Talk:Germanic peoples

Two pre-print articles to watch

Witnessing a huge amount of discussion about two pre-print articles from a plethora of scholars (including Guus Kroonen and Peter Heather) with the potential for big impact on this and related articles. They are as follows:

• "Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages" (2024): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.13.584607v1
• "High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe" (2024): https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.15.585102v1.full

I'll be following. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, we will have to see when they come out and how we should incorporate their conclusions into the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The main new data in the first article is Danish, which is certainly a good thing. As is frequently true, the conclusions are not so simple and readers should be careful of the artificial cluster names. For example the name South Scandinavian might be seen as implying that the researchers discovered a strong genetic distinction between South Scandianvians and their neighbours in what is now Germany and Poland. Although they use selected data from other studies none of those include data from neighbouring areas to the south, so they can't really test the Jordanes-based "womb of nations" idea against its competitor, the Jastorf culture. Indeed, that culture is only mentioned in the abstract, despite the fact that the abstract implies that it will be a critical topic to be examined. The article will in any case add to ongoing discussion, along with many other such articles. At key moments Y DNA is used to justify decisions, which I think is methodologically questionable.

The second article is also interesting and also worth careful reading. It also discusses the Viking age. The wording concerning clusters is more careful in this article. See the following examples. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Our modelling provides direct evidence of individuals with ancestry originating in northern Germany or Scandinavia appearing in these regions as early as the first century CE
• We reveal evidence of expansion southwards and/or eastwards of likely Germanic speakers carrying Scandinavian-related ancestry in the first half of the first millennium CE. We note that ‘Scandinavian-related’ in this context relates to the ancient genomes available, and so it is entirely possible that these processes were driven e.g. from regions in northern-central Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The gap about the Jastorf culture in the paper by the Willerslev team is explained in the section "Expansions of Scandinavian ancestry during the Migration Period": The period between 2800 and 1575 BP is described in the archaeological and historical literature as the time of Germanic migrations moving south into continental Europe. The lack of samples from this period, especially from Germany, limits our ability to determine when these migrations may have occurred. Even before the emergence of archaeogenetics, cremation as the default burial practice has proven to be a source of frustration for physical anthropologists.

Maybe we can already try to draft a preliminary version for expanding this article by making use of the preprints in draft- or user-space, and incubate these changes until the papers have been published (and after cross-checking for potential changes made to the manuscripts in the meantime). –Austronesier (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We currently have a very short section on genetics - I'd suggest leaving the caveat statement the same as they currently are, namely: The use of genetic studies to investigate the Germanic past is controversial, with scholars such as Guy Halsall suggesting it could represent a hearkening back to 19th-century ideas of race. Sebastian Brather, Wilhelm Heizmann, and Steffen Patzold write that genetics studies are of great use for demographic history, but cannot give us any information about cultural history.. I leave it to those wiser than I in archaeogenetics to drafts the rest.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I am personally not so sure yet what we could safely take out of these articles. The stronger conclusions are mostly unexciting, matching other articles (which is indeed where most of the data comes from). The more controversial implications are likely to be difficult to agree how to summarize. (One might even think the more controversial stuff is deliberating written in an obfuscating way.) So as a first step I agree with Ermenrich. But I would personally be open to proposals. I just did not yet see anything easy or practical yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Any news on this front?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is whether these articles, when read carefully, are saying anything important for the topic of this article, which does not require synthesis on our part. Are there any proposals? I did not see it so far. The papers focus on internal Scandinavian change, but when they come to explaining connections to nearby areas the conclusions are fuzzy, as explained previously. The articles don't seem to have enough data to distinguish Scandinavians from people from neighbouring regions, nor indeed people from the Rhine, Elbe and Danube from each other. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The geographic density modeling really does not help that much in my estimation either, despite how thorough and interesting these research finding are. Do we have an archaeo-anthropologist willing to help us, gents? --Obenritter (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess we should better define what questions we have about the uses of this article. Just to start the ball rolling my initial idea was that the articles might be relevant to discussions about (1) the "Urheimat" of Germanic languages (Scandinavia versus Elbe, and the regions east and west of the Elbe, etc, narrow versus broad region, questions of timing, and movements between these regions, etc), and (2) perhaps secondly also whether there is genetic evidence for specific central European population movements in the so called Migration Period (putting aside the movement into England which is handled in various studies). So my sceptical comments above should be seen in that light. In other words I did not see much progress on those specific questions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew on this, I do not personally see how these articles would be very relevant to this Wikipedia article. While the subjects overlap, they are essentially referring to separate entities. This article is primarily concerned with the people group from the ancient period, which is separate from the linguistic group. As such, the material culture of the ancient Germanic world could have a different origin to the Germanic languages etc. Jared Hanson III (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you don't "see how these articles would be very relevant to this Wikipedia article", thise article titled Germanic peoples, the very same article that bolds Germanic speaking peoples as a commonly-used synonym in its lead? This article sure attracts some characters. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that in terms of antiquity, Germanic referred to the people of Germania, not necessarily people who speak what we would deem a Germanic language today. Goths were not deemed Germanic, and from the sources we do have, north Germanic speakers in Scandinavia were differentiated as well. No need to get hostile. Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also appreciate not being insulted and called some character.Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You're rambling on about the Germani like we're Romans. We're not. This article is built on contemporary scholarship, which is itself built on a foundation of in particular historical linguistics (thus the bolded Germanic speaking peoples in the introduction). More importantly, although you've now removed it, I'll go ahead and highlight that I don't recall claiming to be a "neopagan". That said, now's a good time for you to understand that bigotry isn't tolerated on Wikipedia and will get your account swiftly blocked from the project. Now is the time for you to read and internalize Wikipedia:No personal attacks. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

While you are threatening to get me banned, if you recall it was your comment first which was an insult towards me. I am not here to cause problems, and I apologize and took back the bigotry made in a heated response to being insulted. However, I would appreciate being treated respectfully, rather than being bullied by someone who is currently acting drunk on power because they have an older more established account than mine. Remember, this is not reddit, so please do not act like a reddit moderator. I will be respectful, you can be respectful, and we can have a difference of opinion without reporting to make calling. Deal? Jared Hanson III (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Resorting to name calling* Jared Hanson III (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no "power" over your account. This is where a mod should take over. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am simply stating you are threatening that you could get me banned when you insulted me first for having a difference of opinion. I apologized(you never did even though you insulted me first). I would like to move on. If we cannot agree we can agree to disagree. I do not see why we would need to get a kid involved. I do not want to cause trouble, I am attempting to give meaningful advice and see what others think on this page. So far you have called me some character because I disagreed with your position. Can we simply move on? Jared Hanson III (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A mod* involved. Jared Hanson III (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A quick attempt to summarize some conclusions from these articles, and give more indication of why I don't find it so obvious what we can use them for in this specific article. I think there is no point arguing about anything until there are concrete proposals made by editors who have actually read the articles. I personally don't think this is the article they are most relevant to.

1. Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages [1]. The core of the study is really focussed upon Scandinavia in periods before the existence of Germanic language.

• "We find evidence of a previously unknown, large-scale Bronze Age migration within Scandinavia, originating in the east and becoming widespread to the west and south"

Possible impact on ideas about the spread of Indo-European language and culture (pre-Germanic):

• This East Scandinavian cluster "is indicative of a cross-Baltic maritime rather than a southern Scandinavian land-based entry" because they are not related to the previous Hunter Gatherers.
• Comparison to previous proposals in terms of timing of Indo-European language into Scandinavia:
• 1. Via the Corded Ware culture, appearing around 4800 BP, possibly via the Jutlandic Single Grave culture.
• 2. Via the Bell Beaker culture to Jutland and Norway around 4400 BP
• 3. [New alternative] Via an East Scandinavian population, 400-800 years later than the other two proposals. However the authors note that there is no known archaeological evidence for this.

For the iron age (Roman era) the authors note that they don't have much data for Northern Germany. Readers should be also careful that in their definition of Southern Scandinavian DNA from this period they include a distinct northern German cluster as "Southern Scandinavian", and it is this one which matches its neighbours such as the Frisians and Anglo-Saxons. There has more recently been a much better study about the Anglo-Saxons. (Gretzinger et al. See Anglo-Saxons.)

• "During the Migration Period, we detect a previously unknown northward migration back into Southern Scandinavia, partly replacing earlier inhabitants and forming the North Germanic-speaking Viking-Age populations of Denmark and southern Sweden"

Relevant to Gothic origins, but not really new information from this study:

• we find the Wielbark population from Poland to be primarily of Eastern Scandinavian ancestry [note how they've already said that Eastern Scandinavians seem genetically to come from the same are, so this is supposed to be a back and forth flow]
• "the Ostrogoths and Visigoths are predominantly of Southern European ancestry"

2. High-resolution genomic ancestry reveals mobility in early medieval Europe [2]. A lot of this article is about new mathematical approaches. As in the other paper they note that they don't have much North Germany iron age data, explaining that most burials were cremations. They lump Austria, Germany and France into one region and have no Jutland data either.

• "In the first half of the first millennium ∼1-500 CE (Common Era), we observe an expansion of Scandinavian-related ancestry across western, central, and southern Europe." Further down: "A subset of individuals from Iron Age and Roman Austria, France, and Germany are also best modelled with a minority Scandinavian-derived ancestry component."
• "However, in the second half of the millennium ∼500-1000 CE, ancestry patterns suggest the regional disappearance or substantial admixture of these ancestries in multiple regions."
• "Within Scandinavia itself, we document a major ancestry influx by ∼800 CE, when a large proportion of Viking Age individuals carried ancestry from groups related to continental Europe. This primarily affected southern Scandinavia..."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Article opening

A recent edit reminds us that me that our lead is a bit non-standard, and not ideal, in that the bold terms are so far apart. This is not just non-standard but also difficult to read and likely to cause confusion and unwarranted edits. In general it is not an easy read! Here is an attempt to move the headlines up front, and the details further down. Perhaps other editors will say I have been worried about the obfuscation (as I see it) of the lead for a long time, and that I am sneaking in attempts to clear things up which I have long been worried about. However, we should presumably all want clarity? I hope clarity can eventually resolve not only my own concerns, but also the concerns of others. This is just another try, but the aim should not be controversial. Concerning the first words, see MOS:CONTEXTLINK. Comments?

Now	draft
The Germanic peoples were tribal groups who once occupied Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. Since the 19th century, they have traditionally been defined by the use of ancient and early medieval Germanic languages and are thus equated at least approximately with Germanic-speaking peoples, although different academic disciplines have their own definitions of what makes someone or something "Germanic". The Romans called the area in North-Central Europe in which the Germanic peoples lived Germania. According to its largest definition it stretched between the Vistula in the east and Rhine in the west, and from southern Scandinavia to the upper Danube. In discussions of the Roman period, the Germanic peoples are sometimes referred to as Germani or ancient Germans, although many scholars consider the second term problematic since it suggests identity with present-day Germans.	In modern scholarship the Germanic peoples of Classical Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages typically include not only the Roman-era Germani who lived in Germania and in parts of the Roman empire, but also all Germanic-speaking peoples of these times, most notably the "Gothic peoples" of Eastern Europe. The Germanic peoples are sometimes collectively or partly referred to as ancient Germans in discussions of the Roman period, although many scholars consider this problematic since it suggests identity with present-day Germans. While the Romans first described Germani west of the Rhine, according to the largest definition the associated country of Germania stretched between Rhine in the west to southern Scandinavia, the Vistula in the east, and the upper Danube in the south. Additionally, the Germanic-speaking Bastarnae and Gothic peoples lived in what is now Moldova and Ukraine.
	Different academic disciplines have their own definitions of what makes someone or something "Germanic". The term Germani is generally only used to refer to historical people groups from the 1st to 4th centuries CE.
The very concept of "Germanic peoples" has become the subject of controversy among contemporary scholars. Some scholars call for its total abandonment as a modern construct since lumping "Germanic peoples" together implies a common group identity for which there is little evidence. Other scholars have defended the term's continued use and argue that a common Germanic language allows one to speak of "Germanic peoples", regardless of whether these ancient and medieval peoples saw themselves as having a common identity.	[unchanged] The very concept of "Germanic peoples" has become the subject of controversy among contemporary scholars. Some scholars call for its total abandonment as a modern construct since lumping "Germanic peoples" together implies a common group identity for which there is little evidence. Other scholars have defended the term's continued use and argue that a common Germanic language allows one to speak of "Germanic peoples", regardless of whether these ancient and medieval peoples saw themselves as having a common identity.
While several historians and archaeologists continue to use the term "Germanic peoples" to refer to historical people groups from the 1st to 4th centuries CE, the term is no longer used by most historians and archaeologists for the period around the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages.

I have already tweaked that last sentence a bit based on the source. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I principle I don't have a problem with any of these edits - the text looks well-balanced to include all views, and are also much more concise than the current first few paragraphs. I do worry about stirring up the wasp's nest that is this article though.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but to be clear about how I see that, I have tried not to change the meaning at all. The edit is mainly "structural" - putting shorter definitions and "headlines" at the top. The reason I think it can be relevant to older concerns is because I think many debates are "word games" in the final analysis, and therefore I think clear definitions up front, rather than diplomatic fuzziness, can often reduce controversy rather than increase it. Secondly, this is an article not only about one controversial term, "Germanic peoples", but actually about several overlapping terms, and this time I've tried to start from the question of how should we normally handle an article about several overlapping terms quickly at the top. I think in the past we started with one term, and then tried to fit the others in a later part of the text. I personally find that treating all the headline terms up front actually makes it easier to explain the term "Germanic peoples", because the common meaning and other possible meanings are all reasonably clear from the beginning. By keeping this part short, proponents of different meanings do not need to be concerned that specific information they are most concerned about are being delayed until later.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I am also generally comfortable with the proposed text. Just two things. The opening sentence should be simple and retain its "The Germanic peoples were..."-style. Talking about modern scholarship at the very beginning is redundant as it just mirrors the core of what Wikipedia is about (it's articles reporting about outdated scholarship that need to explicit flag it as such). Also, instead of "Gothic peoples" of Eastern Europe, let's stick to "Goths" (luckily, English is not defective in lacking a simple term for those guys) if we need to mention the here. –Austronesier (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no big issues with those 2 recommendations, especially the second one, but I do prefer those opening words. This way of establishing context early is based on the MOS recommendations, which I went looking for after I thought about the problem. IMHO this topic's emphasis on recent and careful publications, which might not be the only ones, should be as clear as possible as quickly as possible. Such opening words hurt no one, but can quickly help people understand that there are probably popularizations which are less careful, for example on the internet or in the popular press, or older approaches in some scholarly publications. You might argue that they see should get it once they read through the article, but we know that doesn't always work. We know that WP readers and casual editors often get trapped in word games about this topic, and struggle to contextualize different genres and registers of definition. That's my 2 cents anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't "Germanic peoples of Classical Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages" open the door to the idea that next to ancient Germanic peoples, there are also Germanic peoples in other ages (such as the present)? This is something you might consider to rephrase along the lines of the current opening sentence that clearly places "Germanic peoples" in a limited temporal range. Something like:

"The Germanic peoples were tribal groups who once occupied Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia in Classical Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. In modern scholarship, the topic of Germanic peoples typically includes not only the Roman-era Germani who lived in Germania and in parts of the Roman empire, but also all Germanic-speaking peoples of these times, most notably the Goths.

–Austronesier (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, that seems to achieve a similar effect. To answer your question, I deliberately want us to be quickly letting readers know that in other types of literature there might indeed be "Germanic peoples" in other ages, even if that is not the central topic of this article. This is not only to help them place the older or more casual online material in context, in the event that they are likely familiar with some of that, but also to help them see how some how even serious recent writers might have different boundaries. (For example, are the Vikings Germanic peoples? Can even relatively late medieval folklore to some extent represent the lore of Germanic peoples? These are things which have been discussed here before.) I hope that makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I prefer Austronesier’s suggestion, but my opinion is not strong.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I find Austronesier's suggestion acceptable. I guess the question is whether the words "modern scholarship" (which Austronesier would move to a later position) describe the context for the whole article, and that this context was not the only one which we could have selected. I think they do. (Linguists can use the term as a short way of saying Germanic-speaking peoples for example.) On that basis I suppose these "context" words should be right up front (as per the MOS example cited above). I realize that these opening words emphasize to readers that there might be contexts (such as older literature) where the term is used for peoples more recent than the early middle ages. I suppose that's what the difference comes down to. In any case, the main priority is to get those headline words defined near the top, and close together, and in that respect Austronesier's version also works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Remember that Roman era sources did NOT include Scandinavia as part of Germania, with the exception of Jutland in modern Denmark. Scandia was considered a separate land, and the people of Scandia were considered a separate entity, see Jordanes. While modern scholarship recognizes the relation of the Germanic languages, antiquity did not recognize North Germanic speakers or Gothic speakers as being part of the Germani. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As such, my suggestion would be to specify Jutland in the north, rather than southern Scandinavia, which typically also includes southern Sweden and the Danish isles. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

As you have started a new thread about this, I answered there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Suggestion: New map under Subdivisions

The map under sub divisions currently makes no sense for anyone who has studied Germanic tribal history. It classifies Hermunduri, Cherusci, and Chatti as Istvaeones. This contradicts the sources we have, which forms the entire basis on how we classify these tribes anyway(the only tribe for sure labelled as Istvaeonic were the Cimbri, who were also labeled as Ingvaeonic, many assume this is a contradiction, but I suggest that the Istvaeonic Cimbri could perhaps refer to the Cimbri that Julius Caesar claimed had settled in Belgium). Additionally, the Roman sources describe the border of Germania as the Rhine. I understand that Rome conquered part in the southwest, but even so this territory would still more accurately be labeled as part of Germania as it is on other maps.

I suggest using a different map, perhaps this one

, or perhaps another map. Please offer suggestions, but I believe the entire map needs to be replaced because it is too flawed. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jared Hanson III: thanks for pointing this out. I made the current map, but the current caption is incorrect. The red tribes are Suebian, who were Hermiones. The Purple ones are other Hermiones. Black names mean nothing in particular. OTOH I don't like the map you propose. It contains wrong information and mixes information from different periods. I think it is too ambitious. As a first step I will at least change the caption.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew on the other map - doesn’t match the RS we describe. Also, we should keep in mind that many scholars doubt that these divisions were stable or had much reality.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I did not say this to be insulting, I just do not find the map to be accurate. It labels the aforementioned tribes as Istvaeonic, and it also labels certain Ingvaeonic tribes such as the Anglii as Irminonic. Jared Hanson III (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It is an old map and I didn't see it as an insult, but I am not sure if you've understood. The map does not contain any labels about those things. Have you checked the change I made to the caption? (I did not write the caption.) The Anglii are marked as red, because Tacitus lists them with the Suebians. However the other source for these lists Pliny lists their neighbours the Warini in group which Tacitus does not have, the Vindili. Because the two lists are so unclear I ended up making this simple one and leaving it there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For some reason when the user added back in the old section they removed the comments I made to this post, so I'll ad them back.

Yes, and thank you for the edit. However, I suggest maybe changing the edit description back to what it was previously in terms of the Suebi and Herminones(but without changing anything in regard to the Istvaeones or Ingvaeones), as the Anglii are typically counted as Ingvaeonic rather than Herminonic. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

For instance my suggestion would be to change the caption to read "Red: Suebi and Herminones, Purple: other Herminones" or something along those lines. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately though I'll leave that to your discretion. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace Southern Scandinavia with Jutland

The Roman sources considered Scandia(Sweden and Norway) to be a separate entity to Germania(see Jordanes). Germania included Jutland, but not the rest of what is traditionally considered southern Scandinavia. I suggest we update the language with this in mind, for more accuracy. For instance, in the opening section which describes the border of Germania, we would say it extended in the north to Jutland, which gives more specificity and better reflects, in my opinion, the other descriptors, such as the Rhine and Danube, which I also believe are less vague. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In addition to this, the paragraph that reads "In modern scholarship, they typically include not only the Roman-era Germani who lived in both Germania and parts of the Roman empire, but also all Germanic speaking peoples from this era, irrespective of where they lived, most notably the Goths" I would add this, with my previous comment in mind:

"In modern scholarship, they typically include not only the Roman-era Germani who lived in both Germania and parts of the Roman empire, but also all Germanic speaking peoples from this era, irrespective of where they lived, most notably the Goths and the north Germanic speaking tribes of Scandia, modern Sweden and Norway.", Or something along those lines. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Any notion of distinction between Scandinavia and Germania in deep antiquity is unknown. The matter of Jordanes as a late source aside, a quick reminder that this is not an article on the concept of the Germani from the perspective of the Romans but all concepts that fall under the category of Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

From the sources we do have, Germania was differentiated from Scandia, just as Goths were differentiated from Germani as well. The older Roman sources are typically silent on the subject because as far as I can recall, the furthest north any Greco-Romans had explored was the Jutland peninsula at that point, which was decidedly west Germanic speaking until much later. West Germanic speakers are typically who Rome identified as Germani, not east or north Germanic speakers. When Roman sources did come into contact with North Germanic Scandinavians, they lumped them in with Finnic groups and differentiated them from Germani. There is still not a consensus on if the Germanic culture originated with the Jastorf culture or the Nordic Bronze age, but most evidence points to a Jastorf origin, which would fit the Roman sources as well. Thank you for your input. I still believe it should read Jutland instead of southern Scandinavia. Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, in regards to this article being about all Germanic people it differentiates Germanic language from Germanic people, Germanic people being an ethnic group from early antiquity. Germanic people were defined as people living in Germania, which typically went as far north as Jutland, rather than Scandia. So, from that perspective, Scandinavians were not counted as Germanic people, but are considered Germanic speakers today based on linguistic evidence, as are the Gothic people. Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jared Hanson III: thanks for your proposals, but we have very few sources to describe their definition of "Germania" and among those Tacitus [3], Pliny the Elder [4], Ptolemy [5] included the "islands" of Scandinavia within Germania. On this basis I don't think we need to make the sentence longer, because Scandinavia is already covered as part of Germania within the current wording. As a more general point it might save time if you mentioned your sources from the beginning in discussions like this. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are falsly assuming they were a different ethnic group but they were/are not. There was a common germanic ethnic area from southern scandinavia down to the middle of germany. 178.24.238.85 (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Permission to remove this section? I removed this section and it was added back, the consensus seemed to be against my suggestion, so I removed it, but received a warning for removing it. I was unaware I was unable to remove my own suggestion, especially after the consensus seemed to be against it. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

When there is a real discussion like in this case we normally keep it. The subject could come up again, so it is not uncommon to go back looking at previous discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jared Hanson III (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

map that might help

We've had some discussions about maps and I made this, thinking it could be useful in several articles. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Several different regions were called Germania in the Roman era, about 0-200 CE. The purple names are eastern peoples who were described in those times as Germanic, despite not living within Germania.

map review

Concerning maps in generally it is perhaps worth reviewing what we have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

The approximate positions of the three groups and their sub-peoples reported by Tacitus:   Suebi (part of the Herminones)   Other Herminones	Area of the Nordic Bronze Age culture, ca 1200 BC	Celtic–Germanic contact zone in the Iron Age around 500 BC–1 BCE according to Stefan Schumacher (2007)	Expansion of early Germanic tribes into Central Europe:    Settlements before 750 BCE    New settlements by 500 BCE    New settlements by 250 BCE    New settlements by 1 CE	The Roman province of Germania, in existence from 7 BCE to 9 CE. The dotted line represents the Limes Germanicus, the fortified border constructed following the final withdrawal of Roman forces from Germania.
I made this. I think it could be useful but I am not sure if it is the right place here?	Our text is about the Jastorf culture, but our illustration is not! This article is not really about the Bronze age.	This is a good topic to illustrate but it is a very poor illustration. It is not really visible on my PC screen. Strikes me that maps exist which combine this with positions of Jastorf and related cultures.[ADDED: BTW Schumacher (2007) is not in our bibliography]	I really don't like this map because it is "fake accurate" and comes from old tertiary sources. It is a misleading "just so" story. Again, a good map of Jastorf and related cultures might be better.	I suppose my new map contains all this information and more, and is easier to absorb.

We are not currently using this one, which seems a reasonable summary of the relevant cultures in the relevant period, and might be used to replace several of the above maps?

ArcheologicalCulturesOfCentralEuropeAtEarlyPreRomanIronAge

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Section references

Honestly, I like several of these, excepting the one that is based on the older sources. It's excellent that you've created your own versions Andrew Lancaster...using ArcGIS or another map tool (just wondering)? Anyway, which of the sources you've used provides the best one in your estimation? My only hangup with the first one you displayed is that it does not label the Rhine or Danube.--Obenritter (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I use QGIS, and then do the text and a few tweaks in GIMP. (Both QGIS and GIMP are free! For those who've never worked with those, both effectively involve editing bundles of layers. THE GIS program is the one which lines map data up according to geographical coordinates. GIMP is a general image manipulator like Photoshop.) I agree that old map I made could better with those river names. One thing I like about the new map I made is the background I have from https://cawm.lib.uiowa.edu/index.html because it recreates historical coastlines and rivers. (Quite important for the Netherlands.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC) In principle I can make new maps to get things just how we want them, so I'll be interested to collect ideas here about what maps we need to fit this article. I don't have any archaeological culture map data at the moment, but something might be available if I ask around. (OTOH the map I just posted covers the main cultures we need and does not seem to be terribly different from recent publications with regards to Jastorf, Przeworsk and Latène in Central Europe.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The Nordic Bronze Age is mentioned in the text so the map is ok to keep, also the Germanic tribes migration map is used in a lot of articles and is reasonable accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.57 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC) @Andrew Lancaster, why do you need to make that one map of Germania (the one you made) so big and why did you remove references to Germanic peoples in Scandinavia? Germania is not Germany and Germanic Peoples are not Germans only; an idea that you are trying to emphasize here by removing other maps. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting on the talk page. Replies/questions:

• We don't need an illustration for the Norse Bronze Age (or Iron Age) just because it is mentioned. The Norse region, apart from being only mentioned in passing, is geographically fairly simple to understand and thus not requiring special help from illustrations.
• I strongly disagree about the migration map. It is from old sources, and as mentioned in my edit summary it disagrees with what we say in the body of our article (which is very strongly sourced). It was highly speculative even when published (we are not citing the original version I think), and in conflict with orthodox scholarship about the spread of Germanic languages from the Jastorf culture.
• The sizes of maps can be discussed of course. (I generally work on a PC and it looks fine to me. I also personally do not like having to click on maps to understand them, and I am sure I am not the only one. On a mobile phone the map should work as well I guess.)
• I have no idea what you mean my saying that I am making Germania into Germany? Please explain! I certainly don't intend to give that impression, so if I need to adjust something please explain it more clearly. As far as I can see the actual outline of Germania Magna in my map is quite similar to the 19th century map you like (except in Slovakia, where I have followed Ptolemy). OTOH the 19th century gives no indication of the Germani outside Germania Magna (and present-day Germany).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Germanic Peoples originated in Scandinavia so the Nordic Bronze Age is of relevance here, especially since Germanic tribes were those in Scandinavia, Central Europe, Western Europe and North Africa. Their movements can be summed up in three stages 1) Scandinavian origins, 2) migration to Central Europe, and 3) further migration to Western Europe and North Africa. This is an article about the people not Germania per se, so let us not focus on Germanic Peoples as those who only remained in what is today modern Germany or Germania itself. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I generally disagree with the positions proposed by the IP and agree with AL. The Nordic Bronze is is mentioned as a possible origin of the Germanic people, but, as we say, this is unclear. We even mention that the Scandinavian Peninsula may have come to speak a Germanic language after Jutland.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ermenrich, this is silly, so you re-added the picture of the skull even when it has no relevant connection to the text but then you go on to argue the Bronze Age map of Scandinavia is not particularly noteworthy and there is no need to include it. Can you explain to me what direct relevance that picture has to the text? Btw, not sure if you realize this but Jutland is considered Scandinavia and some of the oldest sites linked to early Germanic peoples are also found in Scania... sigh. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Please consider where Osterby Man was found on Jutland far from the Roman frontier, yet you got that picture of a skull in a section titled "Roman Imperial Period to 375". I raise this point to show the inconsistencies in your approach. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That picture could be moved or even deleted. Personally, I think it is a nice picture of that haircut. The Scandinavian location is irrelevant (I think) because no one is denying that in the relevant period Scandinavia was Germanic. Seems like another subject altogether though? What does this have to do with the maps? I think we should discuss the suitability of each illustration separately? Coming back to the maps, no one is denying that Scandinavia (or Poland?) might have played a role in the origins of Germanic languages. However, they are generally seen to have spread from the Jastorf culture. That's how far back we can go because we don't have records of LANGUAGE before then. Or at least that is what our secondary sources say. And so for this specific article which is about periods AFTER that, we can't focus too much on what was BEFORE Jastorf. We have other articles for that. I can see you are a "believer" that Germans are wrong if they once claimed "the Germanic", while the Scandinavians are right. Great, but WP can't just become an argument between those types of speculations. That's something for a discussion forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the Swabian knot picture as it is a concrete, archaeological illustration of a person called "Germanic" by both Roman and modern traditions. We're discussing wars of Romans and Germani in that section, and he's a Germanic warrior - so directly relevant, I'd say.

Nothing more to add than what Andrew's said.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Germanic warrior? The head was found in a bog in Jutland. The man was decapitated, which leads archeologists to consider a possibility that he was a thief or a murderer. In fact archeologies speculate that most people who were found in the bogs were outcasts from their societes, were killed and their bodies dumped. So, the claim that he was a warrior fighting the Romans or whoever else is dubious. Btw, now Poland is the home of the Germanic peoples? Where do you come up with this stuff? The Nordic Bronze age occured before Jastorf which is an Iron Age culture. The Bronze Age came before the Iron Age so how do you rationalize your statement? Especially since Germanic tribes such as the Goth are known to have moved for what is now Sweden to what is now Poland and they had nothing to do with the Jastorf Culture which occured in an area of modern Germany. Your arguments are not factually correct and gravitate to what I mentioned earlier that some see all Germanic Peoples as connected to Germany and the Germans. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggesting reading things more carefully. Our article is not claiming that Osterby man was fighting Romans. The photo is just a good illustration of something Germanic. No one is suggesting that our article should say that Germanic languages started in Poland. That would be a discussion for other articles about the origins of Germanic languages. This article is not the right article to discuss speculations about what happened BEFORE evidence for Germanic languages begin. It is relatively clear that the Jastorf culture, which can be matched to peoples in the time of written records, was Germanic speaking, and that its material culture was related to various neighbours (not all of whom were in Scandinavia). The exact linguistic situation of them and their various related neighbours to the east, west and south, is a topic of interesting speculations, but this is not a discussion forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t say he fought Romans. I said he is a Germanic warrior, or probably one, identifiable as such by his Swabian knot. It doesn’t matter where the body is from or who he fought.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing the original Nordic Bronze Age culture map and removing the Migration map robs this article of full historical context, it's that simple, and the skull pic is pointless. Also why do you have three people groups listed on that Germania map if there are no others listed within Germania? There are a bunch of maps in other articles that list various tribes across Northern Europe on them but none that take such an selective odd-ball approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.57 (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made my point. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. In answer to the one new point, I believe it is a standard aim when making illustrations in the 21st century that we should not include too much detail. I aimed to make a map that was really for the text in our article. Although posting 19th century prints which contain more information (and more potential controversy) than our whole article is a lovely tradition on WP, but the reality is that it was also a quick and dirty solution in most cases, and we're slowly evolving away from that. The reason I nevertheless named 4 Germanic peoples outside Germania is because they are uncontroversially the only 4 named in classical sources, and luckily they all have reasonably clear locations. Again, the existence of such outliers is also discussed in the text, so the map illustrates the text. Going beyond these 4 would be mission creep, and would inevitably involve dilemmas and arbitrary decisions which verge on OR. So whether you agree with it or not there is a logic behind my map. And BTW I am open to suggestions for improvements, but no one has made any. If anyone is thinking I should add more detail though, my own thinking is that I can better make variants of this map, designed to serve specific article texts. For example they can be zoomed in to specific regions. I am thinking of doing one or more for the Marcommanic region soon, primarily for use on other articles. Ideas welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear in case you do not realize, the 19th century map you like combines information from different periods in Roman history, and uses a lot of guesses, several of which are clearly wrong. It is not the worst case I've seen, but there is no reason for us to use wrong, doubtful or out-of-date materials. I mention this as an additional problem, apart from the fact that the work simply contains too much detail, making it a work which needs to be read on its own, and not a helpful tool to flick over to while reading Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

A 19th century map depicting ancient Germania

I'm getting a little confused about which map we're talking about. The one that he added of the bronze age doesn't seem to be directly based on anything 19th century?--Ermenrich (talk) Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Both. Discussion has moved around a bit. I replaced the 19th century map with the new one I made and discussed here (above). It is under "classical terminology".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what Britannica says about the origins of the Germanic Peoples: The origins of the Germanic peoples are obscure. During the late Bronze Age, they are believed to have inhabited southern Sweden, the Danish peninsula, and northern Germany between the Ems River on the west, the Oder River on the east. So as I said before you are depriving this article of useful maps which you removed (the Nordic Bronze Age map and the Migration map). You should restore them as they help to illustrate the full ethnogenesis of the Germanic tribes. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have used better and newer sources, and there was a lot of discussion. You can search the archives, and look at the cited sources. In general Britannia is not really a great source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you aware that Britannica is updated regualrly and the article about the Germanic Peoples was updated on August 2nd 2024. Also Britannica is a good source, being the most freaquently referenced "classic" enclyclopedia on the internet. Ultimatly I just think you are trying to create a new narrative here, which basically gives the impression that the Germanic People come from Germania, hiding the fact that they have a long history of migration starting out in Scandinavia and over the centuries moving as far south as Crimea, Spain, Italy and North Africa. Those two maps which I mentioned earlier should be restored at the very least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.109.57 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that you know about the Scandinavian origins idea. That's great, but it is an idea about what happened BEFORE the Germanic peoples and/or languages entered history, and we have to split up our topics into different articles. To be practical:

• Ermenrich has already pointed out that the existence of this idea is already covered in our text. Do you have any proposals about changes to the text?
• I don't see any connection between your preference for the lovely-but-wrong 19th century map, and this idea you want to defend/promote. Your complaints are very confusing to me. The borders of Germania are roughly the same in the new map? What benefits does this 19th century map bring? You aren't really selling it very well.

Examples of problems in the old map: Rhine border, and Rhine mouth, are wrong; Sturii (of the Rhine delta) near the Ems; Varni (?Vannius) kingdom near Bratislava; Juthungi in Moravia; Gambrivii location is a guess; Chasuari should be near the river Hase; if the "Ansitvari" are the Ampsivari then they lived on the Ems; Chamavi should be west of the Ems; Silingi should be south of the Semnones (or at least we have no other information); the Turcilingi! And so on. Our 21st century readers don't deserve this. Concerning Britannica, on topics like these they don't seem to update much at all, although when you ask how to cite something they always give recent dates even if the article was first published 50 years ago. It is sometimes useful but you certainly can't say that it is a trump card which overrules other sources! --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Britannica's accuracy is often questioned on Wikipedia. To some extent its a bit like citing Wikipedia, see WP:BRITANNICA.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Beating the very loosely interpreted Steuer (p.3) Quote to Death

So the latest edit (citing Steuer) has been rendered to: Although the first Roman descriptions of Germani involved tribes west of the Rhine, their homeland of Germania was portrayed as stretching east of the Rhine, to southern Scandinavia and the Vistula in the east, and to the upper Danube in the south. However, the translation of this content has been quite liberal from the onset and now that multiple attempts to "fashion" it accordingly have been played out several times in a row, I want to get first to what the text actually states. In the original German, the sentence before and the one being cited (bold) reads: Wenn auch diese Publikation im Titel wieder den allgemein im Bewusstsein gespeicherten Begriff „Germanen“ enthält, dann muss gleich zu Anfang betont werden, dass es im Nachfolgenden nicht eigentlich um eine imaginäre Völkerschaft „Germanen“ geht. Vielmehr geht es geographisch um den Raum zwischen Weichsel und Rhein sowie zwischen den Ländern an der Ostsee und der Donau als Siedlungsgebiet und um die Bewohner dieses Gebietes, also um die Bevölkerung in diesem Raum. [Heiko Steuer, „Germanen“ aus Sicht der Archäologie: Neue Thesen zu einem alten Thema (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2021), 3.] The way I would translate this is: Even though this publication contains in its title the term "Germanic peoples" stored in our general consciousness, it must be emphasized right at the onset that the following (<Steuer is speaking about the book's research contents here<) is not actually about an imaginary population of "Germanic peoples". On the contrary, it is about the geographic space between the Vistula and Rhine and between the countries on the Baltic Sea and Danube as a settlement area; it is also about this area's inhabitants, that is, the population in this area." How we've gotten to where we are is a mystery, but it's one that I am not convinced represents the text all that well. Obenritter (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

True. But we should separate this disconnect from the source with the recent edits. The sentence connected to this Steuer footnote was already changed after discussion on this talk page, which started 2 August. This added a little bit of extra contextual information.

version 2 August	my version approved on talk page above	version now
The Romans called the area in North-Central Europe in which the Germanic peoples lived Germania. According to its largest definition it stretched between the Vistula in the east and Rhine in the west, and from southern Scandinavia to the upper Danube	While the Romans first described Germani west of the Rhine, according to the largest definition the associated country of Germania stretched between Rhine in the west to southern Scandinavia, the Vistula in the east, and the upper Danube in the south.	Although the first Roman descriptions of Germani involved tribes west of the Rhine, their homeland of Germania was portrayed as stretching east of the Rhine, to southern Scandinavia and the Vistula in the east, and to the upper Danube in the south.

So the first problem is that we might need a new footnote, because I added that context to the sentence which the footnote is attached to. OTOH we don't need footnotes in the lead and we can delete this one. The lead summarizes the body. Anyway, the more recent edits had nothing to do with this extra information problem in my mind. Many of our edits have been about grammar and readability haven't they?

But my other concern, which might be confused our efforts, has been that some of the tweaks to the sentence have changed the meaning, implying (the way I read it) that Caesar ONLY mentioned Germani west of the Rhine. We should want it to say that from the very first reports of Germani, these INCLUDED Germani west of the Rhine.

It should be possible to write in a simple way that Germania (Magna) was seen as the homeland of the Germani WITHOUT saying that all Germani lived there? That's what I've been trying to do. (In fact, the Roman never knew a time when all the Germani lived there. We can only report what they thought was true, but with "attribution" so to speak.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is as simple as deleting the footnote, as there is a clear disconnect otherwise. We could also just use the geographical parameters mentioned by Steuer in that very form as their area of dispersion. --Obenritter (talk) 10:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Deletion seems best to me. I think it is sufficiently uncontroversial and sourced in the body?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m for deletion. It was originally sourced to say something else entirely that was in some way controversial.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Source check: why southern Jutland?

We currently have these words: "Between around 500 BCE and the beginning of the common era, archeological and linguistic evidence suggest that the Urheimat ('original homeland') of the Proto-Germanic language, the ancestral idiom of all attested Germanic dialects, was primarily situated in the southern Jutland peninsula, from which Proto-Germanic speakers migrated towards bordering parts of Germany and along the sea-shores of the Baltic and the North Sea, an area corresponding to the extent of the late Jastorf culture." What is the source for the part which emphasizes Jutland? Isn't the wording also misleading about the localization of the Jastorf culture? (It is clearly mainly in Germany, and goes "deep south" coming into contact with Latène peoples, and quite far east, probably as Polish as it is Danish. So the German bit is not just a small add-on.) I looked a bit already at the source, and have not found an explanation for these words yet. I also can't imagine what linguistic evidence could possibly exist for these words. Should this be adjusted, or are there other sources we should be citing? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe one of our "pro-Scandinavian" editors added southern Jutland to the text in protest of it originally only mentioning Germany. But maybe Austronesier has a better recollection: I trust him more than myself on the linguistic question.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. I certainly don't want to rush anything. Happy if others will look into it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

It was an edit from Armentriken that restored it[6] :) No idea though who first phrased it that way. Based on Ringe and Polomé alone, I can't see why Jastorf should be narrowed down to southern Jutland. –Austronesier (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I was thinking of something from the lead... At any rate, the text originally comes from Alcaios, who originally said "southern Scandinavia" [7]. Somewhere on the line, probably before my compression of the section, it became southern Jutland.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, I can't find it in any previous draft, so maybe I introduced the error. Anyway, feel free to fix.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Someone want to have a go at this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

What should it be changed to? Jutland and northern Germany?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Good question. Actually our Jastorf culture article could do with a major overhaul. The core of the Jastorf culture is normally taken to be on the Elbe, although there are similar cultures around it. Concerning Jutland, Jes Martens (Danish archaeologist): German scholars often count Jutland as a part of the Jastorf culture. While it could be justified for the southern and perhaps even the central parts of the peninsula (Becker’s zone B/C), it becomes less apprehensible as soon as we reach North Jutland. [...] though the South Jutland group may be counted as a Jastorf group it still has it’s own character, as Neergaard put it, a more modest and functional style compared to that of the rich show-offs down south. [8] There is a 2000 article by Rosemarie Müller on Germanische Altertumskunde Online. As far as I understand it many of the attributes which define this culture are "southern", and some of these are influenced by Latène Celtic cultures. More recent than this (and responding a bit to Martens, in an approving way) is the chapter [5] in Steuer's book which you have cited extensively in the past: Für mich ist das Ergebnis: Es gibt keine nördliche Peripherie der Jastorf-Kultur. I guess the obvious question to ask is why we don't describe it as a culture of the [Central] Elbe river.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Because people like Scandinavia, of course ;-). I’d suggest just “northern Germany” then.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Trying to take that approach better would be central? or eastern? or northeastern? Simpler northern might indicate the "Saxon" area for many readers? Central is probably most accurate if you really read the latest summaries of current tendencies such as Steuer's (e.g. the Großromstedt culture, and the peculiarities of that region such as an apparent Przeworsk influence in western Germany), but that's maybe something to watch for in the future. Northeastern? OTOH is this a sentence we can just make simpler in order to avoid cans of worms?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

In the opening of the page we have that the Jastorf culture is from northern Germany and southern Denmark. It seems that the consensus on the talk page was that this is slightly outdated. I suggest changing the language to the language used under prehistory "central Elbe in present day Germany, stretching north into Jutland and east into present day Poland". This would still be more specific than just saying Germany alone, while also being a bit more up to date. Coldstone Steve Boston (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it was a typo but in your edit on this article you switched from "southern Denmark and northern Germany" to just "Germany". [9] Concerning your edits on the Jastorf culture article, we can discuss on that talk page if necessary, but I am a bit concerned about one edit which changed sourced information without removing the old sources, or finding new ones. That's not best practice. When reasonable looking sources (even if a bit old) are already being used, then we first need to get our new/better sourcing all lined up and ready before going in and changing the content. In fact, on the article here we already had newer sources, but someone changed the text to make it say something which did not match those sources. Always awkward on WP if someone inserts content as if it comes from a source which it does not come from. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. I am new here so I apologize for my mistakes, they were not made in bad faith. I was simply looking at this page and noticed you mentioned that it is not necessarily accurate to say northern Germany, as more current sources seem to imply more central Germany and even Bohemia. This is why I changed it to just Germany. However after your correction I thought maybe the same wording used later on in the page would be more appropriate. I still hold this opinion given what was mentioned on this page, ie. It would make more sense to state "central Elbe in present day Germany, stretching north into Jutland and east into present day Poland" or similar wording in the opening.

The same goes for the edit you corrected on the Jastorf page, it was made in regard to me (possibly misunderstanding) the talk page here. I will aim to be me careful. However, I still believe both pages(this one and the Jastorf culture) should line up as the central Elbe would not be the same location as Schleswig Holstein. Coldstone Steve Boston (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for getting involved and welcome to WP!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to simplify that geographical description of the Jastorf culture. On a related note, I notice in the lead we mention evidence of contacts with Iranian languages, but we don't discuss it in the body. Sounds interesting though? More well known to me, and included in the body, is evidence of contact with Finnic. But this is not in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I will have to see where that comes from, thanks for pointing that out Andrew!—Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Osterby Man

This picture should be removed as it has no direct relevance to the text in the section and the historical background of the artifact is somewhat controversial. Further, as described in the article about the bog body, the jaw has been arbitrarily added to the skull by the German archeologist Karl Schlabow who was connected with Herbert Jankuhn an SS officer who directed the museum at the time. Thus there is no legitimate reason to keep this picture and its inclusion only plays on the rather unfortunate Nazi stereotype of the totenkopf and the Germanic peoples. 94.172.109.57 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The picture illustrates the Swabian knot. This isn’t directly referenced in the text, but is something mentioned by Tacitus as a typical hairstyle for Germanic warriors - and the text is largely about wars. Furthermore, the article Osterby Man only mentions the addition of the jaw, not some sort of Nazi plot or controversy - the head was discovered in 1948! I see no reason to remove it, nor do I see how it has anything to do with the totenkopf.—11:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC) Ermenrich (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@User:Ermenrich please drill in further into the article about Karl Schlabow who was connected to a member of Ahnenerbe a SS pseudoscientific organization. Further, I came across this article online [10] which highlights a somewhat related problem on Wikipedia. I don't know who added this picture, but if there is no reference to the subject matter in the section why do you have it? Especially given that the background of the skull is somewhat controversial and plays into some ugly stereotypes. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but linking to an article about people trying to cover up the Holocaust on Wikipedia has nothing to do with Osterby Man. Most German archaeologists from this time period had ties to the Nazi party. That does not mean that the Osterby head is somehow not a valid representation of the Swabian knot or is connected to the "totenkopf". Can you give any reference to the head itself being controversial? After all, right now it's cited to a modern scholar, Heiko Steuer, who is not a Nazi, in a recent book, as an example of the Swabian knot.

I've already explained how the head is related to the subject matter. I'm not going to repeat myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Recently the Nordic Bronze Age and the early Germanic migration maps were removed from the article even though those two topics are covered in the article's text. The argument was that there was not enough text about the Nordic Bronze Age or early Germanic migration in the article, yet there is nothing in the text about Suebian knots, bog bodies or the Osterby Man, but that out of place picture is still in the article, and on top of that the artifact has a fake jaw because Karl Schlabow who at the very least was a Nazi sympathizer added it to the skull. Who's jaw was it? I would not be surprised if it was from someone in the middle ages. Anyway, using the arguments about the two maps the Osterby Man picture needs to go. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't follow. The picture illustrates the hairstyle. Is that no a good rationale? Are you saying Osterby man is fake or something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't follow or you simply refuse to accept the same argument here, which you used to remove the two maps. Btw, you said the picture illustrates a hairstyle, however nowhere in the article do we have references to hairstyles or bog bodies and the Osterby Man was not found near an area close to the Roman frontier, archeologists can't even say he was a "warrior", yet the picture is located in the "Roman Imperial Period" section. So, what is the real reason for this picture and why such determination to keep it yet reacently so many other useful maps were removed because they were not the main focus of the text in a particular section. This picture has no relevance and you insist on keeping it. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So far no one else objects to the presence of the picture or the removal of the maps. I’d suggest you just WP:DROP THE STICK and move on.—-Ermenrich (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It's just you and Andrew Lancaster who keep agreeing on each other's ideas and dismiss other suggestions. This entire talk page is just a dialog between you two. --94.172.109.57 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wrong - there are lots of interested and astute watchers/contributors to this page. You just don't like the answer. --Obenritter (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I echo Obenritter's sentiment. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What is 'Northern Europe'?

Hi, pro-Scandinavian lurker here :) Sometimes it seems as if Europe = the Continent between the Baltic and the Mediterranean, divided by Pyrenees, Alps and Balkans into North and South, leaving Scandinavia as, one might suspect, a nearly non-European afterthought up there. Being from up here, we do consider ourselves European and also as constituting "Northern Europe", where Belgium, Germany, Poland etc. are "Middle Europe'. That, at least according to the maps, which barely extend to all of Jutland, also makes us non-Germanic. If the 'Germanic' in "Germanic peoples' is based on Roman history, or even later German history, ok; but if it is based on e.g. language, and possibly on archaeology, shoudn't Scandiavia be included a bit more? Or, as a minimum, if editors feel such a subject is best presented in separate articles, perhaps include links to these articles? T 2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:DA63:B162:420A:CA58 (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Which maps or wordings are you talking about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, all maps but one in this article, for instance. The article is focused on the 'Roman' perspective, though, making the choice of maps adequate for the purpose; bit of an air punch for me there. But my criticism is tied to other ways of being Germanic, see above. I am assuming that there are articles covering this, it's just not apparent from this article. T 2A02:FE1:E16B:CC00:DA63:B162:420A:CA58 (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult to discuss Scandinavia during this time because we have almost no contemporary sources (outside archaeology) that discuss it, and hence scholars don't discuss it in much detail when discussing the Germani. That being the case, I don't think there's much that can be added about it - but it finds continual mention in other sections of the article if you just look at those covering culture etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

In fact, we obviously have too few sources to clarify this problem. I remember a lecture by Reinhard Wenskus at Göttingen University, who was asked about a northern border of the ‘Germani’. He just replied that this border would not have run north of the Jutlandic Thy as Old Norse þjóð or ‘thioth’ for ‘people’. So, most tentatively, he apparently associated ‘thioth - deutsch - German’. However, apart from missing reliable sources and research, this oral opinion is not suitable for improving the article. Tympanus (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this discussion won't go very far unless there is a more concrete proposal because I don't think anyone has consciously been avoiding Scandinavia. I know from maps I have made that I've felt the sourcing justifications are very weak for going beyond the southern parts of Scandinavia which Tacitus and others clearly something about. So I typically try to include something of Scandinavia but find myself asking if we really have any justification for pushing maps up into Norway or northern Sweden. If challenged, no I don't. There is also a second problem which is practical. While making a map about historical events mainly in mainland Europe, you realize that Scandinavia is large, and so including it all leads to a map of "Scandinavia and friends" which I once again don't think fits the bill very well.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I am also a lurker to this page and I would like to add my two cents.

I have not seen any anti-Scandinavian posting on this page, as in nobody denies that the people in Scandinavia spoke a Germanic language in antiquity. For this reason I find it odd that there seems to be a faction that would like to ignore evidence supporting a Jastorf/German origin in favor of a Nordic origin who call themselves pro-Scandinavian. This seems largely to be due to a confirmation bias rather than any basis in factual evidence.

However, the main point of contention is when newer evidence, along with ancient sources seem to show that Germanic people probably originated in Germany rather than in Scandinavia. This idea of an origin in Germany was out of vogue after WW2 due to obvious political reasons, but I feel that enough time has passed where archeology has progressed to the point that this type of archeology is no longer taboo.

As such, this seems to bother people, presumably from Scandinavia, who were largely told that Germanic peoples, language, and culture originated there.

My own general thought is this: if evidence shows that Germanic peoples/culture originated in the Jastorf culture of central or northern Germany(rather than the Nordic bronze age culture of Scandinavia), then this is what should be reflected on the page. The fact that this also corroborates what ancient Roman sources seem to state should not be a negative(as is often implied from "pro-Scandinavian" accounts), but rather just another tool in understanding the Germanic peoples, using both ancient sources as well as linguistics and archeological evidence. One should not be "pro-Scandinavian" or "pro-German", but rather follow the evidence where it leads to avoid a confirmation bias. 98.165.59.45 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Doubtful category

According to Emmanuel Todd, this is not a valid cultural category, meely a hodgepodge. Sarcelles (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd rather stick to Malcolm Todd; and Liebeschütz, Wolfram, Heather, Halsall, Pohl, Goffart... for all their disputes, they are the subject-matter experts. –Austronesier (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

worth noting that discussion of disputes about the existence of “Germanic peoples” are already in the article and lead as well.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not think a member of the communist youth(according to this wiki page) is typically going to be unbiased on such topics as this, due to the political biases that formed against this after the second world war. 98.165.59.45 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Academic bias is not necessarily a problem, because no source is completely unbiased, but a lack of expertise or notability looks like a problem. As mentioned above, part of the issue is that the point is not even especially novel. We are already citing experts in this topic who more or less argue the same point. At first sight this sounds like an interdisciplinary side remark. Our article is citing notable experts from the directly relevant fields.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

What are his arguements? Gelbom (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

We should only discuss his arguments here if they are notable, expert, and ideally different from opinions the article already represents. Remember this is not a discussion forum. So the question is whether anyone has a concrete edit proposal, or is likely to be able to develop one from such a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)