Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

origin of the Germanic tribes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by girlperson1
    http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=51022

    Interesting video about the history of the English language, coming from the Germanic tribes.
    Neat video.

    I enjoyed it.

    Thanks!

    Leave a comment:


  • girlperson1
    replied
    Video: The adventure of English

    http://quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=51022

    Interesting video about the history of the English language, coming from the Germanic tribes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Eki
    I can't see any reason why it couldn't have been influenced by Sumerian in the past.
    Proto-Finno-Ugrian probably have been spoken much further south in a contact area with proto-iranian.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    RE Black Sea flooding

    I've seen two different theories on how the Black Sea flooded - via the break at the Bosporus. One that maybe a sunami, or just a rise in post-LGM sea level caused a break in the narrow isthmus. Another that the Caspian sea overflowed into the Black Sea, causing it to rise until it broke through that same narrow strip of land. But the bottom line is the same, I guess.

    R1a1* & U5b2

    Leave a comment:


  • Haganus
    replied
    For some year it is known that Black See (Pontus Euxinus) used not to
    be (about 5000 BC) so big as it is today. It was a kind of big lake. It has been discovered that big inundations happened (for exampl north of Turkey, Gilgamesj Sage and the arch of Noah) and therefor people has to take a refuge in the adjacent coutries, for example Roumania and the south of the actual Russia and Ukraina.

    So this must promote exchanges of cultures and maybe these exchanges and meetings of cattlekeepers and agriculturists collapsed the ancient Indo-European culture and caused the emigrations of the Indo-European tribes.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    ? RE skulls

    My interest in the Indo-European language route is mostly that it provides a handle to grab onto. I never was very good at grammar, etc. in school (ha ha). And my attempts to pick up languages while stationed overseas were unimpressive, although I did manage to get a skill digit for German added to my "MOS" for a few years.

    The field of Physical Anthropology is very interested in skull shapes and sizes and what not. I'm sure they take into consideration various factors that could impact their researching conclusions. The different skull sizes in Anthony's book at a site in the Ukraine (Dnieper River) were in separate graveyards, usually Kurgans at that time and place. And they usually only contained prominent males. The Proto-Indo-European (male) skulls found there are called Proto-Europoid by European Physical Anthrologists, according to Anthony (if I remember right). Of course mixing with other populations over the millenia would have altered skull size and shapes on various migrations out of the steppes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    I think head shape and size have been discredited as a means of tracking populations. They can vary within the same group of people and can change in a generation or two. Such things can be influenced by diet, as well.

    Red hair is found all over the world, although it reaches its maximum in Ireland and Scotland.

    It seems likely that the Balto-Slavic influence on Germanic came through borrowing because they were neighbors. Balto-Slavic belongs to the satem branch of Indo-European and Germanic to the older, centum branch.

    Anthony's book is good, but I wouldn't fix on it as gospel. Read some of the other works on Indo-European.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    & so the inquiry goes on...

    I haven't looked into Anthony's book in the past few days. But as for skull sizes and shapes, it seems they were getting mixed up even while the Indo-Europeans were still confined to the Steppes. Although they seemed to have mostly large heads, there was mentioned narrow and medium heads in separate graves on the Dnieper River; the narrow heads seemingly came from the Volga region together with a pottery type.

    Also, it looks like Pre-Germanic was influenced by pre-Balto-Slavic, after its initial start from the Usatovo dialect. That seems to have occurred upstream in the Polish region (I would think).

    R1a11* & U5b22

    Leave a comment:


  • Haganus
    replied
    Some days ago I tried to read David Anthony's book. Very interesting!
    But he did not explain if the Germanic languages reached north Germany
    and Scandinavia by cultural adoption or immigration.

    Most Scandinavian archaeologists and linguists argued that there were never
    immigrations from the south or east of Europa. So the agriculture, cattle-
    breeding and Indo-European language are mostly an acculturation or
    adoption. For example in the Iberian peninsula and France the roman languages also were not adopted by immigration, but by cultural exhange.

    And for example the physical types, skulls and heads of the Scandinavians
    and Irish like very much like the ancient Cro-Magnons did. From where did
    the Irish and Scandinavian's red hair some?

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Dieneke's Blog article

    See: "German Origin in Transylvanian Saxons", posted July 25 '08.

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

    I only peeked at it, but one of the R1a1 is pretty close to mine, marker-wise; at least the markers that we have in common. The article gives an area near the Rhine as there possible source. But I have another (weak) hypothesis. When they supposedly migrated to Transylvania, it was about the time of the Great Famine, when farmers from the Low Countries dispersed eastward into Slavic territories (Poland, etc). So, if my R1a1 wasn't already embedded with the R1b's in the Low Countries, it could have been added to that group as it migrated thru Poland. Oh well... (My immediate line came from Norway, however.)

    R1a1* & U5b2

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnserrat
    Really, if we go back even further, the people in Normandy should have been speaking Danish or another scandinavian language which would then have taken over in England. Of course, after the Glorious Revolution (really an invasion from my perspective) perhaps the people in England should now be speaking Dutch.

    I'm with Stevo on this one.

    John
    Excellent analogies, John.

    Leave a comment:


  • T E Peterman
    replied
    PDHOTLEN:

    I don't disagree with you. I think that the glue to making this client-patron system was work was the dispersal of women from the PIE community. They would become the wives of R1b or I men & then teach their language to the children. If the PIE group did this slowly, the neighboring groups would have become linguistically assimilated. After a neighboring, non-IE village has let's say 50% of the wives speaking the PIE language of their origin, the village might change over, without any intent to do so.

    This theory would imply a one way flow of women & the next question would be, where did all of these PIE speaking women come from? There is a history of women being offered as wives to seal a deal between two groups. It could have just been random chance that the PIE folk had a lot more daughters than did their neighbors; sometimes anomalies like this just happen. If a society had an abundance of women, it may give that society an upper hand in negotiating client-patron relationships.

    Timothy Peterman

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    I defer to Anthony

    I guess I did a poor job of paraphrasing and interpreting what the author of "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language" was saying. I suggest you guys read it for yourselves.

    I gave the dates that were guides to pre-historic cultural structure. The decline of Anthony's "Old Europe" seems to have been due to the end of the Atlantic Warm Period, at least in part. The "Old Europe" culture was based on the Neolithic farmers from Anatolia, who may have originally been Semitic/Afro-Asian stock, and had gracile skulls. The Proto-Indo-Europeans in the Ukraine area largely had wide skulls, from what I understood.

    Since German is an Indo-European language, it obviously had roots in the Proto-Indo-European homeland. I gave the route that the ancestral Pre-Germanic branch took, according to Anthony. See page 359 under the sub-chapter titled "The Ancestor of English: The origin and spread of the Usatovo Dialect."

    R1a1* & U5b2
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 16 July 2008, 10:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnserrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Stevo
    Sorry. Don't buy it.

    If language change worked that way, why didn't the Anglo-Saxons in England learn Norman French to be "in the loop"?

    Proto-Germanic began in the Jastorf and Harpstedt cultures of NW Germany and the Netherlands, which, according to Mallory, is the consensus among Germanicists.
    Really, if we go back even further, the people in Normandy should have been speaking Danish or another scandinavian language which would then have taken over in England. Of course, after the Glorious Revolution (really an invasion from my perspective) perhaps the people in England should now be speaking Dutch.

    I'm with Stevo on this one.

    John

    Leave a comment:


  • T E Peterman
    replied
    Stevo & PDHOTLEN:

    I have to agree with Stevo here. The argument that language spread to non-speakers by way of a client-patron relationship is weak. I could imagine the indigenous populations being really impressed by the horse, the wheel, etc. & probably borrowing words (as the English did from the French), but I can't go for total replacement. The new speakers would appear to either be borrowing a few words from the old language, or borrowing a few words from the incoming language.

    We need to look for the missing factor... women. If everything else is equal a child will tend to learn language from the mother; she has far more influence than the father in the language forming years (under age 5). Usually, this point is moot, since mother & father speak the same language..., but what if they don't? I have suggested in the past that the mother's language will prevail.

    Bryan Sykes pointed out a few years ago that the Basques were the only European group that appeared to completely lack mt-J (he called her Jasmine) & Jasmine was supposedly associated with the spread of Neolithic farming from the Near East.

    Perhaps the PIE speakers tended to offer daughters to neighboring groups who were becoming clients, perhaps to make the clients feel comfortable with the arrangement. Perhaps the PIE speakers negotiated such an arrangement with Old Europe (the civilization that lasted from 6000 BC to 4000 BC in the Balkans).

    The collapse of Old Europe happened fairly close in time to the spread of Neolithic farming all across habitable parts of Europe -could it be that this collapse was really a diaspora & the women of Old Europe (who may have already become blond as an adaptation to drinking milk into adulthood), were quickly dispersed across the landscape as wives.

    This may prove to be complete nonsense, but it is a point that I just though up & wanted to mention.

    Timothy Peterman

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X