Talk:Germanic peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Germanic peoples article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic Groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

	A section of this article is within the scope of the WikiProject Etymology, an attempt at improving etymologies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
	This article's etymology section is incomplete or unreferenced.
	This article is ranked 1 (highest) on the priority scale.

Contents 1 Stupid phrase 2 Changed misleading wording in the Assimilation section 3 List of contemporary Germanic peoples 4 Afrikaners 5 Austrians 6 Scotland 7 interbreeding 8 Gotlanders 9 Scots 10 merge 11 Changes 12 Request 12.1 North African gene flow into Iberia 13 Hi. We should be clear on this point. 14 ToC 15 Delete the list of contemporary Germanics!! 16 *Þiuda- 17 The Spanish a Germanic people? 18 External links 19 Expansion request 20 Decent 21 Improvement of "Culture" 22 How big were Germanic tribes? 23 Austrians 24 Caption: Pagan? 25 Etymology of the Word German 26 Self name of tribes 27 Bavarian / Alemannic 28 British Isles 29 "Assimilated Germanic peoples" 30 UK 31 Templates? 32 Swe-des 33 Polish Pan-Slavic POV 34 Anglo-Saxons? 35 Genetics 36 "Historically linked" 37 Recent onomastic research 38 Wrong etymology 39 People vs. Peoples 40 da 41 Rokus01's changes and possible OR 42 Removal of unsourced Out-of-Scandinavian bias 43 Northern Bronze Age or Nordic Bronze Age? 44 More "why" with the "what" 45 Loads of errors 46 What the heck is PIE? 47 "German" peoples in Spain and England 48 Dutch/Deutsch/Duits/Dietsch= 49 Painting at top 50 Snoballa68's edits 51 What needs doing? 52 First image 53 Background for SenseOnes edits 54 Milkmen? 55 Germanic peoples "where" a group of ethnic groups?

[edit] Stupid phrase

"In Scandinavia there is a long history of assimilation of Finnic peoples, namely Finns and Lapps - such that the many Finns think of themselves as a Nordic People."

That is an extremely stupid phrase... Nordic does NOT equal Germanic. Finns are Nordic, but not Germanic, which renders this phrase useless. Further Lapps are not Finnic, they speak a Finnic language but are geneticaly from another group that pre-dates Indo-Europeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.85.168 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changed misleading wording in the Assimilation section

I have been bold and changed some of the wording in the assimilation section as it was pretty misleading. It should be stated that the Anglo-Saxons assimilated the indigenous culture into their own continental derived culture rather than assimilating their own culture into the culture of the Britons. This is in opposition to France where the Franks assimilated into the indigenous (though latinised and romance speaking) culture, hence the fact the French do not speak a Germanic language and tend to take a 'romance' view of the world. That's not to say that French culture has no influences from the Franks (it does...look at some of it's Folklore, the name of the country and it's people...etc...). Someone shall no doubt disagree, so go ahead. I won't bite! Sigurd Dragon Slayer 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of contemporary Germanic peoples

I'd like to formally suggest here that the format of a list of modern Germanic peoples is replaced by a new page in which each group that is currently included on the list can have a paragraph(s) devoted to it. I think that this would help to stop people from constantly fighting over whether any one group should be included or not because the reasons for (and hopefully evidence for) including each group will be spelled out clearly and people can argue over specific points rather than removing and/or adding groups according to their knowledge/interpretation of history/race/culture/etc. Please read the comments in the 'request' section below before adding comments here.--Hraefen 07:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The English and the Scots are not Germanic peoples any more than the Welsh would be (who are classified as an ethnic group and also natively speak English). The English language is a Germanic language but the English and Scots are British peoples. To label them as Germanic transposes a linguistic reference to an ethnic one and this is incorrect. Enzedbrit 22:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What weird kind of comparison are you making here?? The English and the Scottish aren't Germanic - despite speaking a Germanic language and having a Germanic culture - because they can't prove 100% genetic descent from a mythological pure Germanic race? Yet you're quite happy to label them as "British peoples" without even elaborating on what that vague term is supposed to mean? None of the cultures present in the British isles originated there, and none of the people residing in the British isles are purely descended from pre-invasion natives. To reject to calling people Germanic unless they can prove uninterrupted Germanic decent, also means to reject calling people Celtic unless they can do the same, as it does even with the term British.Jamopy 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the Irish who are regarded (also on wikipedia) as a seperate ethnicity. The above mentioned list might be a good idea. Bikerams 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaners

shouldn't afrikaners be on the list of germanic peoples? Gringo300 12:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)think the hoaky list of tribal ancestors ought to just go away. If you click on Angul, for example, you get a disambiguation page leading back to Germanic peoples. Someone seems to be getting rid of the awful red links by linking them to anywhere. Then they have a nice blue color and it looks much better. Bad idea. Anyway, there isn't really much to say about a tribal ancestor, as the only thing you might know about him is his name, which is his raison d'etre. When in doubt, throw it out.

For ancient culture of course there is no one better

i went ahead and added them and several others myself. Gringo300 01:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This sounds very odd to me! Although Afrikaners certainly descend from people who have germanic (as well as non-germanic) ancestors it appears to me that the term germanic belongs to a totally different time, much farther in the past than the term Afrikaner. Don't know if it is possible to give a time frame for what you can call germanic and what not (would be nice to get a scientific explanation), but somehow Afrikaner feels like the answer to "one of the words doesn't fit to the others." Could Belgian be an analogy to describe why Afrikaner are not germanic? karvajalka 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not intimately familiar with the degree to which the "Dutch" commingled genetically with anyone, but they certainly qualified as Germanic before heading down there.--Hraefen 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austrians

To the anonymous editor using the IP addresses 195.34.133.61, 195.34.133.68 and 195.34.133.69:

• Removing Austrians altogether borders on vandalism.
• Why did you insist on describing Austrians as "Austrian Germans" in previous edits? If you are Austrian, you should be aware that this designation is totally a minority position in Austria which can normally be found only on the right fringes of the Freedom Party of Austria and within right-wing extremist Studentenverbindungen. You should also be aware that most Austrians today strongly resent being called German.
• However, we know that this was not always historically the case. This is why I added the clarifying sentence in brackets in response to your first edit here. I was attempting to explain both the current and the past view on the "nationality"/"ethnicity"/whatever of Austrians.
• Personally, I do not think that ethnicity or nationality is a category that makes much sense. "Germanic languages" makes sense, but "Germanic peoples" does not, given all the mixing between neighbouring peoples that naturally occurred in the course of history, which makes categorizing people on grounds of ancestry complete hogwash. Martg76 08:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

by that logic, the ENTIRE concept of race doesn't make sense. Gringo300 00:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

See validity of human races. The arguments listed on that page in favor of the concept of "race" certainly don't apply to Germanic, Slavic peoples etc. who were never genetically separated from each other. Martg76 21:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland

I altered the section dealing with the culture of Scotland to reflect that the split culture referred to was a historical rather than contemporary fact due to the continuous regression of the Celtic language (Scottish Gaelic) to its current status of strength only in the Western Isles. Also inserted reference to the displacement of the Scandinavian language and culture of the Northern Isles by the language and culture of the Lowland Scots with settlers prominent.

User=anSiarach

[edit] interbreeding

the article mentions the interbreeding of germanic peoples with non-germanic peoples. the "technical" term for this is miscegenation.

there are DEFINITELY a lot people considered germans, for example, that aren't pure germanic.

while there are germanic people who are opposed to miscegenation between germanic and non-germanic peoples, and i'm sure there always have been, there is absolutely NO question that it HAS happened. Gringo300 09:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I would rather say: There is not a single "pure Germanic" person in the world. The purpose of the paragraph is to point out that the concept of "Germanic peoples" is inherently problematic. Martg76 21:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

i don't see how anyone could possible know for sure that there isn't a SINGLE pure germanic person anywhere on earth.

ok, let's look at theoretically/hypothetically, or whatever is the proper term:

how could anybody possibly POSIT2222222222IVELY determine that any person is absolutely pure anything?

even if there was, how would anybody ever know it? Gringo300 02:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Noone would ever know because it's impossible, there's no such thing as -the- germanic person. A group can show simular properties (or to be more precise, the individuals may show these), but genes and behaviour vary from person to person, it can produce funky statistics like 2.3 children or can blatantly contradict itself. This is, of course, because a group is an average, a simplification of a complex system, not a single undividable unit with a physical body) And remember, you can drown in a river with an average depth of 6 inches =p. -KraftwerK- June 18th 2005

The pure germanic person has as blue eyes and fair hair as Hitler, and is as tall and slim like Göring.

and the pure germanic person allegedly has psychic powers, telepathy, etc. Gringo300 02:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

And i think this obvious display of your anti-Germanic bias is precisely the reason why you shouldn't be contributing to an article about Germanic people. Jamopy 21:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to spoil a neo-nazi party, but ever considered where the contintental Celts went? Right. Pure Germanic people will be pretty rare :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.159.74.100 (talk) 19:44, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gotlanders

i personally think Gotlanders should be put back on the list. Gringo300 07:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why? They are Swedes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.85.181 (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scots

Why are the Scots not included? The Scots language is a Germanic language , and is spoken by more Scottish people than the Gaelic language. While parts of Scotland do have Celtic heritage , so too do parts of England ( such as Cornwall and Cumbria ).

Even though most Scots speak a Germanic language, they are generally considered a Celtic people. The same can be said of the Irish. john k 14:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The Irish language is a celtic language whereas the Scots language is a germanic language. See 'Scots' wikipaedia article. I am Scottish and ethnically I'm of Nordic and Anglian origin and therefore not Celtic. If Scots are 'generally considered a Celtic people'it means that what is 'generally considered' is wrong , and shouldn't be propogated by Wikipaedia.

Most Irish people speak English, although they originally spoke a celtic language. The Scots are somewhat of a mixture, but the term "Scot" is simply another word for Irish, and until the 11th century at least, most of Scotland spoke Gaelic.john k 21:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC) This is not addressing the fact that the Scots language is a Germanic language. Gaelic has never been spoken by the people in Lothian , Borders or in the Northern Isles.

• This discussion again illustrates that the concept of "Germanic peoples" is fundamentally flawed. All peoples are a mixture of some sort, it's just more obvious in the case of Scots. I'd nominate this page for deletion if I thought that it had any chance of getting deleted. Martg76 15:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I second that nomination. Enzedbrit 22:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

'"Scot" is simply another word for Irish' is simply not true , this is an arcaic use of the word. Scot usually refers to someone from Scotland . As stated above the Scots language is a Germanic language. Please refer to Scots (Lallans) Wikipedia article.

All Scots originally spoke a Celtic language, as did all Irish, as did all English. Looking at British bloodlines, they are influenced by Germanic peoples but are predominately ancient Briton. The classification of English and Scots as Germanic peoples carries as much weight as listing the Irish and other British isles peoples as Germanic. I have removed British peoples from the 'modern Germanic peoples' section. We speak the language, and are of British blood. Enzedbrit 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

British Isles peoples are mixed of Celtic People (both Romanized and non-Romanized) and Germanic People (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, etc), which is quite similar to the French (mix of both Romanized and non-Romanized Celtic peoples with Germanic People such as the Franks, Burgundians, etc). So the term Germanic People makes sense only in histoic sense when comparing to the Roman citizens and Slavic People. In modern sense it doesn't convey any true meaning. Karolus 2006/6/22

I don't agree with your take on it but I see your reasoning and there is truth to it. The article in question then is still not correct. I have been accused of not knowing better by adding Frisians. The person who has reverted my changes doesn't know any better by including English and Scottish as Germanic ethnic groups. If they are Germanic speaking ethnic groups, then all British ethnicities must be added. The article needs to be cleaned up or omitted. Enzedbrit 22:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Enzedbrit, who seemingly bases his claims on Anti-Germanic Bias. England didn't exist before the Anglo-Saxon (AKA Germanic) people invaded (settled...what ever) and set up the petty English Kingdoms...that eventually lead on to the building of a nation separate from the Celtic nations, England (which eventually joined with the Celtic nations down the road of time). The English language did not exist before the Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) tribes settled what became England. The folklore was fundamentally different (English Folklore especially in the North East borrows a great deal from continental Germanic Folklore, though it does have British elements. It is predominately Germanic). The days of the week have largely names derived from Germanic Deities. The DNA is at least in part Germanic, the claims of Enzedbrit and the other esteemed Wikipedians in this debate cuts no ice, for two reasons. The first reason being that no Genetic Study has been accepted by the experts in the field. The second being the claim that the majority of DNA is of British origin, is also fundamentally flawed (the method is flawed anyway as it goes of the Y Chromosome inherited from the father making it hard to tell what other genetics the 'subject' actually has. In other words testing the DNA only shows the direct maternal or paternal lineage...so it shows the DNA inherited from one out of a thousand odd ancestors...you see my point), mostly due to the fact that it has been estimated by many that the English have over 50% Y Chromosomes that are the same as the Danish and the Dutch, that is Germanic Y Chromosomes. But you may say that these were later and that they are not Anglo-Saxon but Danish, which is highly pedantic as they are still of Germanic Origin and not Native British. Almost all the tests including the recent studies found by the BBC for 'Blood of The Vikings' showed this (And also caused problems for them as they are not sure whether the Germanic content is from the Danish Settlers or the Anglo-Saxon settlers). Almost every study shows this, the important finding was not that the Germanic content of English DNA is of a lesser extent than the British DNA, but that contrary to what some academics used to think, the British DNA also makes up a larger part of the DNA than was thought at one time, revealing that the Anglo-Saxons did integrate with the British. Not that blood matters as much as culture, traditions and history. Also as I have said the English generally talk of their culture, country or character as being 'Anglo-Saxon' and thus as Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes they consider themselves Germanic! So the English are definitely 'Germanic'.

As for the Scots that is not as clear as the country is almost divided down the middle. The Lowland Scots I would say can be classed as a Germanic people, just as the Cornish a Celtic one. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

OH bloody hell! Sigurd Dragon Slayer, I can't even respond to this crap you've just posted, I'm sorry. I'm laughing, really. Enzedbrit 11:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points Sigurd Dragon Slayer. It seems some people are trying to apply a purposefully exclusive definition of what Germanic actually means to this article. If we have to know the exact genetic history and bloodline of ever person in every group before we can classify them as a member of that group, then we might as well stop even grouping people. All the arguments raised here can just as equally be layed against people calling themselves Celtic, or Italian, or Nigerian, or Hindi, etc.Jamopy 21:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Jamopy. Genetics is different from ethnicity and is still in it's infancy. As for Enzedbrit, I think he needs to calm down, not personally attack people, respond with well thought out arguments. All I have said can be backed up, and may seem stupid to someone who has a genetic (racial/racist) view of ethnicity. It's ironic, the Germans as a people are less genetically 'Germanic' (there is no actually Germanic DNA by the way...just some that are more common in Scandinavia...etc...the Germanic peoples have many different genetic markers like all ethnic groups) than the English. Many would be, and are, genetically descended from the Celts, Slavs...etc...All these 'Genetic Groups' did not vanish, they assimilated into a culture. For instance the Celts in what is now Germany, it seems obviously that they did not just vanish or get destroyed, they just entered a new ethnicity (in this case a Germanic one). You, Enzedbrit (and others with such views) are not saying that the Germans are not a Germanic nation, are you? If you are then you are mistaken. I for one think many Wikipedians should leave their outdated views on 'race' and genetics at the door before editing articles, but that is just my opinion. Sigurd Dragon Slayer 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

there is no modern day "Germanic" self-identity, and the term "Germanic peoples" is not commonly used to refer to contemporary nations. I suggest we merge this article as a "Modern" section into Germanic tribes (and move that to the Germanic peoples section. The distinction of "tribes" and "peoples" is fluid, and historical peoples like the Franks or the Lombards certainly qualify as organized "nations" beyond savage "tribes" (while the present division into "peoples" and "tribes" makes it look like the latter are more primitive) dab (ᛏ) 11:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I changed the one sentence under Contemporary Germanic peoples section because it didn't make any sense, as you can see below:

"Present-day peoples Germanic speaking peoples include and there descendants:"

I just made it a little shorter, hope no one minds. I have done a lot of work on this topic when I was in school, so I hope I can help fine tune this article in the future. Thanks.

[edit] Request

Would people stop removing, Spaniards, French, and Northern Italians from the Contemporary Germanic peoples section. Even though they no longer speak the language Spain, France, and Northern Italy were all heavily settled by the Germanic tribes. Almost all of Western Europe has some sort of genetic input from the Germanic tribes, so please stop removing countries form the list. Thank you.

• I removed Spaniards because they don't fit the category and I'm fully aware that Spain was ruled by Visigoths for centuries...nonetheless, calling Spaniards 'contmporary Germanic people' is a HUGE stretch of the imagination and it reeks of a pro-Germanic worldview. Cite a source if you want it to be even considered.--Hraefen 18:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Same I think its wrong to Deny the HUGE impact of culture from the Visigoths. Even thought Spain was ruled by the Muslims and Romans and draw there laganuage from the Romans the Visigoths and Vandals to a smaller degree contruibed the many Spanish traditions. I agree people should stop removing French North Italians and Spaniards from the group.

I think that's wrong to deny the impact of the Visigoths upon the Spanish people. The Visigoths settled and ruled Spain and obviously made an impact on their culture and genetic make up. Most of their nobles continued on to be of Visigoth ancestry long after Spain fell to Islam. Below is one good link with Germanic History: http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm Also please don't bring up a "pro-Germanic" worldview again. I myself am Jewish and believe me I have no pro-German agenda. I just want to see the truth to be shown in these articles, which is getting harder and harder to do. The period form he Fall of the Roman Empire to the Renaissance is barley if at all taught in schools and it is very important to show how the Germanic tribes shaped the modern world. I hope I can gather enough references to put Spanards back in. Thank you.

Though there was that Germanic admixture, the contemporary French, Spanish, and Italians are generally categorized as Mediterranean/Latin.--Nectar 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really Most Spaniards frenchman and Northern Italians say there either both or normally just since its Nordic types acutally the onyl reason they really state there Mediterranean/Latin is because of the Latin based Laganuages they speak. I think you are confusing Laganuage with Decendants. I think the users with Diagram shows it very well.

• Everyone PLEASE sign your comments. I'm all for including info in the article about the Germanic influence in ANY culture, but having just a list provides ZERO context that everyone who has commented here seems to be able to provide. So let's get some info with some sources and give each of these groups a paragraph that can give some nuance to the claim that "Spaniards are Germanic." I'm currently working on List of Spanish words of Germanic origin and I think much of that info could be used in this article. I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, I just want the article to reflect the more complex picture which is ancestry/race/culture etc.--Hraefen 02:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok heres the only problem with this whole thing In real life NO one is pure Germanic proabably the only pure Germanics are the Scanadivians but still they have some celtic influence just like the Germans. The article about Germans even says Celtics are part of the eqaution. I am glad we can a civil conversionation about this instead of constant revert war. But like i said in reality almost all these group are PURE Germanic and have either some roman influence or anhestory like the British do because Roman conquered Britian. However Hraefen this seems like a creditable source stating Spaniards are deffently Germanic http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm, which was signed by the unsigned user above. --XGustaX 12:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed...most groups are not 100% Germanic or Italic or Celtic etc. but no one is singling out the Dutch, English, Swedes etc. as groups where some explanation/justicfication needs to be made because it is apparent to anyone who knows anything about history. It seems that the North Italians, French and Spaniards are the ones which keep being removed and the re-added to the list. So let's write short to medium-length paragraphs for these three groups which can provide some context for the claims. If anyone doubts that one of these other groups belongs on the list, then we can write a paragraph for that group as well. I just don't want to oversimplify a topic (which I think we both agree is somewhat complex) by having a list where groups are either included or not included.--Hraefen 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I completly agree. This should be what we should concerate on. (24.60.161.63 22:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

Historical Germanics once occupied Southern Europe, North Africa, and Eastern Europe, but none of these areas are considered Germanic in modern usage. On the cultural side, the languages of Southern Europe belong to a different family, and they have a different religion. On the genetic side, Southern Europeans, even in northern Italy, - though they may have Germanic admixture - look categorically different from the traditional Germanics.

It's good for the article to discuss the historical influence on these regions, but categorizing them as Germanic goes beyond established usage, in which they're referred to as Latin or Mediterranean. Ideally, this article would reference genetic studies, as the Welsh people article does.[1] Anyone want to look for such studies? --Nectar 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• That is complete bull thought I have talked to many Europeans especially Irish and British, even thought Spainards and Northern Italians are in Southern Europe, it DOES NOT automatically put them into the racial group of medditerean. Many of these British and Irish people (including I) Ive talked to say Spaniards are Germanic. I think you are thinking of the Nordic Theory that was thought up of the 1900's, which was is now completely seen as BS.( especially by us Europeans). To say that Spaniards Northern Italians and frenchmen look different is just stupid the British and Germans look different but there still Germanics right? The thing is these groups all share certain "charactistics" that others don't but there is NO tradional looking Germanic. Germanics at least by Roman accounts ive read could have Blonde hair all the way to pitch black hair. So your "arugement" is flawed. Also Germans today have much different noses then the British. Thanks. (24.60.161.63 01:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
• Thanks for including that BBC link, Nectarflowed, it is incredibly interesting, especially the part about the Celt-Basque link. If someone could find similar genetic studies for Spanish, French, and North Italians I think it would greatly improve this article. That being said, genetics is only one side of the story. Cultural influences play a huge role in the development of a culture, and regardless of what genetic studies would show (if someone can find such info...I hope so) about the genetic makeup of modern Spaniards, Frenchmen, and Northern Italians, we can still incude information about the cultural influence that Germanic people and Germanic languages have had on these groups. Fascianating stuff.--Hraefen 01:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Your right. You can not say ALL Germanics even look the same they have a wide range of physical features. http://www.white-history.com/hwr23.htm I found this Article which states at the time of Muslim invasion. It also states about the Muslims being the other key element of contruibe to race in Spain however most Spaniards dont not have Muslim blood due the Reconquesta which ended in 1492 and the Spanish Inquistion. http://www.white-history.com/hwr22.htm also found here. From reading this I think its pretty safe to state that They are Germanics I will look more for the French and Northern Italians. Thanks. (XGustaX 01:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC))
• First off, from reading the links to white-history.com, I seriously doubt the objectivity. Secondly, to believe that Spaniards, based on your above argumanet, are definitely and thoroughly Germanic, one would have to assume that the Iberian peninsula was completely devoid of human settlement prior to the presence of the Visigoths, and this is obviously not true. There are examples of writings of Celtic-speaking people around the beginning of the common era. Also, Basques clearly contributed both culture and genetics. Add to this the presence of Roman soldiers and the claim that Spaniards are Germanic becomes a hard one to make without many qualifications. This type of balanced claim can only be accomplished with a paragraph(s), not with a list.--Hraefen 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess your right but that would mean NO one is on the List because even Germans themselves have Celtic roots also. Same with some British who have Roman and Celtic anhestory. This is just to name a few groups. What I am not liking about your arugment which the website states very well and even some people have said so far on this talk page is that you seem to think some of these people are PURE Germanic no one is. There is no such thing as a pure Germanic due to admixing no matter where. You can find the History of were ever especially Germany and Britian. Romans controlled West Germania and that contrubied to German culture and some admixture with the addition of celts. I have found this article on the subject.http://libro.uca.edu/chaytor/hac3.htm and shows how even thought these groups were present Spain like Germany resisted and kicked out or assilmated these small groups. I had also found this from the U.S. Library of Congress that states the Visigoths where just more "Romanized" Germanic peoples.http://countrystudies.us/portugal/6.htm Thanks.(24.60.161.63 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

• I openly acknowledged above that no group as a whole can be considered 100% anything, but most Germans, Swedes etc. ARE predominantly Germanic and no one (so far...I guess) has said that they don't think these groups should be included. It's only the Spaniards, North Italians and Frenchmen which need some qualifications and explanations if they are to be included on a list of modern Germanic people. I personally think the list should be done away with and all groups should be discussed in a paragraph(s). This might necessiate the creation of a new page, but that's not such a bad thing, is it?--Hraefen 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I agree however you seem to include Roman decendants in Spaniards way to much Spaniards are as much Romans as the British are because the Visigoths did not accept them in there country. Like my source stated above however the Visigoths were the most "Romanized" hence that is why they speak a Latin Based langauge not as much because miniority Medditerrean people. Other "Romanized" Germanic peoples included the English decendants.(24.60.161.63 04:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] North African gene flow into Iberia

The last study on this page appears to find ~20% North African admixture into the Iberian population, in a latitudinal gradient (from Andalusia to Portugal, Catalonia, and Basque Country). AFAIK, Iberia may also have had a different pre-Indo-European substrate (which the Basques are an example of) and may have significant Greek admixture from Greek colonies that didn't occur in central Europe.

A more recently published synthesis (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999), based on genetic markers in Basques, Portuguese, Spaniards, and North Africans, supports substantial gene flow from paleo-North African populations to Iberia. Some genetic studies, in particular on the HLA system [a group of genes that are important for immunologic specificity and histocompatibility](Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1995; Martínez-Laso et al. 1995; Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1997), have shown Iberian populations to be more closely related to North African populations than to the rest of Europe. In a recent study (Gómez-Casado et al. 2000), Moroccan Algerians show the closest genetic distance--based on HLA class I (A and B) and class II (DRB1) markers--followed by Berbers, Spaniards, and Basques. North African input into Iberia may be close to 20%, as shown by nuclear CD4/Alu markers (Flores et al. 2000b). It seems that the significance of the genetic links detected between North Africa and Iberia reflect both an ancient common substratum (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999) and, to a lesser degree, possible contacts between Christians and North African Muslims (A.D. 710-1492) in Iberia (Kandil et al. 1999), who had a Berber genetic substratum.

("North African Genes in Iberia Studied by Y-Chromosome DNA Haplotype 5," Gérard Lucotte, Nathalie Gérard, and Géraldine Mer, Human Biology 73.5 (2001) 763-769.)

--Nectar 08:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Nectar, anyone who uses a link to the "white-history page" is jsut a Nazi. People like you should be banned from this site. The Spanish are a Latin people. They are not Germanic. That is of course nonsense, but if you want more Genetic information on the Spanish here you have some:

Comas et al. (2000) Alu insertion polymorphisms in NW Africa and the Iberian Peninsula: evidence for a strong genetic boundary through the Gibraltar Straits. Hum Genet; 107(4):312-9 An analysis of 11 Alu insertion polymorphisms...has been performed in several NW African...and Iberian...populations. Genetic distances and principal component analyses show a clear differentiation of NW African and Iberian groups of samples, suggesting a strong genetic barrier matching the geographical Mediterranean Sea barrier. The restriction to gene flow may be attributed to the navigational hazards across the Straits, but cultural factors must also have played a role. ... Iberian samples show a substantial degree of homogeneity and fall within the cluster of European-based genetic diversity. http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2867/pcplot0gd.jpg

Bosch et al. (2001) High-resolution analysis of human Y-chromosome variation shows a sharp discontinuity and limited gene flow between northwestern Africa and the Iberian Peninsula. Am J Hum Genet; 68(4):1019-29 The most striking results are that contemporary NW African and Iberian populations were found to have originated from distinctly different patrilineages and that the Strait of Gibraltar seems to have acted as a strong (although not complete) barrier to gene flow.... The Islamic rule of Spain, which began in A.D. 711 and lasted almost 8 centuries, left only a minor contribution to the current Iberian Y-chromosome pool. This source is already included in the article

Flores et al. (2004) Reduced genetic structure of the Iberian peninsula revealed by Y-chromosome analysis: implications for population demography. Eur J Hum Genet; 12(10):855-63 Coincidentally, spatial analysis of genetic distances points to a focal distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups in this area. These results indicate that neither old or recent Levantine expansions nor North African contacts have influenced the current Iberian Y-chromosome diversity so that geographical patterns can be identified. ... The Y-chromosome variation landscape in Iberia was also evaluated using principal component analysis, which included samples with highly resolved Y-chromosome data from Europe...Near East...and Northwest Africa.... The first two components of the analysis accounted for 83.9% of genetic variance, and produced three well-separated clusters of populations, evidencing the sharp differences between the Y-chromosome pool of Western Europe, Near East and Northwest Africa (Figure 4). http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/8581/iberians.jpg

Nasidze et al. (2003) Testing hypotheses of language replacement in the Caucasus: evidence from the Y-chromosome. Hum Genet; 112(3):255-61 Andalusians and Catalans both cluster amongst other western Europeans: http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2316/plot3ua.jpg

Hammer et al. (2000) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci; 97(12):6769-74 Spaniards (Spa) cluster right next to Germans (Ger) and far from North Africans: http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9948/plot20uj.jpg

And finally, this study looks at the exact same blood group systems as this one [5] (plus two more, and two serum protein systems), yet finds North Africans and Iberians to be unrelated:

Simoni et al. (1999) Patterns of gene flow inferred from genetic distances in the Mediterranean region Hum Biol; 71(3):399-415 Here, we present an analysis of a data set of 10 allele frequencies in 39 populations of the Mediterranean region. ... The main boundaries separate the northern and the southern coasts, especially in their western portions; in addition, several localities appear genetically isolated. The comparatively high genetic differentiation across the western Mediterranean, where the sea distances between localities are shorter, strongly suggests that the sea distance by itself can hardly be regarded as a major isolating factor among these populations. On the contrary, the decrease in genetic resemblance between populations of the 2 coasts as one proceeds westward may reflect an increased genetic exchange in the eastern Mediterranean basin or independent human dispersal along the 2 coasts or both. ... The 5 strongest barriers inferred from Prevosti's distance divide the Mediterranean area into 2 large clusters, a northern cluster and a southern cluster. The first boundary, in particular, separates Morocco and Algeria from Spain, France, and Sardinia, despite the fact that sea distances between the 2 main coasts are much shorter than in the eastern portion of the region. ... The genetic boundary separating northern Morocco and Algeria from southern Spain appears as the zone of sharpest genetic change using Prevosti's distances and as the second most significant zone of change (after the zone separating Israeli Jews from all their neighbors) using Nei's distances.

And of course there is also genetic affinities with the Berbers of North Africa. Actually it seems that the majority of the Spanish population comes from the early inhabitants of the Peninsula, dating back to Paleolithic and Neolithic times and were of the so-called Mediterranean race. This race spread across Southern Europe, problably into the Middle East and the North of Africa. Present DNA testing seems to imply that this race also occupied important parts in Europe North of the Pyrenees and in the British Isles. As far as the Berbers are concerned it seems that they also belong to this Mediterranean Substratum, so I think it would not be strange to find genetic similarities between Berbers, Spaniards and other Europeans, like Portuguese, Italians, French, important portions of the British Isles, etc.

If you are interested in the genetic affinities of other Europeans, see also:

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p25.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5955701/

or:

"The Tat-C haplogroup was observed at significant frequencies in each of the southern Middle Siberian populations studied. Surprisingly, it reached its highest frequency in the Siberian Eskimos and Chukchi from the Chukotkan peninsula. The Tat-C haplogroup was absent in the Lower Amur and Sea of Okhotsk region populations that have maintained greater geographic and/or linguistic isolation (e.g., the Udegeys, Nivkhs, and Upriver Negidals) and was only detected in the populations likely to have had recent contact or shared origins with the populations of southern Middle Siberia (e.g., the Okhotsk Evenks, Ulchi/Nanai, and Downriver Negidals). Because the Tat-C polymorphism originated on a Y chromosome containing the DYS7C deletion (haplogroup 7C), which was present only in the Middle Siberian Tuvans, Buryats, Tofalars, and Yenisey Evenks, the Tat-C haplogroup probably entered the Lower Amur and eastern Siberia from southern Middle Siberia. This conclusion is consistent with the previous hypothesis that the Tat-C and 7C haplogroups arose in central Asia and migrated west to northern Europe and east to Chukotka (Zerjal et al. 1997). "The network of Tat-C and DYS7C haplotypes revealed that the ancestral Tat-C haplotype (7C[11-11-10-10]) was found only in southern Middle Siberia, indicating that this Y-chromosome lineage arose in that region. Moreover, the limited microsatellite diversity and resulting compact nature of the network indicates that the Tat-C lineage arose relatively recently (Zerjal et al. 1997). The absence of the Tat-C haplogroup in the Americas, with the exception of a single Navajo (Karafet et al. 1999), along with its high frequency in both northern Europe and northeastern Siberia, indicates that the Tat-C lineage was disseminated from central Asia by both westward and eastward male migrations, the eastward migration reaching Chukotka after the Bering Land Bridge was submerged. Both the M45 and Tat-C haplogroups have been found in Europe, indicating both ancient and recent central Asian influences. However, neither of these major Middle Siberian Y-chromosome lineages appears to have been greatly influenced by the paternal gene pool of Han Chinese or other East Asian populations (Su et al. 1999)." (Lell et al., Am J Hum Genet, 2002)

Tat-C Frequencies Yakuts..........87% Eskimos.........61% Chukchi.........58% Finns...........55% Buryats.........52% Tofalars........47% Lithuanians.....47% Lapps...........42% Estonians.......37% Maris...........33% Latvians........32% Nenets..........30% Tuvans..........18% Chuvash.........18% Russians........14% Ukrainians......11% North Swedes.....8% Gotlanders.......6% Norwegians.......6% Poles............4% Germans..........3% Armenians........3% Slovakians.......3% Danes............2% Belarusians......2% Turks............1%

7C Frequencies Nenets..........50% Tofalars........47% Tuvans..........28% Buryats.........15% Maris...........17% Czechs...........6% Estonians........4% Russians.........4% Finns............2% Yugoslavians.....2% Cypriots.........2% Poles............1% Slovakians.......1% Turks............1%

(Kittles et al. 1998, Rosser et al. 2000, Dupuy et al. 2001, Wells et al. 2001, Lell et al. 2002 and Puzyrev et al. 2003)

So, you can see things are much more complicated that you seem to think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.249.135 (talk • contribs)

You appear to have not read anything I've said. The page I linked to was provided by another user above, and I'm not so dogmatic to disqualify studies from discussion because they're linked to from afrocentric or any other ethnocentric site.--Nectar 02:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a link like the ¨white history page¨ has just a clear Nazi tendency. A site interested in spreading a bunch of lies that would be funny if they were not so pathetic. Those links should not be in a site like this. But of course if you are not so dogmatic, then we can add links that this, to keep this site up to a real good level:

http://www.sitesled.com/members/racialreality/medish/index.html#gallery

• Spaniards Germans ??? Lol

Where are the Germans ???

http://racialreality.110mb.com/sp_north.html http://racialreality.110mb.com/sp_center.html http://racialreality.110mb.com/sp_south.html

And anyway the italians with blond hair are not related at all with the German invaders , blond hair are present in italy since the Iron age , many Romans were described as blond :AUGUSTUS,NERO,CALIGULA,SULLA,CATO,TRAJAN etc...we have a lot of sources about this.. Plutarch,Suetonius,Tacitus etc...

.--GaiusCrastinus

[edit] Hi. We should be clear on this point.

The section specifically refers to 'CONTEMPORARY' Germanic descendants.

1. The Spanish do not culturally identify with the Germanic portion of their collective ancestry. If anything, Spaniards are more prone to emphasise chthonic ethnic identities, like the Basque population (rightfully) does in the present.

2. The Visigoths left almost no trace of their tribal culture in Spain- linguistically, spiritually, or nearly anything else identifiable as distinctly Germanic. The primary reason for this is that they failed to achieve the cultural unity (critical mass is a term used for this) necessary to perpetuate their own values and way of life through the centuries. They were absorbed by the other peoples that were living in what is now Spain. Citing the Visigoths for making points about the Spaniards having a Germanic heritage is nearly as ludicrous as citing the eastern Goths as a reason to include the people of Ravenna in Italia.

3. The contemporary Spanish nation uses Spanish. This is a Romance language. The cultural influences that most affect modern Spaniards stem from Italic, Islamic, and native indigenous peoples that pre-date the Visigothic invasion.

The burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who wish to assert that the Spanish peoples should be included in the contemporary Germanic descendants lists in this article. I will be *delighted* to peruse the texts you wish to use for this argument. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your whole arugment is flawed are you kidding me! yeah your right Spaniards dont speak a Germanic language but they are still the vast majority of them decents from them.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Genetic descent is nearly meaningless in terms of ethnographic identity. Genes do not determine cultural identity, ethnographic categorisation, or even much of anything else that is useful in the context of this discussion.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To say the Visigoths left no trace of there culture etc. is completly wrong.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

I did not say that they left no trace. I *did* state that the tribes identified as Visigothic did not achieve enough cultural unity to pass on their language, customs, and culture to their descendants in the Iberian peninsula to the degree that we can identify Spaniards as Germanic. Such an assertion is laughable at worst, and revisionist history at best.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This List of Spanish words of Germanic origin shows that Spaniards took many words from there Germanic anhestors. Also many places in with Castillian names are named from the Vandals and the Visigoths. Ex. Andalusia which they called Vandalusia and where it gets its name from.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

That list is not unusual for a present-day European language. English is the best exemplar of vocabulary absorbtion, one could argue, but the only notable language in Europe that has not absorbed a large amount of vocabulary from other languages in recent centuries is Icelandic, as far as I know.

The peoples that are included in the present Spanish nation are a diverse lot. The trade connexions between those peoples and other European peoples, American peoples, et cetera, is a vast network throughout history, even in just the past five-hundred years. Your argument here is meaningless in terms of reassigning the Spaniards to a Germanic heritage as a result.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also if you look at Visigothic artitechture it looks strikly simular to Spanish artitechture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_art.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

We do not have enough examples of that form of architecture to make such a claim as yours here. What, pray tell, are the distinguishing characteristics of a specifically Visigothic form of architecture during the small time that Visigoths were dominant in Iberia?

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And finally The Spanish Inquistion which kicked out people who were of non Germanic Christitian decent.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Incorrect. The Inquisition in the provinces that are now collectively named Spain did not kick people out if they were not Germanic. There was no sense of pan-Germanic identity and nationalistic ideas until later in history.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

So I agree Spaniards do not speak a Germanic language but however they are Germanic or majority Germanic because no one is purely Germanic.

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

...which essentially means nothing. Germanic peoples have interbred all over the Earth.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are stating is that Spaniards do not speak a Germanic language then you are right but other wise you a mistakly wrong. Thanks

(24.60.161.63 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Your opinions are noted, but this is not the place for original research or revisionist history.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

yep, we have the "assimilation" section to address events between "Migration age" and "contemporary". "Germanic" is a linguistic term. Obviously, Germanic peoples settled in what is today Spain, etc., but they stopped speaking a Germanic language centuries and centuries ago. We can explain this, but we cannot count Spaniards, Lombards etc. as "Germanics". Similarly, in as far as USians may be considered "a people", African Americans are "Germanics" by virtue of being native speakers of a variant of English: their ancestors were assimilated to a Germanic speaking environment, just like the Lombards were assimilated to a Latin speaking environment. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to sort the list now. We cannot expect it to perform much more than it does now. So Austro-Bavarian speakers are only a 85% majority in Austria; well, every country has ethnic and linguistic minorities, that still makes Austria overwhelmingly Austro-Bavarian, linguistically. We can list the Vorarlbergians separately. The subtle depths of the term "German" must be left to the German people article. Similarly for "English", I think the reference to English speakers all over the world should be enough, without giving a precise account. dab (ᛏ) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

linguistically, however, most Alsatians are "Romanized" and most Irish and Scots are "Anglicized". We may have to point out that a sense of ethnic identity may linger on after linguistic assimilation. We can, in any case, hardly claim the Lombards as Latin while at the same time claiming the Irish as Gaelic (native speakers of Irish Gaelic are down to less than 10%; Germany has about as many native speakers of Turkish :) Ok, so the Lombards have 0% speakers of Lombardic, but you are getting my point. dab (ᛏ) 11:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Spanish people are NOT predominantly Germanic. Genetic tests on several occassions show them to be a mixed population that is largely Mediterranean, the Iberians were probably the Basques who in turn have some similarity the aboriginal Berbers of North Africa with some Celtic, Germanic, Italian and Phoenician elements. The historical record only speaks of conquests and scant settlements, while genetic tests reveal the impact upon the bulk of the population. A Visigothic ruling class does not equal Visigothic majority population. In fact the Goths were Latinized themselves and abandoned their language early on. Here are two genetic studies worth noting: Joining the Pillars of Hercules: mtDNA Sequences Show Multidirectional Gene Flow in the Western Mediterranean and this study shown on National Geographic: Proving History Through Science -- Phoenician’s Reborn through the DNA "Alphabet," the Y Chromosome which states that, The major conclusion reached that relates to the Lebanese indicates that they belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum. This means that the Lebanese share the same genetic identifiers like the Macedonians*, Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Anatolians (aboriginal Turks), Armenians and Iranians. Also, this study is interesting from Univ. of Chicago regarding the Celts: [http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v75n4/41464/41464.web.pdf?erFrom=-6976005691513440788Guest The Longue Dure´e of Genetic Ancestry: Multiple Genetic Marker Systems

and Celtic Origins on the Atlantic Facade of Europe]. Tombseye 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sources your are not Objective and prove nothing.(24.60.161.63 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

The American Journal of Human Genetics is not objective? Or Annals of Human Genetics? Come now... what are your qualifications in deciding that those two *very* well-respected journals are not publishing objective scientific papers? Your opinion is at odds with quite a lot of people (both geneticists as well as Tombseye, Dieter, and myself), and simply dismissing some excellent sources does not make them unadmissible in this discussion if they happen to indicate that your (unsupported as yet) assertions are not likely true. What should we be using as a source? The Oera Linda Book?!?! That forgery is the only source of which I am aware that will support your assertions here.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so you must be the same guy who has made the Spanish people page into a joke. Have you noticed yet that no one is supporting your position? Prove they're not objective. How are Spanish researchers, Americans and Europeans not being objective? Because they didn't prove what you wanted to hear? They aren't saying there isn't any Germanic inflow, just not anywhere near in the majority. I think the one lacking objectivity here is you. Tombseye 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ToC

imho, the list of tribes should be exported to a list article, and be replaced by a summary of cultural, geographical and religious traits as described by Tacitus etc. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Emphatically agreed.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete the list of contemporary Germanics!!

Given the discussion above, especially dab's points, I suggest that we delete the section entirely and refer readers to Germanic languages. Since a serious genetic account of descendence is impossible, "Germanic-ness" could only be defined culturully. But which cultural elements, other than language, have the ancient Germanic people left to posterity? What specific cultural elements are there that English, Germans, Scandinavians etc. share but French, Poles, Slovenians and other Europeans do not? If noone is able to come up with such elements other than language, simply delete the section. Martg76 12:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Dear Martg76, actually I cannot understand why you are so ambitious and emotional about the topic. As you as an Austrian do not consider yourself to be of Germanic origin (that was your statement further above, wasn`t it) and your mother tongue is therefore German merely by accident, I strongly recommend you to not waste your precious time with this ignorants around here.

• I think outright deletion is too rash. This is a complex topic, one which is too complex to be covered by a simple list, but simply deleting it does not help the truth come out any more than having an unsatisfactory list does. I think Germanic people have contributed much to the modern world other than language (not gonna get into it here) but, assuming they haven't, the linguistic heritage alone is enough to merit a discussion on this page (or a sub-page as I have suggested). All sides can make their arguments...genetic and linguistic evidence can be included, NPOV can be maintained (apparently through much hard work and compromise), and the reader can decide for himself which traits are most important in determining one's ancestry/ cultural heritage etc. Deletion is not the answer.--Hraefen 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Acutally now that i really look at it i think its best your right. I have been trying to look for enthic groups these people all belong to and they never really state them. They only talk about the History of the people (which should be enough to put them as Germanic) but even for Germans they only thing they say is there Germanic because they speak a Germanic language however this is not what we are trying to find. So i agree maybe the section should be deleted entirely. note i found a very interesting thing about Visigothic buldings (which look simular to Spanish building today) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigothic_art (24.60.161.63 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

In the U.S., we have Victorian, Swiss, Georgian, Gothic, and about 1000+ other architectural styles in use. This does not make Americans Germanic. A careful reading of at least the first half of Herwig Wolfram's 'History of the Goths' would be beneficial in laying this argument to rest.

P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

hm, look, since we have articles like Ethnic Germans and English (people) there is no reason not to link to those from this article, as the modern descendents of the historical Germanic peoples. There is no "Germanic unity", but there are traits. It should just be made clear that there is a lot of room for different tastes and terminologies. If a USian (of any descent) wanted to consider himself a "Germanic" person, he would have a point, being a native speaker of English; if he didn't want to, say, on grounds of not having a single Germanic ancestor, he would have a point too. We just give the links to those ethnic groups -- but what's an ethnic group? Certainly being an US citizen isn't an ethnicity? -- that speak Germanic languages today (and under "assimilation", those that ceased speaking theirs in historical times). Hey, the Japanese have Christmas trees and Santa Clauses -- there's a non-linguistic contribution of Teutonia for you; still nobody will claim the Japanese as Germanic because of that. I'd say we just link the Germanic speakers, provided they have an "ethnic group" article, and let the reader decide what they make of it. Maybe (if we get references), we can describe how much a given group considers itself ethnically "Germanic" in whatever way. If the Irish emphatically consider themselves Celtic in spite of their native language being (overwhelmingly) English, that's to be noted; if the Spaniards overwhelingly considered themselves "Germanic" or "Vandalic", rather than Romance, that would be noteworthy too, but we'd need some poll results to support that. dab (ᛏ) 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I exported the lists, hoping to give the article some breathing space. What is needed now is the coherent account, of course; we need more historical depth even in the list (which tribes are mentioned in Tacitus, which are later?). dab (ᛏ) 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] *Þiuda-

Are we sure that the "generic þiuda- "people"" would designate Germanic people in opposition to non-Germanic people? If Russian čuždyj (чуждый) "foreign" is borrowed from Germanic *þiudiska- (Early Slavonic *tjudjǔ), it may count as an argument in support of that assumption. However, I am not at all sure that a Germanic-speaking person living in the 2nd century AD would describe any other Germanic-speaking person as þiudiskaz (or something like that) in contrast to the walhōz.

Perhaps the Germanic people didn't even know that they were Germanic, and therefore they would have no word for German etnicity. It is, more or less, the conclusion in Allan A. Lund's Die ersten Germanen: Ethnizität und Ethnogenese (Heidelberg 1998) ISBN 3825306852. Enkyklios 15:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

it depends on what you mean by "know". Obviously, they didn't have a scientific linguistic classification. They simply differentiated between "people" and "strangers". The "people" term would have no singular, just like in English. The "people" designation roughly corresponds with "Germanic". This is typical, and encountered worldwide: "People" means folk you can walk up to and ask for directions. "Strangers" are weird folk from foreign parts, dressing funnily and uttering tongue-twisting nonsense. Maybe they could be referred to as "the thiuda of the walha", I don't know, but simple "thiuda" apparently was confined to "regular people". The "thiudisk-" adjective is not claimed for the Migration period. It is medieval. A member of the "thiuda" was just a "man". The čuždyj point is intersting, I had not thought of that before. I don't understand what you mean by "they didn't know they were Germanic". Of course they didn't, any more than the Inuit knew they were "Eskimos". dab (ᛏ) 11:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that the Germanic-speaking people perhaps didn't know they had something in common which was not shared by their Celtic and Roman neighbours. Of course they had no idea of linguistic classifications and isoglosses and all that. However, I think myself that this position is too extreme; you don't need a PhD in linguistics to know which people you understand and which not. But I considered the position it worth mentioning since a serious scholar defends it and it is very much in accordance with the current trends of scholarship.

I am still not sure that *þiuda- had the potential meaning of "regular people" to the exclusion of "weird folk from foreign parts, dressing funnily and uttering tongue-twisting nonsense". In fact it would not be too extraordinary to have a name for the strange strangers but none for yourself. The word for "people" (ἔθνος, not ἄνθρωπος) may in fact designate "foreigners" to the exclusion of normal people. The most famous example is, of course, Hebrew גוי "people" for the gentiles; another example is Lithuanian Tautà "Germany", Latvian tautas "foreigners" ~ tautà, tàuta "people". So we cannot assume a priori that the word for "people" would be automatically the word for "one's own people" as well. Yet, besides the čuždyj- (better: čužoj-) argument, I can find another argument in favour of your interpretation (I hope you appreciate my fairness), namely the verb *þeudian "interpret": German deuten, ONorse þýða, OEng. geþiedan "translate". Enkyklios 14:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have much of a dispute here. All I was pointing out was that seeing that they have a term for "non Germanic people" (Walha), it pretty much follows that they had a notion of "Germanic" vs. "non Germanic". So if walha meant "foreigners", what was the term for "non-foreigners"? Apparently the unmarked thiuda. It may be interesting that there appear to be people who have a marked term for "foreigners", and others that have a marked term for "us". I don't know what to conclude from this, though. The point of my edit was to fix a contradiction in the article, which seemed to assert that there was no word with the meaning of "thiuda" right after discussing "thiuda", and which went on about the recency of the "-isk" adjective, which was entirely beside the point. If you have a yet better way of phrasing it, by all means do. dab (ᛏ) 12:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Spanish a Germanic people?

Come on people. If this site is to be taken seriously you must be serious. I am Spanish and we have nothing in common with the Germanic peoples, except for the fact that we are all Europeans, of course. We are Latin and Mediterranean. To evoke the Wisigoths is the same as to claim that the Dutch are Spanish people because the Low Countries were part of the Spanish Empire. I see a lot suspicious comments in the discussion page. (unsigned coment by User:65.11.73.155)

• Yeah, we had a problem with someone a while back who felt he needed to keep adding Spaniards to the list of Germanic peoples which used to be here but is now at, interestingly enough List of Germanic peoples. I thought we had weeded all that out of the article. Did you see something in the article itself (not the talk page) which makes such a claim?--Hraefen 18:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Spaniards, while not culturally Germanic nor speak a Germanic language have Germanic realtives, so yeah they wouldnt be on the list of Germanic speaking peoples, but they are related to Germanic people ethically. I think many people confuse Germanic speakers/culture with being meaning you are Germanic, this is not always the case Spaniards. I am also a Spaniard, and althought most of us say we are Latin/Mediterranean this is almost never meant in terms ethic composition. Most of also say that at least in terms of our realtives we are all a mix of Mediterranean and Germanics. (24.60.161.63 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

XGustaX stop this misinformation campaign. You are not a Spaniard you are a swede from Argentina as is clearly stated in your personal page. I have just noticed the edit war you have created in the Spanish People Article. Why do you want to include us Spaniards in the Germanic peoples??? It sounds pretty insane to me.... we certainly dont look very Germanic. :-) --Guzman ramirez 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ALL Indo-European groups are somewhat realted. Spaniars are however deffinately NOT Germanic. They are Latin, what's this fuss about everyone wanting to be Germanic!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.85.181 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Removed two links, both clearly POV to say the least. But I am not too happy with the remaining two links either. The BBC link, while interesting, is really only relevant to the history of Britain and the other link listing European countries using Germanic languages isn't up to the level I would expect from Wikipedia. jax 07:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

The "Origin" section does not specifiy whether the temperature decrease in Scandanavia was in degrees Celsius or Fahrenheit. It would be nice if it linked to a more general article about climate change in that era. (After looking through some historical climate change articles, I'm not sure what the proper topic would be, or if a new article needs to be written about this time period.)

[edit] Decent

Many words in Spanish come from their genetically decents and other Germanic tribes also. I'm not sure what this means; it appears descent would be more in its place than decent. But it should probably be rephrased completely in a more understandable way. Piet 19:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• I did a rewrite and got rid of that whole line. I think it's much better now. Thanks for pointing that out. --Hraefen 15:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement of "Culture"

I think the hoaky list of tribal ancestors ought to just go away. If you click on Angul, for example, you get a disambiguation page leading back to Germanic peoples. Someone seems to be getting rid of the awful red links by linking them to anywhere. Then they have a nice blue color and it looks much better. Bad idea. Anyway, there isn't really much to say about a tribal ancestor, as the only thing you might know about him is his name, which is his raison d'etre. When in doubt, throw it out.

For ancient culture of course there is no one better than Tacitus. But when you start looking at the culture - lo and behold, it doesn't really differ from anyone else's culture. The Germans gambled. So did everyone else. They sacrificed humans. So did everyone else. They hated authority. So doesn't everyone, and so on and so on. I got an ear, you got an ear, I got a nose, you got a nose, etc. The only thing we might do there is make it specific: here is when the Germanics got interested in tribal alliances (just like everyone else), here is when they were unified into a nation (just like everyone else). The Germanic women were real great. So were the Celtic women. So were the Slavic women. Come to think of it, aren't women great! I had a mother and so did you and so did they and so did everyone. But, maybe they dressed a little differently. I suppose one might say something about Germanic women going to the battle with their men. Well gee golly, so didn't the Celtic women. And what do you know, both Greek and Roman armies had female camp followers. Gladiators had them by the score. I say, this mystique about the Germanic culture is the biggest bunch of malarky I ever saw. Let's get superman out of here.

So what do we put in? How about the sort of thing anthropologists would put in: some customs, a little ideology, you know, here is how we do things among the Angles, but the Goths do it a little differently (if they do). Who had what runes and when. Who was converted to Christianity (if they were) and how and when. It is going to have to be very general and that is part of the problem. Culture history of several hundred million people in seven paragraphs. Bunk. Would you consider just excising this subsection?Dave 04:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I don't really care much about genetics (unless people use it to claim a country isn't, say, Germanic) and as much as I believe in one race I don't think this subsection needs much of a . Why should we excise the subsection? Germanic culture is wonderful as is Gaelic. There is a Gaelic subsection also.

Cultures need there own sections to group together all the subcultures that belong to them (e.g. Gothic subculture in the case of Germanic culture). King Óðinn The Aesir 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How big were Germanic tribes?

I am reading a fiction book set in Gaul at the time of Julius Caesar, allegedly based on historical sources, that claimed that ‘a Germanic nation’ of 250,000 men, women and children crossed the Rhine (I assume this was based on/was the Suebi led by Ariovistus). That made me wonder how big these Germanic tribes were. Obviously there are few reliable historical accounts and tribes would have been of different sizes, but I was wondering if anyone has ever come across any historian making an estimate.Chwyatt 13:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

that's sounds like a rather tall order. World population in those days was at ca. 200 million, so that would amount to more than 0.1% of the world's population crossing the Rhine. Entire peoples could measure of the order of 200,000, (e.g. the entire Etruscan civilization) but individual tribes were more likely of the order of several 10,000s at most. Confederations of tribes could still reach more than 100,000: Caesar says that the Helvetii consisted of 370,000 souls, but that might also be an over-estimation. The Teutones also hit the road numbering more than 100,000 (again according to Roman sources, which might be exaggerated). Your 250,000 sound thus authentic for a Roman estimate of dubious reliability :) dab (ᛏ) 14:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Julius Caesar certainly liked to tell a tall story for his own self-aggrandisement Chwyatt 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austrians

anon, you seem to be confusing Germanic and German. Austrians may not be the latter, but they are certainly the former. dab (ᛏ) 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Anon 195.34.133.60 if you continue with you actions without paying attention to what others say you are a vandal... The Ogre 15:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

My watchlist is going crazy over this, so I have to jump in here. Anon 195.34.133.60, this article defines "Germanic" as "people speaking Germanic languages." As Austrians do speak a Germanic language, they are in fact Germanic as defined by this article. No one is calling Austrians "German," so don't take such umbrage over this. --TurabianNights 15:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caption: Pagan?

• The caption for the first picture describes Thor as a pagan god. I realize that many, if not most, intellectual/academic circles, regardless of their religious beliefs, have come to accept the use of pagan as meaning not Christian, possibly out of convenience. But let's not forget that this term (along with heathen, which shares a very similar sense development) was at best, mildly offensive to start with (cf. ModE country bumpkin, hick), and grew to become undoubtedly derogatory. I obviously have a strong opinion on this, but it's my contention that using the word pagan here is a POV. So can we just say that Thor was a god (without a qualifying adjective) and let the reader decide for himself whether he was/is any more or less civilized, real or worthy than any other supposed god? Any thoughts?--Hraefen 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you are being a bit oversensitive about it, but I don't have any problems with "Germanic," as that is the idea we are trying to communicate anyway.--TurabianNights 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of the Word German

Do people really think Caesar (Romans) would have been so stupid as to use a name for the germans that so easely could have been misunderstood by the roman populus?

Norwegians, danes and swedes still call eachother brother-people (broderfolk (s)- brødrefolk (pl)), and see eachother as having the same origins and culture.

The romans didn't have to see them as their own brother people to name them so, because the different germanic people probably saw themselves as brother people and as having the same origins as the other germanic tribes.

The germans were a category of people who called eachother "brother poeple" and spoke the same language.

The Nazis probably said that the romans called the germans germans because they saw them as having the same source as the romans, alas all the weird PC etymological explanations refuting the obvious explanation.

   sverre - norway

I am a bit puzzled about the etymologic explanations in this article.

Being German myself, I learnt 30 years ago (possibly outdated?) that German stems from ger or gar (a short spear, main weapon of the Germanic warriors) and manus (Latin for hand). Thus the Germans are those holding a spear in their hands (in contrast to the Romans armed with shield and sword).

The name Edgar, for instance, means "the one who holds the spear".

Has this explanation been proven wrong or shouldn't it at least be mentioned?

karvajalka 22:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A hybrid compound of a Germanic noun and a Latin noun is rather unlikely, and compounds of two nouns are unusual in Latin anyway.

The etymology is also improbable phonologically. The ethnonym Germānus has a long ā, whereas the Latin noun mănus has a short ă. Furthermore, in the first century BC, the Germanic noun was pronounced *gaiza-, and the voiced z did not become r until much later. As a matter of fact, the Germanic word, or more likely a Celtic cognate, was indeed borrowed into Latin in the form of gaesum (e.g. Caesar, BG 3.4.2, Vergil, Aen. 8.662 gaesa manu!). So, the compound should have been *Gaesĭmănī (like ūnĭmănus "one-handed").

The other conceivable possiblity, a native compound of *gaiza- and, say, *manna- "man", i.e. *Gaizamanna- "spear-men", is perfectly acceptable from the point of view of Germanic word formation. It cannot, however, be the basis of the Latin form Germānī. It would amost certainly have become something like *Gaesomăn(n)ī in Latin; cf. *Markamanna- "border men" > Marcomăn(n)ī (the short ă being confirmed by Statius, Silvae 3.3.170).

Enkyklios 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't the word 'German' come from the word 'Herman' (wich, as I think I remember, meant something like friend or brother)? Allthough I have to agree that it looks a bit like popular ethymology. Anyone cares to shine his or her proper philological light on it? Krastain 11:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self name of tribes

The word "Apparently" in the last paragraph on the etymology of German disturbs me a bit. According to all what I have read it was indeed so that the tribes had initally no notion of being related to each other or belonging to a bigger group of tribes. The definition of a stranger (in absence of a bigger picture in historic, geographic and ethnologic terms) was necessarily based on the question whether or not you understood the other. The Slavs, for example, called everyone they could understand slav, i.e. (talking) straight, whereas all whom they couldn't understand were called nemec (meaning German today).

Further, isn't the word Dutch just an imitation of the sound Deutsch used by someone who mistook people from the Low Lands with Germans as the two languages sounded so similar and one didn't understand the one nor the other? That's what I always believed: the word Dutch as a result of an ignorant misunderstanding.

karvajalka 23:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that the word "Dutch" was simply what all continental Germanic peoples called themselves, and that for some reason in English, the term stuck only to the people of the Netherlands (and the Pennsylvania Dutch). john k 08:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bavarian / Alemannic

"The most difficult of these to define is "Germans", with quasi-ethnic subgroups like Bavarians (who "ethnically" could be considered Austro-Bavarian) or Swabians ("ethnically" Alemannic). "

This is nonsense. Austro-Bavarian means ethnically Bavarians but living in Austria (the majority of the Austrians) and the Alemanni are a Germanic tribe. The Germans are a federation of Germanic tribes e.g. Saxons, Thuringi, Alemanni, Hessians, Bavarians, Franks etc.

'The' Germans weren't (and still aren't) a federation of Germanic tribes. The moment the Germans (Deutschers) united there were no more tribes.

Surely the Bavarians were originally the Celtic Boii, or am I mistaken? Gabhala 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking Bavaria for Bohemia. But, still you are right, and wrong too. First; 'Bavarians' wasn't the name of a distinct people (allthough it is today), but rather a name that indicates that they come from Bavaria. Second; Celts lived in the whole of Southern Germany at one time, but before them and after them others lived there, so I don't think you can say that 'Bavarians' originally were Celts. Krastain 12:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

When it comes to listing ethnic groups from the British isles here as being Germanic peoples one must be cautious. All peoples native to the British isles speak English. English evolved in Britain and was brought to Ireland by the Normans. The Angle settlers of Scotland introduced the language to Scotland when it was introduced to England and Teuton settlers also brought it to Wales although conquest by England cemented it. This is all known history. Some people in Britain speak Celtic languages as a first language too. Celtic languages are spoken in Scotland, English, Ireland and Wales. Yes, England too and not just Cornish. The majority of all peoples in these countries speak English as a first language. Culturally, the people of Britain share the same culture which is almost identical in Ireland. The only differences are regional and affect all national entities of the British isles, or are political. To say that Wales has a Celtic culture and England a Germanic one for example is repeating what one has heard but doesn't hold true. That's why I think it is very difficult to list peoples as being 'Germanic' simply because they speak a Germanic language. The English, Scottish and Welsh are British peoples and the Irish are Irish. The Celtic nations are classified as such for one reason and one alone: they possess a Celtic language. The people of these countries aren't thus 'Celts' anymore than the English are 'Germanic' or 'Anglo-Saxons'.

In the article there is a category for Germanic peoples. This should be changed to Germanic languages. Germanic cultures would even be better but even then it is still controversial as no doubt England would be listed, some clueless person would put Scotland and state 'mix of Gaelic and Germanic' and omit Wales as being 'Celtic'. What differences exist in the popular culture of these countries would be hard pressed to point out.

There needs to be a lot more thought in these articles and a lot more discussion on the talk page. What we might like to believe isn't always actual truth and I'd hate to see Wikipedia be the source of more 'Braveheart' history. Enzedbrit 09:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Enzedbrit, why are you saying that this is misleading?

• Saxon hordes ousted Celts Men living in Wales are genetically distinct from men living in England. (Report on a study by Mike Weale et al.)

Please provide sources for your statement. All I can find on the page for English people is the following research report:

• A Y Chromosome Census of the British Isles; Cristian Capelli, Nicola Redhead, Julia K. Abernethy, Fiona Gratrix, James F. Wilson, Torolf Moen, Tor Hervig, Martin Richards, Michael P. H. Stumpf, Peter A. Underhill, Paul Bradshaw, Alom Shaha, Mark G. Thomas, Neal Bradman, and David B. Goldstein Current Biology, Volume 13, Issue 11, Pages 979-984 (2003). Retrieved 6 December 2005.

Whose relevant conclusion is that Quote:

The detailed sampling scheme used here identified other previously unknown regional patterns in the degree of continental input. For example, the Central-Eastern part of England experienced the most continental introgression. In addition, our inclusion of samples from Wales additional to those of Weale et al. [7] indicates that the transition between England and Wales is somewhat gradual, which was not visible in the samples analyzed in the Weale et al. study

--Stor stark7 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The article 'Saxon Hoards Ousted Celts' from the same source as the BBC 'The English and Welsh are Races apart' is based on the research released in 2002. The Y Chromosome analysis is one piece and there are others and my not listing them here doesn't negate that they exist or detract from my argument but at this time I'm rushed and haven't the time but I can do it later. The approach that you had taken is wrong because you say 'Celtic origin of the Welsh' and 'Germanic origin of the English' and that is wrong fundamentally because Celtic and Anglo-Saxon are primarily linguistic categorisations and using the term 'Celtic' to be racial is largely avoided by historians and modern scholars. The Welsh are not a 'Celtic' race nor are the English 'Germanic' and the two are not mutually distinct in terms of culture or blood. Both the Welsh and the English are of British origins - we are British peoples, we are British people. It's not complex. We all speak English, most of us as a first language, and we are all descended primarily from the same aboriginal inhabitants of our island. Simple stuff. English is associated with England and that fact alone is why England is listed as a Germanic country and Wales isn't because the Welsh language is Celtic. To keep the article as you had it before shows a lack of understanding about British history and leans to a bias of Welsh or English racial nationalism which seeks a greater autonomy based on racial division. That isn't reality and is based on Victorian period ideals of racial purity in which those of powerful English and lowland Scottish society sought this as a truth. Even my saying that is somewhat fancifully based on what was a contemporary reality but is far more accurate than 'English are Germanic, Welsh are Celts'. A genetic analysis of the population of England and Wales shows that really there isn't much difference at all except for a few exceptional circumstances in areas largely untouched by invasion, or subject to repetitive invasions. Example: much of western England remains largely untouched by invading armies, many samples from north Wales show a very 'pure' link to our earliest ancestors, and Cumbri and the north west of England shows what could be termed 'Viking' influence, not Anglo-Saxon. The difference between what is English and Welsh is based on a cultural domination by a powerful ruling class subjugating the native people as is believed to have happened by the Celts over the pre-Celtic ancient Britons and by the Normans over the English speaking Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, Scotland and Wales 1,500-2,000 years later, and as American culture is doing now it can be said. Enzedbrit 05:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph did not make any sense whatsoever and greatly misinterprets and overvalues one or two unreliable studies of population genetics. Your opinion is greatly misguided on this topic and the differences between the peoples of Britain isnt merely national, it is obviously ethnic as well. There is nothing in the studies which state that people in Cumbria or Western England don't have any Anglo-Saxon ancestry, just that it is less than that found in Eastern England. The genetic analysis in fact does show differences between Welsh and English and in fact a significant similarity between Cornish and Welsh. Not that this matters since this is only ONE study based on Y-chromosome data only, ignoring numerous other bloodlines of our genetic genealogy and its findings are also contradicted by a different study carried out only a few months earlier. 69.157.126.88 03:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It makes lots of sense and misinterprets nothing. My opinion is anything BUT misguided. You are the one that is misguided and I base that confidently on your comment that Brythonic culture in England is all but gone apart from in Cornwall - what a bigoted piece of rubbish! Clearly you know nothing about what 'Brythonic' means and to say it remains only in Cornwall buys into fanciful thinking yet not into reality. What do you even mean by that? Such a comment flies in the face of my entire up bringing. I can't understand your ignorance. Also, there is nothing 'obviously ethnic' about the differences among the people of Britain - where did THAT come from? I also didn't say that there is no 'Anglo-Saxon' heritage in Cumbria, but that the heritage is Viking, not Anglo-Saxon, and history records that the Britons of this area repelled the Angles. There is NO evidence that shows the English and the Welsh are different, and the Welsh and Cornish are similar and not to the English at all. Any research that says this has been unproven and/or surpassed. What is proven is that the British are predominately ancient Briton. The study a few months earlier to the Y chromosome study you speak of has been disproven and is absolute rubbish as to work it would imply that there is no migration between England and Wales and migration between these two countries has always been as frequent as that within these two countries. What has kept the British so relatively homogenous is the fact that we are an island nation.

Your opinions might get you a lot of applause with the handful of Cornish nationalists in this world, and nowhere else. Enzedbrit 09:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What another pitiful discourse with no academic grounding. First and foremost, the study by Weale has by no means been "disproven" or discredited since only one other subsequent (and equally unreliable) Y-chromosome study has been carried out. How is that comment about Brythonic culture in England "bigoted rubbish" ? Do you even know what bigot means ? Please do tell me what elements of Brythonic culture remain in Enlish society ? There is barely any, even in places like Cumbria. What little that does remain, if you can point such out to me, still isnt anything on the level with that found in Cornwall, where the only surviving variant of a Brythonic language in England has persisted (even if by only a few thousand speakers). You are in fact ignorant to say that there are no ethnic cleavages within the peoples of Britain as most will obviously disagree with you on this fact. Whether going by inconclusive Y-chromosome studies or not, there is still evidence of some differing genealogies between the peoples of Britain and they are by no means ethnically or culturally "one unified people". The heritage in Cumbria does have a significant Viking element, like the rest of Northern as well as Eastern England (although Norwegian Vikings also settled there, not merely Danish), but the area was controlled by the Anglian Kingdom of Northumbria before the area became controlled under the Danelaw. In any case, after the Viking age, there was much migration into and out of Cumbria from other areas of England which would have brought in other Anglo-Saxon bloodlines. As with regards to the English and Welsh, there is no evidence saying that they are not ethnically different either. I did not mean to say that the English and Welsh are completely distinct from each other since they obviously do share much of their origins in common, but they do have some differing ethnic elements as well. The Welsh on the whole trace their origins to Brythonic celts (the level of Celtic migration to the isles is highly disputed and unknown) and pre-celtic peoples (Paleolithic; Neolithic hunter-gatherers) but have had very minimal Germanic influence, and any such influence may be in fact due to much more recent migrations of English people into Wales. There was barely any Viking settlement in Wales (mainly in Pembrokeshire), if any at all, and if the culture of the Anglo-Saxons never spread into Wales, it is highly unlikely any settled there in significant numbers as they did in England. The Y-chrom. studies carried out point out to an "ancient British" paternal element (although the study itself does not conclude what and when this is referring to, whether Celtic/Iron-Age, Neolithic, Paleolithic, etc.) that is found across Britain, but is more common in Wales and the Western regions of England than in the east. The peoples of Britain do retain their relatively homogoenous origins, but this is not merely because of island isolation, especially when Britain has seen the migration and settlement of many types of people (Neolithic and Bronze-Age invaders, Iron-Age Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings have all left a demographic impact). Although an island, it has a very close proximity to the continent and the sea has historically shown to have not been a barrier to migrations with many peoples arriving by sea, from the Neolithic hunter-gatherers to Norwegian and Danish Vikings. Also, many continental peoples in Europe and elsewhere have a much higher degree of ethnic and cultural homogeneity, especially in the east (eg. the peopels of the Balkans), which goes to show that the level of homogeneity is not merely because of geographical factors, but also (if not more so) socio-cultural ones. Whatever your "upbringing", I do not see how the fact that the English have barely any Brythonic or Celtic cultural elements would fly in its face. I do not intend to carry this on much further as I have read some of your earlier discussions with other users and clearly you have some unfounded opinions when it comes to ethnographic articles, especially in regards to the peoples of Britain. This is easily shown by your over-reliance on one study (itself which admits to be not fully conclusive in any form) from only one fraction of our paternal bloodline, let alone the rest of our genealogy (including autosomal DNA, X-chromosome, MtDNA, etc.) 69.157.126.88 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Assimilated Germanic peoples"

Why do I recall reading from a Wikipedia article about the Irish, Finns, etc. being classified as "assimilated Germanic peoples" while recently when I tried to find information about it from Wikipedia I failed to do so. Am I remembering wrong or have all references to assimilated Germanic peoples been deleted from Wikipedia? I'm getting a 1984-kind of feeling here... --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a strange term to me - either a people is classed as Germanic or it isn't, and even then the term is being misused I believe. Are not all people 'Germanic' by 'assimilation'? The Irish were 'assimilated' by Anglo-Normans who brought the Germanic middle-English language to Ireland, a language that over time became the dominant language of that island. But the old English language was brought to England by Angle, Saxon and Jutish tribes from Europe which, over time, became the dominant language of Britain too. What's the difference? If one responds, think carefully before you do. Enzedbrit 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "assimilated Germanic peoples" seems to suggest that the Germanicity or non-Germanicity of an individual is racial rather than linguistic; to my mind, this is a dangerous road to follow. Any person who speaks a Germanic language as his first language is one hundred percent Germanic, whether he is black or white, Irish or Jutish, Christian or Jew. A black Moslem born in the US is not any less Germanic than I, a blond and blue-eyed Christian born in Denmark. The only difference is that virtually all my ancestors were Germanic for the last 2,000 years (I suppose). But as Enzedbrit points out, all Germanic people are assimilated ultimately. I have no idea what language my genetic ancestors spoke 6,500 years ago, but I am quite sure that it was not Germanic and probably even not Indo-European. Enkyklios 09:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Enzedbrit and Enkyklios. I think I remembered wrong, although I'm still puzzled over the whole thing. Yes, I do mean it in a racial, not lingual, sense. For example, Finns would be considered an assimilated Germanic people because they would have both Germanic and non-Germanic genes, as they do, and the same would go to the Irish. They wouldn't be "100% Germanic" like Swedes or the English, for example. I could've sworn I've heard a theory like that somewhere.

I digress now, but it seems like we are living in a Victorian age when it comes to race, the whole thing is a taboo like sex and sexuality were in the Victorian times. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 17:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept of race may have become a taboo, but for good reasons, though! One cannot possibly isolate "Germanic genes", i.e. genes which are typical of the Germanic-speaking individuals and untypical in other individuals. There is, of course, a genetic variation within our species, and one should not ignore this variation out of racial bigotry. However, one should be careful not to make unscientific assumptions about the continuity of a link between a certain genotype and a certain ethnicity. The ancient Germanic peoples were perhaps, as Tacitus puts it, sui similes, but it is not true for the modern Germanic peoples: The English-speaking nations are very diverse genetically. The German and Scandinavian nations do not consist entirely of blue-eyed fair-haired men and women, either.

One may phrase your point differently - more PC, but also more in accordance with reality: The people inhabiting Ireland and Finland have among their ancestors not only people speaking Celtic and Finnish respectively, but also, to some extent, people speaking Germanic dialects (e.g. Viking immigrants). At the same time, on the other hand, Germanic dialects have been adopted by the Celtic- and Finnish-speaking people - and much more successfully so in Ireland than in Finland.

We must, however, acknowledge that for most people language is not the only constituent of ethnic identity. Even though most Irish speak English as their first and only language, I suspect that they consider themselves "Celtic". Many of them believe in some sort of ethnic continuity from the old Celtic culture until the present day. Although this belief is "unscientific", it is still a fact which must be considered by scholars. Enkyklios 08:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing though - every nation in Europe will retain, in varying degrees, genetic continuity to the aboriginal inhabitants of their lands. Culture and language is fluid but unless you have massive ethnic cleansing, it's a lot harder to change race or blood. Enzedbrit 23:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very enlightening and I agree with everything you said. Of course no one can assume that people represent purely one ethnicity, we all are a special mixture of our own. I find the "related ethnic groups" section in each infobox in articles about peoples very misleading because you could easily assume that everyone who belongs to that people is related to those "related" peoples. That may be a childish way think about it but people who search for knowledge from Wikipedia are far from experts. --TonyM ^{ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!!} 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that all 'related ethnic group' sections should be removed. Enzedbrit 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So whether 'genetically' Germanic or not. The English are a Germanic people! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

No, they're not. How do you justify this? What is your reasoning? Enzedbrit 11:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm...how about the fact of their language, culture, folklore, traditions, and the fact England was founded by Germanic tribes (hence England did not exist until a certain point of time called the 'Early Middle Ages' (or Dark Age to the undereducated in the field).

How can you justify they are not a Germanic people? Because of genetics? That is a very narrow, out-dated and dare I say dangerous attitude for someone to have in this day and age.

Read up on the subject and you will find that the English are ethnically Teutonic/Germanic...though genetically mixed like ALL the peoples of Europe. There are no Human races...but one 'Human Race'. Sigurd Dragon Slayer 08:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK

Some points that perhaps need to be debated to reach a suitable agreement for the article are on England and the dialect of the north east. Geordie is an accent and it's usually taken by those from the north east to be that of Tyneside, with other parts having their own accents such as Makem, Pitmatic, Northumberland, etc. The dialect of the north east is identifiable and is referred to by some even as a language similar to Scots. This 'language' is Northumbrian, and there are websites dedicated to preserving it and articling it. Geordie is also taken as a name for the dialect. Of course, some will be testy about this and find offence, as we're so easily offended these days aren't we, and say that they resent Tyneside speak being the designated name for the whole region's language, but that's a reality: Geordie IS taken to be a name for the dialect.

England is not as a whole, or the north east more specifically, taken to be Germanic. The Y chromosome analysis showed that in parts of England and Scotland, the Germanic ethnic imput into the British blood line is quite strong at over half of the heritage of many people in certain areas. The underlying factor of all people of Britain is that our genetic heritage is predominately ancient Briton, or aboriginal (indigenous). This of course upsets many people - Scottish and Welsh nationalists don't like it because it means that they are no different genetically to English people, and a lot of English people don't like it because they want England to be a Germanic nation of Germanic blood. I think that the truth is quite nice, although I'm not surprised that so much emphasis is placed on a Germanic heritage because even though our aboriginal heritage is much stronger, we speak a Germanic language and our Brythonic languages have all died off apart from Cornish. Although, Cumbric is being slowly revived by many.

If the north east of England/Northumbria/Bernicia, is to be considered by some contributors to this article as Germanic, then as an identifiable region of England it could be added as a subsection and debated with relevance, but blood is not going to be a linking factor, as by blood, the English just aren't Germanic. But then again, ethnicity isn't about genetics, it's about culture, language and self-identity. Enzedbrit 10:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are wrong on both counts. Northumbrian is a different dialect to Geordie as you have said. The other dialects from the area are Makem and Pitmatic. Northumbrian being the accent that is common in the larger part of 'Northumberland'. I being from Northumberland myself actually know what I am talking about. If you live in rural Northumberland, bearing in mind that the shire (as Northumberland is a shire county) is mostly rural, you would have a different dialect to someone from Newcastle, Prudhoe, or Gateshead, as the inhabitants of these places generally speak with a Geordie accent. Also no serious linguist would call all these *different* dialects Geordie. I have heard them grouped as Northumbrian dialects but not Geordie dialects. Calling them Northumbrian is correct for two reasons, one being that all these dialects come from the area that is known as Northumbria (That is Northumberland, Durham, Newcastle...etc..). And as I say, I am from the North East, and from experience people do not consider their dialect 'Geordie' unless they are from Newcastle, Gateshead, Prudhoe...etc...if they are from say Hexham they speak 'Northumbrian'.

On the other point you are mistake. England (though not the whole UK) can be (rightly) called a Germanic nation. It is true blood is not the deciding factor as you say (though it is connected in some ways), however traditions, language, laws and history are! England was of course founded by...you guessed it Germanic tribes (whether they are the predominant DNA is besides the point. These tribes were the Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians. You can't deny this as before the English kingdoms, England did not exist. Our language is obviously Germanic (though it has borrowed from other languages over the centuries, it is still West Germanic). Most of our common traditions, such as Yule (Yule itself is a Germanic Word, derived from the Norse Jul) are Germanic, the eating of a Christmas Ham, Mistletoe, Christmas trees, Yule Logs...etc…are all Germanic. Many of our laws come direct from Anglo-Saxon and Danish laws, though I agree many were modified by the Normans, who though descended from Norwegians are not culturally Germanic. As for self-identity, I would say that the English identify themselves with Germanic culture, albeit in a subliminal way, for example the fact that they use Anglo-Saxon to describe themselves is an indication of this. They are identifying with tribes that were Danish and Northern German and thus Germanic so on that score yes the English are a Germanic people.

And as you bring up DNA casually, then firstly I will point out that it isn't proven either way whether the Anglo-Saxon DNA is more prominent or whether the British (used in this sense as pre-Anglo-Saxon) is. Different surveys have different results, and none have actually been accepted by all experts. And for the most part many of the newer surveys still show that in the North East of England the Germanic percentage is higher than the British (thus the predominant DNA is Germanic), the main problem is that it cannot be determined whether it is Anglo-Saxon or Danish "Viking" blood, but this does not make any difference to whether the blood is Germanic. I don't care whether the Modern English have British or Anglo-Saxon blood as I am partly Norse-Gaelic and partly 'English'...thus being a mix. I just do think that the Anglo-Saxon blood is prominent as do many experts, in North Eastern England.

Either way Germanic Blood or British Blood...the English are ethnically Germanic.

Note: I am not going to lie and say I am not proud of Germanic Culture as it is obvious (especially by my username), but I do consider myself British as the UK isn't about one ethnicity or culture but about the union of many and I am proud of that also. And by the way there is a good case for Northumbria being one of the more Germanic parts, due in a large part to it's folklore especially it's creatures, that include Dvergar (Which they are actually called...they are Dwarves) and Álfar or more correctly Ælfe (as they are in Old English), who are known by the common English word Elf, but are the older and if I may say more correct type. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

• I'm also from the north east, so we're in a fix aren't we. I'm really sorry too, because you've accused me of an anti-Germanic bias, and the rest of what you said is quite way off anything sensible. Please, be a Germanic person - whatever that is - but don't rope anyone else in with it. The north east of England is completely, totally and uniquely British, which is all it ever has been, and all it ever will be. Enzedbrit 11:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What the heck, Enzedbrit! The North East of England has one of the highest percentages of Germanic blood and is one of the most culturally places in England. You obviously don't know much about the place.

As Sigurd pointed out, the folklore of Northumbria is very Germanic with the Dwarves, the Elves, the Fafnir-esque Dragon (the Worm of Bamburgh) etc. Also, almost all the place names are Germanic (Bamburgh, Falstone, Rothbury etc...). Are you even a Northumbrian? King Óðinn The Aesir 20:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates?

Are there any templates for ancient Germanic cultures? If not, someone (who knows what they're doing) needs to create: an overall template for ancient Germanic cultures; a template for each individual ancient Germanic culture. 66.229.160.94 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swe-des

hm, Rex, Swede is actually (indirectly) derived from Sweo-ðeod, and thus the -de- indeed continues the thiuth element. I agree that it is not a particularly useful example, but it isn't right to shout at the anon when he is actually right. dab (ᛏ) 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you misunderstood the claim to refer to walha, but this is because you didn't read properly: we are clearly discussing the "self-designation", viz. thiuth. You should try to read more carefully before engaging in revert-wars. I suppose it is alright to revert to the anon's version then. dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

He reverted me, even when I made it explicit[2] and [3]. Anon.

I'm sorry, yes I thougt it a person tried to like Swedes to Walha.My apologies Rex 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

no harm done, that's why we have talk pages :) dab (ᛏ) 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It makes little sense, and there is at any rate no evidence to be offered for the theory that Swede is either directly or indirectly derived from the Old English term Sweoðeod for the simple reason that the form Swede appears very late in English history, with a 600 year gap between the end of the era in which Sweoðeod was used (attested in Beowulf ca. 1000 and in the Peterborough Chronicle ca. 1025) and the era in which Swede finally appears in English (the OED2 provides "1644 more victories obtained by the Sweads against the king of Denmarke."). It makes far more sense that MnE Swede and Sweden would have derived from another Germanic language in which the Swede form is indeed attested throughout this period (the OED2 provides MDutch Swede and HG Schwede), than that it would be derived from an OE term over 600 years dead. At any rate, any particular origin for MnE Swede is pure conjecture. If what we're looking for here is a good example of an ethnic group or region identified by a cognate of the ðeod moniker, this is about as bad an example as one could choose, with many better examples available, given the lack of any certainty as to where MnE Swede originates and the sheer number of alternative examples which are far more certain. --Yst 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, that, in a nutshell, is what I meant by "indirectly". I agree that the example is not very good, and this not being the Swedes article, quite irrelevant, since there are much better examples. I'm glad we've had this talk :) dab (ᛏ) 19:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Pan-Slavic POV

I removed the passage saying the Germanic tribes of Rugii, Silingi, Lugii and Gotones in "southwestern Poland" were probably Slavic. That's a nationalist perversion of History. Even central parts of modern Polish Republic were Slavic before 300-400 AD, as the Germanic tribe of the Burgundians, certainly Germanic, lived there and later resettled in Gallia (France). The Franks are also often presumed to be originally from the Oder and Vistula region. Slavics may consider the GDR-region (1945-1989) to be historically Slavic, as from 500 until 1000-1100 AD it was firmly Slavic, and the Bautzen region still is Sorbic-Slavic. But we are not rewriting territorial Polish history to again support the ridiculous Polish-nationalist claims upon present western Poland as "always Polish land". That's the same nonsense the Nazis engaged in. While the Baltic Old Prussians were always in the later East Prussia and certainly in the Memel Territory, they chanted in 1939 that it was "ewig, ewig, ewig deutsches Land". I reject such ahistorical perversions to fit into nationalist pictures. Germanics controlled virtually entire modern Polish territory until about 400 AD. That's a fact. That's a thing you can't deny. And from 1300 to 1945 most of modern western and northern Poland was firmly Germanically influenced once again (Hanseatic League). Basta. Magna est veritas, et praevalet.Smith2006 12:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I sympathize with your point in general, but far from "fact. basta.", it cannot be ruled out that some of the tribes listed as "Germanic" by Tacitus were in fact Proto-Slavic tribes. We simply don't know, and it is only fair to mention the possibility. I wouldn't go as far as saying "probably Slavic" in any case. dab (ᛏ) 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

From my research, proto-Balto-Slavs originally were sourced in the southeastern areas of present day Poland, and Slovakia. Germanic people seemed to definitely be just north west of that, since Celts, Germans and Balto-Slavs seemed to split prior to that. Roman times in Europe would be quite late after much possible migratory change, as seems par for course in those times. I think both groups, Poles and Germans (Bieguny et Deutsche), may one day eventually have to learn to live with that fact their original homelands were very close to each other (and were the same people not too long before that). Nonprof. Frinkus 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Saxons?

As the Anglo Saxon, mostly descendants of the Saxons, Angels, and Juted are a Germanic people as well, shouldn't they have a seperate bullet point in the Culture section. (Despite the fact that they descend from other peoples already listed there)? Best Regards, Signature^brendel 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

I have removed the following section as it discusses the distribution of haplogroups in the modern German population, and consequently is more relevant on the article on Germans.

The Y chromosone evidence shows that the present day German population comprises 45% R1b , 18% I, 12% R1a, 8% E3b, 8% J and 6% G haplogroups. Briefly this can be summarised as 63% (R1b & I) representing the late paleolithic inhabitants of Europe, 12% (R1a) from later intrusions (ca 6,000 to 8,000 years BP) from the Asian steppes and the balance largely from agricultural migrants from the Middle East (E3b, G and J) dating from 8,000 years BP. Hence the population mix of the Germanic tribes is complex. The above is not to be confused with the following interpretation based on the tribes known to exist in historical times.

The contributor seems to believe that the frequency of different haplogroups in modern Germany can shed light on Germanic migrations between 1300BC and 1BC, and I disagree.--Berig 12:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)´

[edit] "Historically linked"

Sometimes careful wording can simply be "too much". In this edit I reverted a description of the Germanic tribes as "historically linked" to Northern Europe. AFAIK, the precursors were not even called "Germanic" before living in Northern Europe, but Corded Ware culture or Proto-Indo-European, or whatever.--Berig 17:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Still it is untrue to say "originating in" nobody knows where they originated or even what is meant by originating in a place. There were other people living in northern europe at the time when germanic tribes arrived there and made it their place of origin. Using this word misrepresent facts. Also we the proto-germanic tribes were already an ethnic group speaking the proto germanic language when they left central asia or wherever the PIE urheimat is. While I do see that "historically linked to" is a very weak statement it is about as strong a statement about the connection of the germanic peoples to northern europe can be stated without overstatement. How about we write "who have inhabited northern Europe in historical times"? how does that s trike you?Maunus 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To me your original statement seems like stating that Slavic peoples are historically linked to Eastern Europe, or that Bantu peoples are historically linked to Central Africa, that Austronesian peoples are historically linked to south-eastern Asia. You simply make the statements about their origins so watered down so as to be virtually without content. AFAIK, the existence of "Germanic peoples" is linked to the existence of Germanic languages. This means that we can not claim that there were any "Germanic peoples" prior to the appearance of Proto-Germanic. I think we simply disagree on the temporal scope of "Germanic". You appear to use "Germanic" as covering all the time since the Proto-Indo-Europeans expanded from the Ukraine, Central Asia, Anatolia or India, or wherever your preferred place of origin is. Your new suggestion "who have inhabited northern Europe in historical times" has to include North America, Australia and many other places in this world.--Berig 18:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do disagree about the temporal scope because all data points towards thinking that the different IE branches already were represented by different dialects when the first indoeeuropeans started moving out of their homeland and so proto germanic was already spoken at that time a long way from northern europe. But we also disagreee about the meaningfulness of describing a people as having "origins" in a place. Any way it is incorrect to say that the germanic people "originated in northern eeurope" because they didn't just appear there out of nothing - they obviously came from somewhere else. They didn't arrive in northern europe saying "ok, now we finally got here - now we are germanic". Other ways of stating it that are informative without misrepresenting fact might be if we write "who have historically claimed origins in", "who historically have been associated with", "who have inhabited northern europe since approximately 2000BC" "who have inhabited northern Europe since early historical times" or someother way that doesn't state them as "originating". The way it is now it reads selfcontradictory that one line says "originating in" and the next says "spread throughout europe".Maunus 19:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here. I strongly doubt that you should label the pre-historic wave of migrants who arrived in Northern Europe "Germanic" because we known nothing about wether they were the linguistic ancestors of "only" the Germanic languages, or the linguistic ancestors of both Germanic and some other Indo-European languages, such as Baltic, Celtic and Slavic languages. With the way of reasoning you present here, Africa is the cradle of the Germanic peoples, as all of humanity is believed to originate there ultimately.--Berig 19:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would be the only placee I would name as "place of origin", beecause saying it about other places is simply not scientifically sound.Maunus 19:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

And besides, the Indo-European people who migrated into Northern Europe didn't speak Germanic yet. (yes, I am a strong believer of the Germanic substrate hypothesis).

[edit] Recent onomastic research

An anonymous user has repeatedly inserted the following text:

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

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

[edit] Wrong etymology

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

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

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

[edit] People vs. Peoples

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

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

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

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

[edit] da

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

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

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

[edit] Rokus01's changes and possible OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Removal of unsourced Out-of-Scandinavian bias

Any scholar that agree to this theory as if Germanic was taught by North Germanics to some obscure tribes located within the nordwestblock, should have an answer to recent investigation showing the first attested traces of Germanic within this region did obviously not derive from North Germanic. Worse, reading this [4] (The West Germanic hypothesis) you would realize an already differentiated West Germanic already existed. Culturally these tribes were very different from the Germanic tribes of Scandinavia, maybe even appearing "Celtic". Indeed some Celtic words have been borrowed by West Germanics, but this rather points to Celtic influences on a Germanic-like substratum instead to Celts being germanized by North Germanics. Actually, if insisted, the theorized "intermediate language" between the Germanics to the North and Celts to the south could easily be any kind of proto-West germanic, at least north of the Rhine, with the Belgae to the south another member of this theorized indo-european language continuum or Sprachbund. Not any other indo-european or other group of languages has been attested in this region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Northern Bronze Age or Nordic Bronze Age?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Britannica represents proper English language better than Montelius and they were right to change the nomer originally coined in another languages to a more concise and less tainted English equivalent. I just wish Wikipedia would follow this example. By the way, I think you missed my reasons for equating the majority of the (first) Germani known to Romans to West Germanics. Some recent investigations could establish this as a fact and apply this knowledge to a working model. North Germanic (Nordic) is just not generic enough to represent the Germanic lexicon of those traditional Germani: we are really talking about two different branches that diverged at an early stage, without one being derived from the other. If you skip the Dutch introduction I bet this [5] would supply some interesting reading and new views on the subject. Rokus01 23:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] More "why" with the "what"

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

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

[edit] Loads of errors

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

[edit] What the heck is PIE?

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

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

[edit] "German" peoples in Spain and England

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'England a Germanic country' is an outdated anachronism.

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

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

link 1 link 2 link 3 link 4 link 5

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

[edit] Dutch/Deutsch/Duits/Dietsch=

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

[edit] Painting at top

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Snoballa68's edits

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, here you are all sentences that I amended :
"France saw a great deal of Germanic settlement in northeast and east country along with the French-speaking Belgium. (...) Moselle and northern Alsace were settled heavily by Franks, contributing to their unique regional cultures and modern franconian dialects. The rest of Alsace is made up of Alemannic culture and Alsatian language, an upper germanic dialect acquired since the Ariovist's onslaught as it went along."
What is ambiguous about it? I've noticed the chapter "Assimilation" is deemed as an article with no original research or unverified claims which is true. Some people here blame me of vandalizing the article or to do not use reference following my information but I don't see any reference quoted in the whole chapter. Since you've asked me to emphasize it so you'll find below several links over the frankish legacy in modern France:
The Franks impact in the Gauls (scientist work) --> Langue et littérature des anciens Francs, Gérard Gley (1814)[6] (French)
The Alemanni settlement in the quasi-whole Alsace --> Matyszak, Philip, The enemies of Rome, ISBN 0-500-25124-X
Speak about Burgundian language from the extinct East Germanic language of the Burgundians on --> Histoire de l'idiome Bourguignon et de sa littérature propre, Bernard De La Monnoye (1856) [7] (French)
Some modern Europe areas --> Franconian languages, Langues d'oïl, Alemannic languages
I've modified information relating to France because I'm sure of what I say by contrast with Spain, Portugal, or some others countries. Now I've proved what I propounded, I would know yours. In conclusion if these sentences shall remain like this, it should be as much stupid as to see in a Encyclopedia that Danes and Italians have got the same forebears and that theirs languages spring from the same root. I let for the moment this article pending replies with counter-arguments or else I'll rather alter it once again with sources enclosed. --Snowballa68 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] What needs doing?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] First image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, dab's suggestion, the image from the Colonna Antonia [8], is the best one so far. If not that, then a map of some kind would be appropriate. Aryaman (☼) 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Background for SenseOnes edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Milkmen?

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

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

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

[edit] Germanic peoples "where" a group of ethnic groups?

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

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