Proto-Germanic language

[Domen]

Any thoughts in which region did the original Proto-Germanic language evolve?

When first groups of Indo-Europeans came to Scandinavia, did they already speak some form of Proto-Germanic?

If so, then what was the relation between East Germanic (now extinct) and other Germanic (West and North) language groups? One theory is that Germanic languages spread in last centuries BC and first centuries AD from Scandinavia into Germany and Western Poland. But maybe it was inversely - Proto-Germanic spread from East to North-West, from Poland, to Northern Germany, and then to Scandinavia. What is sure is that people of Stone Age in Scandinavia, did not speak Germanic language, but some Non-Indo-European language. Nordic people from Scandinavia - although they speak IE Germanic languages - are largely descendants of previous, Non-IE Nordic population. In such case, I do not think that East Germanic people were genetically related to Scandinavians.

They shared common language, but not genes - which suggests expansion of Proto-Germanic into Scandinavia, rather than out of Scandinavia.

Skeletons from Gothic settlements suggest that vast majority of Ancient Goths were not of Nordic-Scandinavian anthropological type.

Indeed - nowadays it is widely accepted, that ethnogenesis of Goths took place in Pomerania, not in Scandinavia.

IMO Proto-Germanic language - like all Indo-European languages - expanded from Eastern Europe, towards Germany, and then north into Scandinavia. Of course Proto-Germanic speakers (most of whom had haplogroup R1a Z284) encountered various Non-Indo-European substrates in all areas where they came. Those Non-Indo-European substrates were assimilated by Proto-Germanic-speakers, but also left their impact on the language. This might be the reason why Proto-Germanic differentiated into several language families - North Germanic languages, West Germanic languages and East Germanic languages.

All East Germanic languages are today extinct, as people who spoke them became assimilated into Romance-speaking and Slavic-speaking groups.

Anthropologically and genetically, East Germanic peoples - such as Goths - were descendants of Medieval Slavs, not Medieval Germans:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0054360

Indeed, based on morphological features of skeletal materials it has been established that populations of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Cherniakhovo cultures from the Roman period bear close similarities to the early medieval Western Slavs and not to the medieval Germanic-speaking populations [10], [11]. Furthermore, paleodemographic studies also point to the biological continuity of the populations inhabiting the Oder and Vistula basin in the Roman period and the early medieval Slavic populations of this region [10].

Taken together, the time of origin and territorial range of mitochondrial subhaplogroups H5a2, H5e1a, H5u1, U4a2, U5a2a and U5a2b1 observed in central and eastern European populations indicate that some of the maternal ancestors of today's Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians and Russians) inhabited areas of Central and Eastern Europe much earlier than it was estimated on the basis of archaeological and historical data. Indeed, we show here the existence of genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages. Thus, the data from complete mitochondrial genomes collected so far seems to indicate that the ancestors of Slavs were autochthonous peoples of Central and Eastern Europe rather than early medieval invaders emerging in restricted areas of the Prut and Dniestr basin and expanding suddenly due to migration, as suggested by some archeologists [9].

Also the research on haplogroup R1a1a7 (M458) shows population continuity in Poland since ca. 1600 BC until nowadays:

This haplogroup also originated in Poland:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/11/finally-structure-in-haplogroup-r1a.html

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n4/full/ejhg2009194a.html

diversity and distribution of Y-chromosome marker M458 defining the new haplogroup R1a1a7. R-M458 reaches high frequency and diversity in central and eastern Europe. It is virtually absent in northwestern Europe, the Near East, and Asia east of the Urals. The maximum frequency is reached in south (36.4%) and central (33.3%) Poland. The earliest expansion time for R-M458 is found in Poland (10.7ky), but since the paper uses the effective mutation rate that I criticized elsewhere, this date should be divided by a factor of 3 giving an age of 3.6ky.

So the conclusion is, that East Germanic tribes in territory of Poland, were - to a large extent - ancestors of modern Poles.

This of course does not mean that they spoke Slavic language.

They spoke East Germanic languages until being conquered by Slavic invaders, who came from Ukraine.

However, East Germanic peoples were not to any large extent genetically related to Scandinavians and to West Germanic people.

Today South Slavic people are not genetically related to North (West and East) Slavic people, but to other Non-Slavic Balkan populations.

Slavic language was brought to the Balkans and imposed on much more numerous local Non-Slavic populations, who started speaking Slavic.

The case with Proto-Germanic language was similar. It was brought to Scandinavia and imposed on local Non-Germanic, Old Norse populations.

And later similar language shift took place in Poland, when Slavic invaders came here during the Migration Period, from areas of modern Ukraine.

 

[Domen]

Also according to this link below, I2a2a - which is today present in Eastern and Southern Europe, as well as in Iberia, but virtually absent among West and North Germanic-speaking populations, such as Germany or Scandinavia - was one of haplogroups typical for Ancient East Germanic Goths:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=825&sid=8ff16604057dc21db082c3ba39c87a4e&start=160

The only places in Germany where this haplogroup is to some extent present today, are eastern regions of Germany, not entire Germany.

Most probably it was transferred into modern Germans by Germanized Slavic people, who previously had been Slavicized East Germanic people.

 

[Domen]

First conclusion of the archaeological research project "Migration Period in Vistula and Odra Basins", announced on 23.04.2014, say that "total disappearance of settlement in Vistula and Oder Basins did not take place":

http://archeowiesci.pl/2014/04/23/p...oswieconego-okresowi-wedrowek-ludow-w-polsce/

New evidence for this conclusion has been provided by archaeological sites discovered in many places during the construction of highways before Euro 2012, as well as more recently by new findings, mostly in Cuiavia.

The article from archaeonews (archeowiesci) linked above also says:

"A conference summarizing new conclusions reached so far will take place on 28 - 29 April."

=======================

Here something more about this project in an older article from 05.08.2013:

http://archeowiesci.pl/2013/08/05/n...zagadki-konca-starozytnosci-nad-odra-i-wisla/

Use Google translator or / and a website (link) translator.

===============

"- W połowie 2012 roku rozpoczęliśmy pięcioletni projekt, który przewiduje kompleksowe przebadanie zjawisk zachodzących w dorzeczu Odry i Wisły między schyłkiem IV a początkami VII wieku. Obszar ten ma kluczowe znaczenie dla analizy procesów demograficznych i historycznych na szerokich połaciach Europy. Z tych terenów wywodzili się bowiem Goci i Wandalowie, odgrywających podstawową rolę w upadku Cesarstwa Zachodniorzymskiego i tworzeniu na jego gruzach pierwszych państwowości – wyjaśnia prof. Aleksander Bursche."

"- In mid-2012 we have started a 5-years long project, which will include a complex research on events taking place in the basins of Oder and Vistula between late 4th and early 7th centuries. This area is of key importance for analysis of demographic and historical processes in vast territories of Europe. Because it was this area from which the Goths and the Vandals had originated, and they played the basic role in the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and in the creation of first statehoods on its ruins - explains prof. Aleksander Bursche".

 

[Domen]

Maternal (mtDNA) haplogroups in Iron Age Poland and in modern Poland:

1) Iron Age:

Sample size of 23 individuals - 19 individuals from Wielbark culture and 4 from Przeworsk culture (from a 2012 study):

mtDNA hg - # of individuals - % of total sample:

H - 14 - 61%
U - 3 - 13%
T - 1 - 4-5%
J - 1 - 4%
V - 0 - 0%
K - 0 - 0%
W - 3 - 13%
I - 0 - 0%
N - 1 - 4%

Iron Age diagram (sample size: 23 people = 100%):

Source: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml

2) Modern:

Sample size of 588 individuals - a compilation of two studies from years 2002 (436 people) and 2004 (152 people):

mtDNA hg - # of individuals - % of total sample:

H - 253 - 43%
U - 102 - 17%
T - 66 - 11%
J - 47 - 8%
V - 37 - 6%
K - 22 - 4%
W - 20 - 3-4%
I - 14 - 2%
Other - 27 - 5%

Modern diagram (sample size: 588 people = 100%):

Source: http://www.actabp.pl/pdf/4_2004/883s.pdf

But I'm not sure if we can draw definite conclusions from this comparison, because H and U hgs are widespread in most of Europe.

=================================================

Here is the official website of the "Migration Period between Odra and Vistula" project:

http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/

Home page

There is urgent need for a thorough new study of the cultural, social, ethnic, demographic and environmental transition observed in Central Europe during the Migration Period. A greatly improved recognition of these processes may be gained by taking a diachronic and interdisciplinary approach.

This is precisely the aim of our 5-year Project began in mid-2012 – to investigate in a comprehensive manner processes observed between the late 4th and early 7th century on the Odra and the Vistula. This region could be crucial for tracing the processes sweeping across Europe. From here the Germans – the Goths and the Vandals spilled out and played their part in the fall of the Western Roman Empire, setting up their first states over its ruins.

Research questions

The key questions:

1) What was the cause of the rapid depopulation in the region in 5th and 6th century? Did external political factors trigger processes which led to this major demographic transition? Or was it the drive to take over attractive regions of southern and western Europe?

2) How did these phenomena evolve over space and time? New source evidence from fieldwork, evidence from older investigations verified using the modern research apparatus, should help in refining the chronology, attribution to a specific culture-historical context, e.g. integrating this evidence with information in the written sources.

3) To what extent and for how long was the area uninhabited? Is our present understanding the result of an unsatisfactory status of research, imperfect recording of archaeological finds hidden in the topsoil? Did pockets of earlier population, carriers of the late antique tradition. survive and if so, in what areas? This last question may be elucidated best by palaeobotanical studies.

News:

http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/news

 

[dutchfire]

1) Iron Age:

Sample size of 23 individuals - 19 individuals from Wielbark culture and 4 from Przeworsk culture (from a 2012 study):

mtDNA hg - # of individuals - % of total sample:

How useful is such a small sample size? With some bad luck, you've just determine the haplogroup of one family.

 

[Domen]

you've just determine the haplogroup of one family.

They are from 4 settlements / cemeteries, each located in a different region. So all of them cannot be related.

How useful is such a small sample size?

In this (allegedly professional) study, modern Poland is represented by a sample of 48 people, all of them from 1 city (Szczecin):

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/05/genetic-structure-in-europeans-nelis-et.html

IMO a sample of 23 people from 4 totally different places is actually more reliable than 48 people from just 1 place.

And in this study (published in "Science") modern Poland is represented by a ridiculous sample of just 16 people:

http://admixturemap.paintmychromosomes.com/

Hellenthal, Busby, Band, Wilson, Capelli, Falush, "A Genetic Atlas of Human Admixture History", Science, 14 February 2014.

Poland is represented by a sample of DNA collected from 16 people (probably also all of them from 1 city ) in this Atlas.

 

[Domen]

Wielbark Culture is assumed to be Gothic.

Wielbark Culture does not resemble any Scandinavian culture. There is continuity between Wielbark Culture and previous Oksywie Culture from the same area. And Oksywie Culture also evolved from previous, Pomeranian Culture. And that Pomeranian Culture evolved from previous Lusatian culture. There was a local evolution and continuity of Lusatian -> Pomeranian -> Oksywie -> Wielbark, neither of which resembled Scandinavian cultures of their respective eras. This excludes major migrations from Scandinavia.

But of course 3 ships would not be a major migration anyway.

According to Frederick Kortland, it is more likely that some group of Goths travelled or migrated from Pomerania to Scandinavia than inversely (see the article below):

http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf

As for the question when Proto-Germanic language emerged:

The change of Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic has been defined by the first sound shift (or Grimm's law) and must have occurred when mutually intelligible dialects or languages in a Sprachbund were still able to convey such a change to the whole region. So far it has been impossible to date this event conclusively.

Most probably Proto-Germanic separated from PIE already in Eastern Europe.

Then groups speaking PG migrated through and settled in Poland, Northern Germany and Scandinavia. As the result of that expansion, PG divided into East G, North G and West G.

East Germanic languages are thus locally developed, not "imported" from Scandinavia.

Considering that there is a confirmed continuity of evolution between Bronze Age Lusatian Culture and Late Iron Age Wielbark Culture (with Pomeranian and Oksywie cultures as intermediary stages in that development) then - basing on frequently adopted assumption that continuity of material culture means continuity of language - we should conclude that already Lusatian Culture included ancestors of Goths (as well as most certainly of many other East Germanic tribes).

And this excludes Scandinavian origins of Goths, or of any other East Germanic tribe.

Lusatian Culture existed in roughly the same period as the Nordic Bronze Age. Moreover, Lusatian Culture evolved as a continuity of previous - also Bronze Age - Trzciniec Culture.

Przeworsk Culture also ultimately evolved from Lusatian Culture - with several intermediary stages. And PC is often attributed to another East Germanic confederation of tribes - Vandals.

Nobody even tries to argue that Vandals were from Scandinavia.

They apparently had a common Bronze Age and East-Central European origin with Goths.

Bornholm is supposed to be Burgundarhom, the holm of the Burgundians.

Holm = island.

Indeed, but we find Burgundians living there in year 880 AD, not in Ancient times.

So rather than being the place of origin, it is one of places colonized by Burgundians.

In Ancient times they are mentioned (Pliny the Elder) as living in the Vistula Basin.

Burgundy in France is not the ancestral land of Burgundians, and neither is Bornholm.

Tacitus and Pliny the Elder knew little concerning the Germanic peoples east of the Elbe river, or on the Baltic Sea. Pliny (IV.28) however mentions them among the Vandilic or Eastern Germanic Germani peoples, including also the Goths. Claudius Ptolemy lists them as living between the Suevus (probably the Oder) and Vistula rivers, north of the Lugii, and south of the coast dwelling tribes. Jordanes later reported that during the 3rd century, the Burgundians living in the Vistula basin were almost annihilated by Fastida, king of the Gepids, whose kingdom was at the mouth of the Vistula.

Pliny the Elder (who mentioned Burgundians living among the Vandals) lived in the 1st century AD. Perhaps during the 3rd century AD some Burgundians who escaped from the Gepids (see above) migrated to the island which later became Bornholm and slaughtered local population (a population decline on Bornholm is reported by archaeologists around year 250 AD).

So Burgundians could migrate from East-Central Europe to Bornholm, rather than inversely:

Pliny the Elder mentioned the Burgodiones in his Natural History (c. A.D. 79). He believed that these Burgodiones were members of the “Vandal race” of Germans and placed them near the Oder and Vistula rivers. Later, Ptolemy, in his Geography (c. A.D. 150), wrote of the Burguntae, who lived between the Suevus and the Vistula rivers. Additionally, Jordanes, in his Origins and Deeds of the Goths, mentioned the Burgundians, claiming that Fastida, King of the Gepidae, had nearly destroyed them near the Vistula. These early writers attempted to classify Germans by using either a geographical system, as did Pliny and Ptolemy, or a combination of this with a mythical or genealogical system, as did Tacitus in his Germania.

(...)

Historians in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries utilized linguistic evidence to determine that the name of a Swedish island, Bornholm, located in the Baltic Sea east of Denmark, south of Sweden, and north of Poland, was a shortened form of Burgundarholm. (...) However, more recent scholarship has called these attempts at linguistic forensics into question. For example, Walter Goffart (Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation) argues that Scandinavian toponyms, like Borgundarholm, could be derived from a number of other sources and thus mean something other than a place where a people called the Burgundians once lived.

Pliny, Tacitus, Ptolemy, and Jordanes - all of them list Burgundians as living in what is now Poland.

First source which lists them on Bornholm is account by Wulfstan of Hedeby from ca. 880 AD.

They were mentioned living in Poland ~900 years before being first mentioned on Bornholm.

So the conclusion is that they migrated from Poland to Bornholm, not inversely. Burgundy in France is also not the place of their origin, but one of places where they migrated. They probably invaded Bornholm, killed local population and settled there, ca. 250 AD. They couldn't migrate from Bornholm to Poland in the 200s because they already had been in Poland centuries earlier.

by about 250 the [previous] population of Bornholm had largely disappeared from the island. Most cemeteries ceased to be used, and those that were still used had few burials (Stjerna, in Nerman 1925:176).

= small group of invaders killed larger group of previous inhabitants.

=================

Spoiler :

Some discussion also here on pages 7 - 12+:

http://historum.com/european-history/5682-where-did-germanic-peoples-come-7.html

 

[CuddlyBear]

Hi, long time lurker, first time poster.

Interesting read but I'm not so easily convinced. I'm no expert on the Indo-European languages but I have had a fascination for the Uralic languages for quite some time now.

What is sure is that people of Stone Age in Scandinavia, did not speak Germanic language, but some Non-Indo-European language.

True.

Nordic people from Scandinavia - although they speak IE Germanic languages - are largely descendants of previous, Non-IE Nordic population.

Agreed.

In such case, I do not think that East Germanic people were genetically related to Scandinavians.

Fair enough.

They shared common language, but not genes - which suggests expansion of Proto-Germanic into Scandinavia, rather than out of Scandinavia.

This is where I'm lost. I don't follow the logic. Can you explain further?

Antrophology I won't touch. I know nothing of it. Also I'm really skeptical of it at all and how it relates to linguistics. Finns and the Uralic speaking Nenets people in Arctic Russia speak a related language yet look completely different. Finns look Northern European and the Nenets people look Asian. You can't measure skulls and say what language someone spoke. Same goes for genetics. People change and adopt different languages, it doesn't mean that they come to be and look like the new-comer or even adopt their culture.

From another post:

Considering that there is a confirmed continuity of evolution between Bronze Age Lusatian Culture and Late Iron Age Wielbark Culture (with Pomeranian and Oksywie cultures as intermediary stages in that development) then - basing on frequently adopted assumption that continuity of material culture means continuity of language - we should conclude that already Lusatian Culture included ancestors of Goths (as well as most certainly of many other East Germanic tribes).

This assumption is simply wrong. Some grave errors have been made in the past and present in the study of Uralic languages because of this. Take the Saami people in Northern Europe for example. People in the north were nomadic, they herded reindeer. They spoke some Paleo-European language long since extinct when the Saami language came to the area. The people there adopted the Saami language but kept their nomadic hunter-gatherer culture. The Saami probably adopted reindeer herding from these previous folks. Another example is the Comb Ceramic culture in north-eastern Europe which existed somewhere between 5000-2000 BC. Linguistics for a long period thought that the Uralic languages spread with this culture. Granted it seems to match the area of the spread of Uralic languages fairly well. Now we have more evidence that what was thought about the spread of Uralic languages was simply wrong. The Comb Ceramic culture predates the spread of Uralic languages by a fair margin.

From an Uralic linguist (note: these are only the Finnic languages excluding the spread of other Uralic languages like Saami):
http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomensynty.html

If you look at Uralic languages around the Baltics in modern Finland and Estonia you have to conclude that they had close contact with some Germanic language atleast around 500 BC and probably earlier from 1500 BC onwards. Modern Finnish and Estonian have some loanwords from Proto-Germanic such as kuningas (king) from kuningaz and rengas (ring) from hrengaz. Finnish even adopted the word for mother (äiti) from Gothic(? idk) aithei. I believe it is fairly uncommon to loan such close kinship words from other languages. Uralic proto-Finnish speakers and Germanic speakers lived side by side in South-Western Finland judging by some ancient Germanic place names in the region. Don't get me started on the Indo-Aryan or Proto-Indoeuropean loanwords seen in modern Uralic languages. They go even further back. It's just so fascinating. There are also loanwords in Uralic languages like Saami, Finnish and Estonian that are Pre-Germanic, predating Proto-Germanic. Where was this Pre-Germanic spoken, I don't know but it must be earlier than 1000 BC before Saami and Finnic languages went their separate ways and it must've been connected to us by the Baltic Sea atleast. Most likely there were Proto-Germanic folk living in Southern Finland upto modern day Vyborg (Viipuri) in the east around 500 BC and maybe Pre-Germanic folk before that. This has been concluded by studying loanwords from Germanic to Proto-Saami and Proto-Finnic. So if you say Germanic languages came from Poland, they had to come all the way to Finland before 1000-500 BC or even earlier. How do you explain this?

Why I bring this up? Because no language exists in a vacuum. I don't think your timelines match if you say Proto-Germanic spread from Poland to Scandinavia 1st century AD or a few centuries before that when Uralic people already had contact with Pre- and Proto-Germanic people before 1000 BC in the north. You need to take other languages and language families into consideration when you propose new ideas. My sources are unfortunately mainly in Finnish so they're not much use but they're no nonsense sources. You'll have to take my word for it.

 

[Domen]

Hi, very interesting response. But regarding kuningas - isn't this rather a loanword from Baltic ???

I'll take my time to respond to all of it later, but:

if you say Proto-Germanic spread from Poland to Scandinavia 1st century AD

No, no - I think that it spread from Poland to Scandinavia around 1700 BC - 1300 BC, or something like that.

Certainly not as late as 1st century AD. Where did I write this?

Where was this Pre-Germanic spoken, I don't know

Somewhere in Eastern Europe, presumably Ukraine / European Russia / Belarus.

BTW - "Pre-Germanic" could easily be Balto-Slavo-Germanic (if such a language existed).

 

[CuddlyBear]

Siema.

Hi, very interesting response. But regarding kuningas - isn't this rather a loanword from Baltic ???

I'm no expert but I think it is widely believed to be loaned from a Proto-Germanic language. There are loads of old Germanic loans in Baltic Finnic (inc. Saami) languages meaning there's been close contact with the two groups. This contact happened in the area around the Gulf of Finland. Baltic loans are of course common as well.

No, no - I think that it spread from Poland to Scandinavia around 1700 BC - 1300 BC, or something like that.

Certainly not as late as 1st century AD. Where did I write this?

You didn't mention any time period but talked about Proto-Germanic which was spoken around 500 BC - 500 AD (? idk) give or take some centuries so I assumed you meant such time period.

Why 1700 - 1300 BC?

Somewhere in Eastern Europe, presumably Ukraine / European Russia / Belarus.

BTW - "Pre-Germanic" could easily be Balto-Slavo-Germanic (if such a language existed).

If this were the case you should be able to easily find evidence for Germanic place names in the area. Like in Finland we know there were Germanic speakers because they left behind some of their place names in Southern Finland before being assimilated by the Uralic speakers + the loan words of course. Similarly we can strongly assume some form of Saami and Finnic languages were spoken south and south-east of the lakes Ladoga and Onega because of toponomy. Or pretty much all around North-Western Russia you can see slavicised Uralic names. (Onega and Ladoga come from Uralic btw "Enä juga" "lit. Big River"-> Onega "Peeni juga" "lit. Small river" -> Pinega) Real imaginative names. Languages change but place names remain. I find that really fascinating.