Jump to content

Talk:Germanic peoples

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Two pre-print articles to watch

[edit]

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

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

Interesting, we will have to see when they come out and how we should incorporate their conclusions into the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main new data in the first article is Danish, which is certainly a good thing. As is frequently true, the conclusions are not so simple and readers should be careful of the artificial cluster names. For example the name South Scandinavian might be seen as implying that the researchers discovered a strong genetic distinction between South Scandianvians and their neighbours in what is now Germany and Poland. Although they use selected data from other studies none of those include data from neighbouring areas to the south, so they can't really test the Jordanes-based "womb of nations" idea against its competitor, the Jastorf culture. Indeed, that culture is only mentioned in the abstract, despite the fact that the abstract implies that it will be a critical topic to be examined. The article will in any case add to ongoing discussion, along with many other such articles. At key moments Y DNA is used to justify decisions, which I think is methodologically questionable.
The second article is also interesting and also worth careful reading. It also discusses the Viking age. The wording concerning clusters is more careful in this article. See the following examples. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our modelling provides direct evidence of individuals with ancestry originating in northern Germany or Scandinavia appearing in these regions as early as the first century CE
  • We reveal evidence of expansion southwards and/or eastwards of likely Germanic speakers carrying Scandinavian-related ancestry in the first half of the first millennium CE. We note that ‘Scandinavian-related’ in this context relates to the ancient genomes available, and so it is entirely possible that these processes were driven e.g. from regions in northern-central Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The gap about the Jastorf culture in the paper by the Willerslev team is explained in the section "Expansions of Scandinavian ancestry during the Migration Period": The period between 2800 and 1575 BP is described in the archaeological and historical literature as the time of Germanic migrations moving south into continental Europe. The lack of samples from this period, especially from Germany, limits our ability to determine when these migrations may have occurred. Even before the emergence of archaeogenetics, cremation as the default burial practice has proven to be a source of frustration for physical anthropologists.
Maybe we can already try to draft a preliminary version for expanding this article by making use of the preprints in draft- or user-space, and incubate these changes until the papers have been published (and after cross-checking for potential changes made to the manuscripts in the meantime). –Austronesier (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We currently have a very short section on genetics - I'd suggest leaving the caveat statement the same as they currently are, namely: The use of genetic studies to investigate the Germanic past is controversial, with scholars such as Guy Halsall suggesting it could represent a hearkening back to 19th-century ideas of race.[1] Sebastian Brather, Wilhelm Heizmann, and Steffen Patzold write that genetics studies are of great use for demographic history, but cannot give us any information about cultural history.[2]. I leave it to those wiser than I in archaeogenetics to drafts the rest.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Halsall 2014, p. 518.
  2. ^ Brather, Heizmann & Patzold 2021, pp. 32–33.

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

@Austronesier: I am personally not so sure yet what we could safely take out of these articles. The stronger conclusions are mostly unexciting, matching other articles (which is indeed where most of the data comes from). The more controversial implications are likely to be difficult to agree how to summarize. (One might even think the more controversial stuff is deliberating written in an obfuscating way.) So as a first step I agree with Ermenrich. But I would personally be open to proposals. I just did not yet see anything easy or practical yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any news on this front?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is whether these articles, when read carefully, are saying anything important for the topic of this article, which does not require synthesis on our part. Are there any proposals? I did not see it so far. The papers focus on internal Scandinavian change, but when they come to explaining connections to nearby areas the conclusions are fuzzy, as explained previously. The articles don't seem to have enough data to distinguish Scandinavians from people from neighbouring regions, nor indeed people from the Rhine, Elbe and Danube from each other. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The geographic density modeling really does not help that much in my estimation either, despite how thorough and interesting these research finding are. Do we have an archaeo-anthropologist willing to help us, gents? --Obenritter (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we should better define what questions we have about the uses of this article. Just to start the ball rolling my initial idea was that the articles might be relevant to discussions about (1) the "Urheimat" of Germanic languages (Scandinavia versus Elbe, and the regions east and west of the Elbe, etc, narrow versus broad region, questions of timing, and movements between these regions, etc), and (2) perhaps secondly also whether there is genetic evidence for specific central European population movements in the so called Migration Period (putting aside the movement into England which is handled in various studies). So my sceptical comments above should be seen in that light. In other words I did not see much progress on those specific questions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andrew on this, I do not personally see how these articles would be very relevant to this Wikipedia article. While the subjects overlap, they are essentially referring to separate entities. This article is primarily concerned with the people group from the ancient period, which is separate from the linguistic group. As such, the material culture of the ancient Germanic world could have a different origin to the Germanic languages etc. Jared Hanson III (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight, you don't "see how these articles would be very relevant to this Wikipedia article", thise article titled Germanic peoples, the very same article that bolds Germanic speaking peoples as a commonly-used synonym in its lead? This article sure attracts some characters. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that in terms of antiquity, Germanic referred to the people of Germania, not necessarily people who speak what we would deem a Germanic language today. Goths were not deemed Germanic, and from the sources we do have, north Germanic speakers in Scandinavia were differentiated as well. No need to get hostile. Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also appreciate not being insulted and called some character.Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're rambling on about the Germani like we're Romans. We're not. This article is built on contemporary scholarship, which is itself built on a foundation of in particular historical linguistics (thus the bolded Germanic speaking peoples in the introduction). More importantly, although you've now removed it, I'll go ahead and highlight that I don't recall claiming to be a "neopagan". That said, now's a good time for you to understand that bigotry isn't tolerated on Wikipedia and will get your account swiftly blocked from the project. Now is the time for you to read and internalize Wikipedia:No personal attacks. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you are threatening to get me banned, if you recall it was your comment first which was an insult towards me. I am not here to cause problems, and I apologize and took back the bigotry made in a heated response to being insulted. However, I would appreciate being treated respectfully, rather than being bullied by someone who is currently acting drunk on power because they have an older more established account than mine. Remember, this is not reddit, so please do not act like a reddit moderator. I will be respectful, you can be respectful, and we can have a difference of opinion without reporting to make calling. Deal? Jared Hanson III (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resorting to name calling* Jared Hanson III (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no "power" over your account. This is where a mod should take over. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply stating you are threatening that you could get me banned when you insulted me first for having a difference of opinion. I apologized(you never did even though you insulted me first). I would like to move on. If we cannot agree we can agree to disagree. I do not see why we would need to get a kid involved. I do not want to cause trouble, I am attempting to give meaningful advice and see what others think on this page. So far you have called me some character because I disagreed with your position. Can we simply move on? Jared Hanson III (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A mod* involved. Jared Hanson III (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A plea for short sentences

[edit]

FWIW, I would like to make a gentle suggestion that this edit might not be an improvement: [3]. The edsum: "the first sentence of the lead needs to give a definition of some sort, it can't just say "thing x existed"." The change is that a few words are added: The Germanic peoples lived in Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. => The Germanic peoples were historical groups of people who lived in Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. The shorter sentence is at least as definition-like as the longer one. The added words (in bold) add no meaningful information. Note:

  • They are "peoples", so adding "groups of people" is meaningless. The ... peoples ... were historical groups of people.
  • They lived "during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages", so "historical" also adds nothing?

Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can give a definition without saying what we mean. Just saying "the Germanic people lived" is certainly not enough for the opening sentence of an encyclopedia article (who/what were they?), nor is the sentence particularly long. "Historical" indicates that they no longer live there, "people group" or "groups of people" provides what exactly we are defining them as (not, e.g. a "nation" or "tribes"). If "Germanic people" were self-explanatory and we only needed to say that they lived in a particular place, then we wouldn't need the article!--Ermenrich (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this though: if someone can come up with a better definition than "historical groups of people", then by all means do so. We need something though.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure "assemblage of peoples" is any better, since each Germanic group was a distinct assemblage/group. Ermenrich I am at a loss myself, since it's not really wrong.--Obenritter (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Maybe I am just missing something, but I'll just explain myself anyway. The short and long sentence both say they were peoples which necessarily means more than one group of people. They also both say where and when they lived. So clearly the short version says more than "that they lived in a particular place". "Historical" indicates that they no longer live there, yes, but so does the tense of "lived". I honestly don't see how the extra words add meaning, at least from a purely logical point of view. The repetition of equivalent words seems like something editors should trim. There are of course arguments for repetition and redundancy in specific situations, but that does not seem to be what you mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Germanic peoples consisted of tribal groups (referenced as "barbarians" in some literature) who once occupied Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. Perhaps this satisfies what you mean Andrew. --Obenritter (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an improvement to me, but I suspect there will be objections to the term "tribal". A pity we can't just call them gentes like the Germans do!--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll recall, I wanted to either reference them as "ancient Germanic peoples" or Germanen when all of us originally debated the naming convention. Tribal is an accurate description, despite people's misgivings. Let's see how this develops. Tightening my sphincter now. --Obenritter (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking sides, but I'll take a stab at it:
"The Germanic peoples were tribal groups who lived in Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages." It tells us that the Germanic tribal groups were the peoples who are the subject of the article and sets them historically in antiquity on into the early Middle Ages, in as few words as possible. Carlstak (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either Carlstak's or Obenritter's wording.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be missing something again but haven't we been trying to avoid the word tribal as part of the definition for some years now? (I don't believe I raised it.) The argument was that it is a loaded word within a definition because it implies a certain type of technology-level and social structure which historians now tend to see as part of Caesar's political rhetoric. What is the argument FOR using the word as part of the definition? Concerning the word barbarian I think it has a similar problem for normal readers who will see it as implying something about technology and society. If it is intended to mean that they were not Romans then this hardly needs to be mentioned? (I also still don't understand from a logical or policy point of view why the first sentence can't be simpler, at least given the broad scope that the article currently has.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any encyclopedia article that starts by saying "Thing X existed in place x" without first saying, in the most general terms, what "thing x" is? If it really is just my personal preference I'll drop the matter, but it strikes me as a really bad way to begin an article.
I've pointed to the issue of people objecting to tribal above as well. I have no opinion either way. I think Carlstak and Obenritter's version are fine, but if we want to get rid of tribal than we might need to rethink the sentence entirely. Could we say "various groups"? Or could we say "Germanic peoples is a term used by scholars to refer to" or something to that effect?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just leave my remark about "tribal" here as a vote for now, and see what others think, and what rationales can be given. Concerning the short sentence proposal you are caricaturing, and ignoring my previous replies. The proposed short version had the same information as the long version, and they all contain more information than you claim: type of thing (peoples, plural), region and period. (The longer versions just used redundancy.) I don't find this amount of information is unusual for an opening definition. (Not all types of encyclopedia open with such definitions BTW.) I can't really follow your chain of reasoning to be honest. Do you seriously think it would be hard to find examples like this? A was one or more types of B, which existed in region(s) C during period(s) D. I think that format is pretty much ideal. I think run-on opening sentences are OTOH an unfortunate habit on WP that have nothing to do with policy, but just the way people keep adding adjectives and clauses to them. The best way to avoid that IMHO is to make the first sentence cover the lowest common denominator characteristics, and move non-consensus aspects to other sentences and paragraphs. This all seems pretty uncontroversial to me. I honestly can't see why you are reacting so strongly to this as if this is shocking you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my two cents which will not really come as a surprise to you, I guess :)
My first issue with "tribal" that this term is often connected to a specific kind of sociopolitical organization (whether understood in an evolutionary framework or not) that does not necessarily apply to all gentes that were labelled as Germanic in antiquity, for most of which we know little more than their name and location, and occasionally some anectodical characteristics. And even if the known features of their sociopolitical organization match with extant definitions of "tribe" or "tribal", I'd hesitate to use the labels in the same way I wouldn't be too happy for obivous reasons if these labels were applied to contemporary people groups let's say in interior South America, the highlands of NE India and SE Asia, or in New Guinea.
But that's just me. I am aware that "tribe" and Stamm are commonly used in the relevant literature of all "schools", and also that we use tribe all over the place in the article, so I won't object just because it now has become a question of the opening lede sentence. –Austronesier (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mees's "The English Language before England" (Routledge, 2023)

[edit]

Runologist Bernard Meet recently published The English Language before England (Routledge, 2023 — note that this says 2022 but my copy says "first published 2023"). Mees focuses primarily on early runic inscriptions in this one and it contains a huge amount of discussion very relevant to this article. We definitely need more runology coverage here (runes were developed by and, as far as can be seen, used solely by Germanic-speakers) but it gets little discussion on this article. This is an excellent source for contemporary discussion on the matter from one of the most visible runologists in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can point to errors and oversights in the current section on Germanic peoples#Runic writing? What isn't included there that should be? Keep in mind, the article is already overlong, and we already devote several paragraphs to runes - I'd suggest removing something from that section (perhaps the etymology) if we're going to be making any substantial additions.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should runes and their relationship to the development of one Germanic language (English) really have that much shrift? Certainly, Mees deserves inclusion, but this article is about Germanic peoples writ large and the current section on runes keeps it fairly generic. Additional depth on runes might be better directed to the page specifically dedicated to it. Surely Bloodofox can find a way to integrate salient points in a manner that does not overburden the article.--Obenritter (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the title may imply otherwise, Mees's book is mainly about early Germanic stuff in general with a focus on early West Germanic inscriptions. I don't have time to contribute much right now but I will probably return to it in the future. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to metalworking section

[edit]

@H20346: Der Spiegel is not a reliable or good source for information on history and archaeology. The original book is better, but you are framing its proposals in the sensationalist way that Der Spiegel does: Germania was certainly not full of "cities," nor has the book challenged any notions widely held by scholars in 2010 about the relative emptiness, primitiveness, etc. of the Germanic peoples. The authors of the book have simply proposed identifications of settlements mentioned by Ptolemy with later German cities (which, as far as I can tell, have not been widely adopted). In any case, the metalworking section is not the right place for a discussion of urban settlements, and the issue of greater population density in Germania than was previously assumed is already covered in the section "Agriculture and population density".--Ermenrich (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i see thanks for educating me H20346 (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article opening

[edit]

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

Now draft
The Germanic peoples were tribal groups who once occupied Northwestern and Central Europe and Scandinavia during antiquity and into the early Middle Ages. Since the 19th century, they have traditionally been defined by the use of ancient and early medieval Germanic languages and are thus equated at least approximately with Germanic-speaking peoples, although different academic disciplines have their own definitions of what makes someone or something "Germanic".[1] The Romans called the area in North-Central Europe in which the Germanic peoples lived Germania. According to its largest definition it stretched between the Vistula in the east and Rhine in the west, and from southern Scandinavia to the upper Danube.[2] In discussions of the Roman period, the Germanic peoples are sometimes referred to as Germani or ancient Germans, although many scholars consider the second term problematic since it suggests identity with present-day Germans. In modern scholarship the Germanic peoples of Classical Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages typically include not only the Roman-era Germani who lived in Germania and in parts of the Roman empire, but also all Germanic-speaking peoples of these times, most notably the "Gothic peoples" of Eastern Europe. The Germanic peoples are sometimes collectively or partly referred to as ancient Germans in discussions of the Roman period, although many scholars consider this problematic since it suggests identity with present-day Germans. While the Romans first described Germani west of the Rhine, according to the largest definition the associated country of Germania stretched between Rhine in the west to southern Scandinavia, the Vistula in the east, and the upper Danube in the south.[2] Additionally, the Germanic-speaking Bastarnae and Gothic peoples lived in what is now Moldova and Ukraine.
Different academic disciplines have their own definitions of what makes someone or something "Germanic".[1] The term Germani is generally only used to refer to historical people groups from the 1st to 4th centuries CE.[3]
The very concept of "Germanic peoples" has become the subject of controversy among contemporary scholars.[4] Some scholars call for its total abandonment as a modern construct since lumping "Germanic peoples" together implies a common group identity for which there is little evidence.[4] Other scholars have defended the term's continued use and argue that a common Germanic language allows one to speak of "Germanic peoples", regardless of whether these ancient and medieval peoples saw themselves as having a common identity.[5] [unchanged] The very concept of "Germanic peoples" has become the subject of controversy among contemporary scholars.[4] Some scholars call for its total abandonment as a modern construct since lumping "Germanic peoples" together implies a common group identity for which there is little evidence.[4] Other scholars have defended the term's continued use and argue that a common Germanic language allows one to speak of "Germanic peoples", regardless of whether these ancient and medieval peoples saw themselves as having a common identity.[5]
While several historians and archaeologists continue to use the term "Germanic peoples" to refer to historical people groups from the 1st to 4th centuries CE, the term is no longer used by most historians and archaeologists for the period around the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages.[3]

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

I principle I don't have a problem with any of these edits - the text looks well-balanced to include all views, and are also much more concise than the current first few paragraphs. I do worry about stirring up the wasp's nest that is this article though.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but to be clear about how I see that, I have tried not to change the meaning at all. The edit is mainly "structural" - putting shorter definitions and "headlines" at the top. The reason I think it can be relevant to older concerns is because I think many debates are "word games" in the final analysis, and therefore I think clear definitions up front, rather than diplomatic fuzziness, can often reduce controversy rather than increase it. Secondly, this is an article not only about one controversial term, "Germanic peoples", but actually about several overlapping terms, and this time I've tried to start from the question of how should we normally handle an article about several overlapping terms quickly at the top. I think in the past we started with one term, and then tried to fit the others in a later part of the text. I personally find that treating all the headline terms up front actually makes it easier to explain the term "Germanic peoples", because the common meaning and other possible meanings are all reasonably clear from the beginning. By keeping this part short, proponents of different meanings do not need to be concerned that specific information they are most concerned about are being delayed until later.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also generally comfortable with the proposed text. Just two things. The opening sentence should be simple and retain its "The Germanic peoples were..."-style. Talking about modern scholarship at the very beginning is redundant as it just mirrors the core of what Wikipedia is about (it's articles reporting about outdated scholarship that need to explicit flag it as such). Also, instead of "Gothic peoples" of Eastern Europe, let's stick to "Goths" (luckily, English is not defective in lacking a simple term for those guys) if we need to mention the here. –Austronesier (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no big issues with those 2 recommendations, especially the second one, but I do prefer those opening words. This way of establishing context early is based on the MOS recommendations, which I went looking for after I thought about the problem. IMHO this topic's emphasis on recent and careful publications, which might not be the only ones, should be as clear as possible as quickly as possible. Such opening words hurt no one, but can quickly help people understand that there are probably popularizations which are less careful, for example on the internet or in the popular press, or older approaches in some scholarly publications. You might argue that they see should get it once they read through the article, but we know that doesn't always work. We know that WP readers and casual editors often get trapped in word games about this topic, and struggle to contextualize different genres and registers of definition. That's my 2 cents anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "Germanic peoples of Classical Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages" open the door to the idea that next to ancient Germanic peoples, there are also Germanic peoples in other ages (such as the present)? This is something you might consider to rephrase along the lines of the current opening sentence that clearly places "Germanic peoples" in a limited temporal range. Something like:

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

–Austronesier (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that seems to achieve a similar effect. To answer your question, I deliberately want us to be quickly letting readers know that in other types of literature there might indeed be "Germanic peoples" in other ages, even if that is not the central topic of this article. This is not only to help them place the older or more casual online material in context, in the event that they are likely familiar with some of that, but also to help them see how some how even serious recent writers might have different boundaries. (For example, are the Vikings Germanic peoples? Can even relatively late medieval folklore to some extent represent the lore of Germanic peoples? These are things which have been discussed here before.) I hope that makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer Austronesier’s suggestion, but my opinion is not strong.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find Austronesier's suggestion acceptable. I guess the question is whether the words "modern scholarship" (which Austronesier would move to a later position) describe the context for the whole article, and that this context was not the only one which we could have selected. I think they do. (Linguists can use the term as a short way of saying Germanic-speaking peoples for example.) On that basis I suppose these "context" words should be right up front (as per the MOS example cited above). I realize that these opening words emphasize to readers that there might be contexts (such as older literature) where the term is used for peoples more recent than the early middle ages. I suppose that's what the difference comes down to. In any case, the main priority is to get those headline words defined near the top, and close together, and in that respect Austronesier's version also works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that Roman era sources did NOT include Scandinavia as part of Germania, with the exception of Jutland in modern Denmark. Scandia was considered a separate land, and the people of Scandia were considered a separate entity, see Jordanes. While modern scholarship recognizes the relation of the Germanic languages, antiquity did not recognize North Germanic speakers or Gothic speakers as being part of the Germani. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As such, my suggestion would be to specify Jutland in the north, rather than southern Scandinavia, which typically also includes southern Sweden and the Danish isles. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you have started a new thread about this, I answered there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Steuer 2021, p. 30.
  2. ^ a b Steuer 2021, p. 3.
  3. ^ a b Steinacher 2022, p. 292.
  4. ^ a b c d Steuer 2021, p. 28.
  5. ^ a b Timpe & Scardigli 2010, pp. 383–385.

Suggestion: New map under Subdivisions

[edit]

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

I suggest using a different map, perhaps this one

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

@Jared Hanson III: thanks for pointing this out. I made the current map, but the current caption is incorrect. The red tribes are Suebian, who were Hermiones. The Purple ones are other Hermiones. Black names mean nothing in particular. OTOH I don't like the map you propose. It contains wrong information and mixes information from different periods. I think it is too ambitious. As a first step I will at least change the caption.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Andrew on the other map - doesn’t match the RS we describe. Also, we should keep in mind that many scholars doubt that these divisions were stable or had much reality.—-Ermenrich (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I did not say this to be insulting, I just do not find the map to be accurate. It labels the aforementioned tribes as Istvaeonic, and it also labels certain Ingvaeonic tribes such as the Anglii as Irminonic. Jared Hanson III (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an old map and I didn't see it as an insult, but I am not sure if you've understood. The map does not contain any labels about those things. Have you checked the change I made to the caption? (I did not write the caption.) The Anglii are marked as red, because Tacitus lists them with the Suebians. However the other source for these lists Pliny lists their neighbours the Warini in group which Tacitus does not have, the Vindili. Because the two lists are so unclear I ended up making this simple one and leaving it there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason when the user added back in the old section they removed the comments I made to this post, so I'll ad them back.
Yes, and thank you for the edit. However, I suggest maybe changing the edit description back to what it was previously in terms of the Suebi and Herminones(but without changing anything in regard to the Istvaeones or Ingvaeones), as the Anglii are typically counted as Ingvaeonic rather than Herminonic. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance my suggestion would be to change the caption to read "Red: Suebi and Herminones, Purple: other Herminones" or something along those lines. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately though I'll leave that to your discretion. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Replace Southern Scandinavia with Jutland

[edit]

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

In addition to this, the paragraph that reads "In modern scholarship, they typically include not only the Roman-era Germani who lived in both Germania and parts of the Roman empire, but also all Germanic speaking peoples from this era, irrespective of where they lived, most notably the Goths" I would add this, with my previous comment in mind:
"In modern scholarship, they typically include not only the Roman-era Germani who lived in both Germania and parts of the Roman empire, but also all Germanic speaking peoples from this era, irrespective of where they lived, most notably the Goths and the north Germanic speaking tribes of Scandia, modern Sweden and Norway.", Or something along those lines. Jared Hanson III (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any notion of distinction between Scandinavia and Germania in deep antiquity is unknown. The matter of Jordanes as a late source aside, a quick reminder that this is not an article on the concept of the Germani from the perspective of the Romans but all concepts that fall under the category of Germanic peoples. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources we do have, Germania was differentiated from Scandia, just as Goths were differentiated from Germani as well. The older Roman sources are typically silent on the subject because as far as I can recall, the furthest north any Greco-Romans had explored was the Jutland peninsula at that point, which was decidedly west Germanic speaking until much later. West Germanic speakers are typically who Rome identified as Germani, not east or north Germanic speakers. When Roman sources did come into contact with North Germanic Scandinavians, they lumped them in with Finnic groups and differentiated them from Germani. There is still not a consensus on if the Germanic culture originated with the Jastorf culture or the Nordic Bronze age, but most evidence points to a Jastorf origin, which would fit the Roman sources as well. Thank you for your input. I still believe it should read Jutland instead of southern Scandinavia. Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in regards to this article being about all Germanic people it differentiates Germanic language from Germanic people, Germanic people being an ethnic group from early antiquity. Germanic people were defined as people living in Germania, which typically went as far north as Jutland, rather than Scandia. So, from that perspective, Scandinavians were not counted as Germanic people, but are considered Germanic speakers today based on linguistic evidence, as are the Gothic people. Jared Hanson III (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jared Hanson III: thanks for your proposals, but we have very few sources to describe their definition of "Germania" and among those Tacitus [4], Pliny the Elder [5], Ptolemy [6] included the "islands" of Scandinavia within Germania. On this basis I don't think we need to make the sentence longer, because Scandinavia is already covered as part of Germania within the current wording. As a more general point it might save time if you mentioned your sources from the beginning in discussions like this. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to remove this section? I removed this section and it was added back, the consensus seemed to be against my suggestion, so I removed it, but received a warning for removing it. I was unaware I was unable to remove my own suggestion, especially after the consensus seemed to be against it. Jared Hanson III (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there is a real discussion like in this case we normally keep it. The subject could come up again, so it is not uncommon to go back looking at previous discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Jared Hanson III (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Germanic_peoples&oldid=1239190022"