythonic (mind you: we are talking about Modern/Medieval Celtic languages here, not Classical) is generally thought to be a contraction of what would have been "Combrogi" in ancient Brythonic (literally, "together-homelanders", perhaps better "compatriots"). So, in the 2nd century BC, what we would expect is really "Combrogi", not "Cimbri".



And well, I did not say that there was an easy solution to the problem. I just suggested a possibly Germanic etymology for "Cimbri". In fact, a modern cognate for "Cimbri" may exist in the region of Himmerland in Denmark.

As for the overtly Celtic personal names of their leaders, this poses a significant problem not only with the Cimbri but with other tribes that are usually considered Germanic: of the Suebi (Ariovistus), as well as for instance of the Markomanni (Maroboduus, Ballomarus, Ariogaesus). What is the solution here? I would argue the solution is that the Germanic tribes in this stage were heavily culturally dominated by the Gauls, and that it was common for the upper echelons of Germanic society to speak Gaulish and have Celtic personal names. Given how the Suebi are apparently invited with ease to assist the Arverni during the Gallic War, you get the impression that the language barrier was really non-existent.

Is there any other evidence this really was the case? As a matter of fact, there is: the Germanic languages do have a sizable number of Celtic loanwords (notably the word for "iron" and the word for "foreigner"), basically all which date to before the First Germanic Sound Shift. Archaeologically, we could indeed see this in the shape of the Jastorf Culture.

Another evidence comes from Celtic place names: we do see Celtic name evidence extend deep into Celtic Europe, at the Rhine delta, along the Rhine, from the Danube northwards as far north as about the Main river, the Erzgebirge and the source of the Oder river. We get a clear picture that these regions must have been linguistically Celtic until circa the 2nd-1st century BC, and this also roughly corresponds also with the maximum extend of Hallstatt and La-Tene in these areas, however there is an "indent" that roughly corresponds to northern modern-day Hesse (as well as adjacent areas on the right-bank of the Rhine and north-bank of the Main) where no Celtic place names can be found, yet archaeological evidence for Celtic culture is ripe. The only sensible solution I see is that these areas in the north were not ethnic Celtic, but only culturally.

Thanks, acculturation might indeed be an explanation.
Also, do you agree that R1b U106 people might have spoken first a language related to Para-Italo-Celt given that both S116 and U106 evolved from R1b L11. I think that both evolved from the central European Unetice culture.

Also, What is your opinion on the non IE substratum in German?

 

[Taranis]

Thanks, acculturation might indeed be an explanation.
Also, do you agree that R1b U106 people might have spoken first a language related to Para-Italo-Celt given that both S116 and U106 evolved from R1b L11. I think that both evolved from the central European Unetice culture.

Honestly, if we go back further, I think it gets more problematic in terms of ethnic ascription of archeological cultures. Take Urnfield or take Beaker-Bell, for example. I agree though that Unetice is indeed a good candidate for the carriers of a Proto-Italo-Celtic language. The same I would (tentatively) apply Haplogroups. As for the north (and the carriers of U106, tentatively), I think you have to give me some more time to contemplate on that problem...

Also, What is your opinion on the non IE substratum in German?

Well, the Germanic Substrate hypothesis come from Feist 1932, and since then, for many of the words he proposed, cognates in other branches of Indo-European have actually been found, and the list of these supposedly pre-IE substrate words has been getting smaller and smaller. I don't know the latest on this discussion, but my opinion is that while I don't rule out that there are such loans, I don't think that the number is exceptional in Germanic.

What perhaps should be added is that there's also a minority school if you will (there were several members, if I recall correctly, who adhered to it) who argue that the First Germanic Sound Shift occured even earlier than the Traditionalist date (which, from what you have seen above, poses a large number of problems!), and they are in favour of the idea that the highly unique features of the Germanic language family were caused by this presumed pre-IE substrate language.

 

[spongetaro]

Honestly, if we go back further, I think it gets more problematic in terms of ethnic ascription of archeological cultures. Take Urnfield or take Beaker-Bell, for example.

If I recall correctly, a team will try to extract DNA from Swiss Bell Beaker site for the 50 years of the discovery of 'Le petit chasseur' site in Switzerland. Hope it will give us evidence of the ethnic background of the Bell beaker people.

I agree though that Unetice is indeed a good candidate for the carriers of a Proto-Italo-Celtic language. The same I would (tentatively) apply Haplogroups. As for the north (and the carriers of U106, tentatively), I think you have to give me some more time to contemplate on that problem...

What I find the most problematic is the fact that R1b U106 is found as far north as Norway. If U106 was indeed of Central European origin, we should find Unetice related material in Scandinavia. But from what I've read, the nordic bronze age started as a local phenomenon.

Well, the Germanic Substrate hypothesis come from Feist 1932, and since then, for many of the words he proposed, cognates in other branches of Indo-European have actually been found, and the list of these supposedly pre-IE substrate words has been getting smaller and smaller. I don't know the latest on this discussion, but my opinion is that while I don't rule out that there are such loans, I don't think that the number is exceptional in Germanic.

What perhaps should be added is that there's also a minority school if you will (there were several members, if I recall correctly, who adhered to it) who argue that the First Germanic Sound Shift occured even earlier than the Traditionalist date (which, from what you have seen above, poses a large number of problems!), and they are in favour of the idea that the highly unique features of the Germanic language family were caused by this presumed pre-IE substrate language.

Is there a possibility that these "unique features of the Germanic language family" could be a remanant of an archaic form of Indo european (From the corded ware?).

 

[Sile]

Regarding the Cimbri, it depends what view you have regarding when exactly the First Germanic Sound Shift (also called "Grimm's Law") occured. The traditionalist model assumes that it occured around 500 BC, but newer models assume that it occured only in the 1st century BC. If you go by the former, the name "Cimbri" cannot be Germanic because it would postdate the sound shift. If you go by the latter though, "Cimbri" very well makes sense as Germanic. For the Northwestblock, I was going to start a thread on that a while later, though what I wrote above in regard for Grimm's Law applies here as well.

The earliest known/written account of Nordic swedes arriving in Germany was from 375BC, the vandals, venedi and heruli landing on the modern borders of Holstein and Mecklenburg. I think the Cimbri always existed in jutland, but where not nordic people at that time, but they where Germanic

I suspect that U106 formed with the mix of Germanic and Nordic and that was in the area of Northern Netherlands to jutland. It makes no sense that it formed in central or southern Germany because if it was the Bavarians would have taken more than what they did to Vienna. I think it was a saxon,Angel, Frisian and Jutes germanic origin mixed with the Swedes

 

[spongetaro]

I suspect that U106 formed with the mix of Germanic and Nordic and that was in the area of Northern Netherlands to jutland. It makes no sense that it formed in central or southern Germany because if it was the Bavarians would have taken more than what they did to Vienna. I think it was a saxon,Angel, Frisian and Jutes germanic origin mixed with the Swedes

Did the Angle, frisian, Saxon even existed when U106 broke away from R1b L11?
If U106 didn't come from the south, then where did it come from? The north (Scandinavia)? The east (poland)? The west (Gaul !) ?

 

[Sile]

Did the Angle, frisian, Saxon even existed when U106 broke away from R1b L11?
If U106 didn't come from the south, then where did it come from? The north (Scandinavia)? The east (poland)? The west (Gaul !) ???

I said it in paragraph 2.

whatever those tribes of saxons, frisians, angels etc etc where called at the time

 

[spongetaro]

I said it in paragraph 2.

whatever those tribes of saxons, frisians, angels etc etc where called at the time

ok So your scenario would be R1b L11 moving to Netherland and mixing with I1 to become U106?

 

[Taranis]

The earliest known/written account of Nordic swedes arriving in Germany was from 375BC, the vandals, venedi and heruli landing on the modern borders of Holstein and Mecklenburg. I think the Cimbri always existed in jutland, but where not nordic people at that time, but they where Germanic

I had to read that post several times over to understand what you mean. I think you more likely mean 375 AD. In any case, it doesn't make any sense to speak of Nordic (as in "North Germanic") before the 1st century BC because the Proto-Germanic language had not differentiated into it's sub-branches yet. To assume that the Nordic Bronze Age for instance had anything to do with the North Germanic languages makes no sense because the bronze age obviously predates the differentiation of the Proto-Germanic language by many centuries.

I suspect that U106 formed with the mix of Germanic and Nordic and that was in the area of Northern Netherlands to jutland. It makes no sense that it formed in central or southern Germany because if it was the Bavarians would have taken more than what they did to Vienna. I think it was a saxon,Angel, Frisian and Jutes germanic origin mixed with the Swedes

Sorry, see above, you are making a false assumption here.

 

[Sile]

I had to read that post several times over to understand what you mean. I think you more likely mean 375 AD. In any case, it doesn't make any sense to speak of Nordic (as in "North Germanic") before the 1st century BC because the Proto-Germanic language had not differentiated into it's sub-branches yet. To assume that the Nordic Bronze Age for instance had anything to do with the North Germanic languages makes no sense because the bronze age obviously predates the differentiation of the Proto-Germanic language by many centuries.



Sorry, see above, you are making a false assumption here.

what I am saying is that it started with the Montelius bronze age , German and Dutch Megalithic graves where regarded as simplified descendants of the Nordic ones. Strong influence from the north can also be traced in the German-Dutch Megalithic grave culture.
You would know dutch refers to old germanic

But I referred to 375BC because prior to this no named tribe was named as coming from Norse-swedish area

 

[Sile]

recently read about German pyramids, basically burial mounts found in Germany identical in Nordic lands......year is around 4000BC which fits into the megalithic grave times

 

[Taranis]

If I recall correctly, a team will try to extract DNA from Swiss Bell Beaker site for the 50 years of the discovery of 'Le petit chasseur' site in Switzerland. Hope it will give us evidence of the ethnic background of the Bell beaker people.

Well, here is some hope that we will find out something soon about the origin of the Beaker people!

What I find the most problematic is the fact that R1b U106 is found as far north as Norway. If U106 was indeed of Central European origin, we should find Unetice related material in Scandinavia. But from what I've read, the nordic bronze age started as a local phenomenon.

Indeed. Everything kind of goes back to the Nordic Bronze Age, and it also seems that the Jastorf Culture essentially emerged at the southern edge of the Nordic Bronze Age, under the influence from Hallstatt.

Is there a possibility that these "unique features of the Germanic language family" could be a remanant of an archaic form of Indo european (From the corded ware?).

Well, let me elaborate what these features are:

- Low number of cases. A lot of people tend to think of modern German as an highly inflected language, but compared to the ancient Indo-European languages (ie, Latin, Greek, Sanskrit), grammar in German is rather vestigial. For instance, German only has four of the original eight cases of declension in PIE. The oldest well-attested Germanic language, Gothic (4th century AD) also only has five, of which one (the vocative case) is essentially vestigial.

- Difficult classification. In a lot of classification schemes of IE, the Germanic languages are actually problematic in their position. There is evidence for a very old connection with the Balto-Slavic languages (predating the Centum-Satem split), but otherwise more commonalities with the Celtic and Italic languages.

- The First Germanic Sound Shift, as elaborated above. The evidence is very strong that this shift happened in historic/proto-historic times, rather than at the base of the Germanic languages.

If we take the above though, we might speculate if the Germanic languages are essentially a 'hybrid' (between pre-Satem and Centum), perhaps similar to how the English language was heavily influenced by the Romance languages. Note that we do actually see something similar here as we see with the Germanic languages as a whole: like Gothic and German, Old English was also a fully inflected language but with the high influx of Romance vocabulary, English grammar was vastly boiled down and English became a near-analytic language. Perhaps, something similar happened with the early development of Proto-Germanic due to the contact with Centum speakers.

 

[Taranis]

what I am saying is that it started with the Montelius bronze age , German and Dutch Megalithic graves where regarded as simplified descendants of the Nordic ones. Strong influence from the north can also be traced in the German-Dutch Megalithic grave culture.
You would know dutch refers to old germanic

But I referred to 375BC because prior to this no named tribe was named as coming from Norse-swedish area

Sorry, I'm afraid to say this, but this really makes no sense. You are making false connection between language and geographic areas in respect for time. The time we are talking about predates the differentiation of the Germanic language family into sub-branches (West Germanic, North Germanic, East Germanic).

recently read about German pyramids, basically burial mounts found in Germany identical in Nordic lands......year is around 4000BC which fits into the megalithic grave times

This certainly even predates the arrival of Indo-Europeans in Scandinavia by a long time. Why do you bring this even up?!