1
Do you know which German tribes were involved in the original foundation of the Suebi tribal confederation?Originally Posted by rothaer
Those tribes in the GDR ended up migrating south of the Harz at the time the German sound shift took place, no?
And the High German sound shift occurred among German tribes with similar geography/culture, they are said to have spoken a common language originally (Proto-Elbe Germanic):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_Germanic
Marcomanni and Hermanduri are named as Swabian/Suebi tribes, and we can see the modern region of Swabia (named after the Swabian Circle of the HRE) resting in Alemannish territory today.
Besides Suebi, they were also called Herminones/Irminones. The two terms seem to have been used synonymously until the definition of Swabian kept narrowing down and Irminones ceased to exist as a term.
Also, on a related note, what's your opinion on the term Ingvaeones applying specifically to the Anglo-Frisian-Saxon group? And Istvaeones being applied specifically to the ancestors of the Dutch/Low Franks?
It seems the nasalisation (which was only recorded in Old Norse) indicates that it's the feminine form of the name, so Ash would be the masculine/neutral form:Aha! It’s not the name of a particular Germanic god but of a kind of gods. The Germanic gods are divided in Asen and Wanen (in German language, in English it’ll be resembling). So it’s like Ansgar (Oscar), Ansegisil etc. Still the reason for the k in Aesk is unclear to me. Maybe it’s a Frisian-like casual shortening of Ansgar/Oscar?
The corresponding feminine form in Old Norse is ásynja (pl.:ásynjur), formed by the addition of the -ynja suffix, denoting a female form.[8] A cognate word for "female áss" is not attested outside Old Norse, and a corresponding West Germanic word would have been separately derived with the feminine suffixes -inī or -injō.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86sir
Hmm, it says they came from regions that were later called Saxon, not that the New Frisians themselves were called Saxon.It was written in the Frisii Wikipedia arcticle that I had earlier linked:
„In the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of Frisia steadily decreased, and by the 5th century it dropped dramatically. Archaeological surveys indicate that only small pockets of the original population stayed behind (e.g. in the Groningen coastal marshes).[30] The coastal lands remained largely unpopulated for the next one or two centuries. As soon as conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly from regions later characterized as Saxon, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians.[5] Their Old Frisian language, however, was more intricately related to Old English spoken by their relatives settling abroad, than to the Old Saxon language spoken by the people staying behind in Germany.“
There was one user on TA from Groningen who called himself Frisian, and also Saxon and Dutch too at random times. He wasn't an active user and I only saw him posting for less than a week, don't remember his username. He said that most Groningers don't identify as Frisian today cause of their rivalry with the Friesland province, but they are Frisian (despite speaking Saxon). Though I agree with you, it would only make sense if they identified as East Frisian as a regional identity.It was that one, however. The reason for me to call him wannabe was that he and his closer family simply did not traditionally speak Frisian in contrast to the other one. It took me much effort to „press“ out this information from him. He repeatedly avoided answering and eagerly explained to me why my question doesn’t matter.
Frisians from Friesland proper probably wouldn't mind if others from historical Frisian lands identified as Frisian cause they can claim their land as part of Friesland then. It's pretty weird that there's the name Friesland exists in parts of Germany (Ostfriesland) and Holland (Westfriesland) despite the fact there have been no Frisian-speakers for many centuries. Even weirder that they're called Frisians in Germany when actual Frisian-speaking Frisians still exist.I don’t know but that’s well possible. Now, my point is that the traditional Frisian speaker agreed with him that ”we” are all Saxo-Frisians no matter the language we speak because modern Frisians are disconnected from antique Frisii and in fact Saxons, however Sea Shore Saxons.
Alright.I see what you mean but with my Monnem example I wanted to point out that the question if the name of the town is Mannheim or Monnem is not dependent on the dialect (alone) but on the conservatism of the administration that decides what is the official name.
I assume they probably calqued the High German hypercorrection into their local Saxon dialect.OMG. Then it’s even a home made mess…
I see. Why doesn't it convince you?Unfortunately not. The word is mostly considered related to German Anger, which means an agricultural used field. But it doesn’t really convince me.
Could they also be synonymous with the Angrians, Cherusci, etc.? 🤔Much is unclear but the derivation of the Ampsivarii from the Ems I consider completely sure. A number of scholars even think that it’s an emendation of Angrivarii because the Romans encountered them at the Ems river. However, the geographic connection to the Ems river is undisputed.
Hmm, then I guess some tribe from further north that migrated there later.Tulingi are considered Celts, Vangiones are Celts or Germanics and Nemetes are disputed as Germanics. Also, if you look up, where they lived, it was just in a very small area. Admittedly, the province Germania superior was also very small at the turn of times and became much expanded later, partly acrosse the Rhine where Germanics lived but also much to the southwest, were there were no Germanics.
I don't see how it's any different from the Eastern [Low] Saxons/Germans calling themselves Prussians (original Prussians were West Baltic). Or the Slavic ancestors of the Slovenes calling themselves Carantanians historically (original Carni were Celtic).All your examples but the Albanian one confirm what I mean. When the Gallo-Romans changed their name to French there had been a strong contribution by Germanic Franks etc.
They would have contribution from other tribes in their ancestry, but the Marcomanni (who themselves were mixed) would be their base. Their language/identity is likely built off the Marcomanni one.As for the Bavarians I listed up tribes that ought to be involved after there was no apartheid performed. This makes it very unlikely that the Bavarians are simply a continuation of Markomanns only.
I was thinking it could have been a regional subgroup more so than a sub-tribe.Theoretically possible. But afaik there was never spoken of Bavarians simultanously with other subtribes, however, there is no such record.
The Lex Baiuvariorum beside the Agilofinger expressly mentions 5 Bavarian noble families and they to my perception do have somewhat unusual names:
„Title III: Stipulates the Agilolfings as the leading noble family from which the rulers of Bavaria are chosen. The other noble families explicitly mentioned are: Anniona, Fagana, Hahilinga, Huosi and Trozza (sometimes also spelled "Drozza").“
But I think what most likely happened is they changed their name after establishing themselves in the Bohemia-Bavaria region similar to the German Prussians and Slavic Carantanians. And while living there, the Marcomanni-Bavarii would have absorbed other tribes in the process (such as the Boii).
Yes. It would have just changed over time to match the geography like the other two examples I gave, but it originally wouldn't have been like that.True, BUT: The name must have referred to the tribe regardless of what position Bohemia had. Because they were beaten in the west under the name of Markomanni before they went to Bohemia.
But weren't you saying that the Marcomanni and Bavarian connection is tenuous since they have different names? Hermanduri also have a different name.I personally imagine that Hermanduri are the main contributor to Markomanni that became „frontiersman“ when they became neighours of the Romans at the Rhine river. The tribal Germanic substance of what you describe and what later became named Franconia is unclear. (Btw. the area is considered the origin area of the Celtic Volcae the gave rise to the Germanic term Walah, welsch, which first became a generic name for Celts and later for their Romanised descendants and Romance people in general.) However, this area is a Frankish conquest from the Thuringian Empire.
What are you referring to?As I told, the German dialectal conditions are deeply formed by the German sound shift which is a later development. Hence it’s very hard to destillate earlier differences and connect them to particular tribes. The Franconian and the Thuringian dialects seem related but the deep linguistic trench is towards Bavarian and that indeed suggests a pre German soundshift dialectal difference.
I like the theory of it coming from the Germanic adjective thur- the most.Translated from the German Wikipedia article on the Thuringi:
”There are various hypotheses as to the etymology of the name ‘Thuringians’. The derivation of the name from the Hermundurians, which was common for a long time, as well as the derivation from the Germanic-Celtic Turonians, is now mostly questioned[1].
Most recently, Wolfgang Haubrichs has made an interpretation on the basis of all known traditions for the Thuringians in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. His onomastic linguistic analysis, in particular of the spelling, phonology and morphology, revealed that the name Thuringian can be traced back to a Germanic adjective thur- 'strong, powerful, great, rich' with a derivation to ing. It can therefore be assigned to those ethnic names that emphasised the strength and size of the tribesmen, as is the case with the Franks and Alemanni. An etymology from the base Germanic dur- 'hill, elevation' by Jürgen Udolph is - according to Haubrichs - just as impossible from a linguistic point of view as the proposed derivation from the East Germanic 'Terwingi' by Heike Grahn-Hoek[2][3].
The region north of the Thuringian Forest and Erzgebirge - the settlement area of the Naumburg group (300-60 BC) - was still known to Ptolemy[4] in the second century AD as the ‘home of the Teurians’ (Τευριοχαῖμαι, Teuriochaĩmai). [5] This is the first time that archaeologists from the Saxony-Anhalt State Office for the Preservation of Monuments and Archaeology have linked a local archaeological culture with an ancient folk name[6].“
Additionally, I read the opinion that the name may be derived from the very small river Thyra, a tributary of the Helme river, in turn a tributary of the Unstrut river, in turn a tributary of the Saale river. At the mouth of the Thyra is the small village Thürungen. But to me the Thyra seems far too small and unimportant.
Thuringians lived in North Germany and not Thuringia during the second century AD, so how the Teurians be referencing them?
But Danish and Saxon were dialects of the same language centuries after the Danish expansion happened. So I find it hard to attribute it to that. I think it's just plausible if Schleswig was either depopulated or populated by non-Germanics, that would explain why Danish and Saxon ended up not being part of the same dialect continuum. As you said Slavs lived in that area, but parts of it could have been depopulated as well, which would have limited contact between Saxons and Danes resulting in loss of a proper dialect continuum.Well, there is the opinion that the notable difference between West Germanic and North Germanic developed because of the Slavic barrier. This makes sense to me. On the other hand this can not explain why a former dialect continuum in the very small permanent Danish-Saxon contact area should have vanished. The loss of this dialect continuum I attribute to the said Danish expansion.
I see.The settlement conditions for a number of Germanic lands are a conundrum. The current state of archaeology does see confirmed a settlement hiatus of abt. 120 years (550-670 AD) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Brandenburg (not sure about Farther Pomernia) between Germanics and Slavs as I read in a very recent (2016) evaluation of newer archaeological finds.
So you agree the North Albingian Saxons displaced a different German tribe, but you just disagree this German tribe was Thuringian?Yes.
It’s well possible that the „original Saxons“ as the core of the later Saxons came from North Albingia and landed in the Land Hadeln and there encountered not amused Chauci. But as later the Chauci became Saxons and maybe the knowledge even of their existence vanished, Saxon chronists had a problem to meaningfully tell this story.
So Altmark and Magdeburg?Not in detail.
To my understanding roughly just what is today’s Saxony-Anhalt North of the Harz area (including a protrusion as far as Merseburg in the south-east) was Thuringian and became conquered by Saxons (in 531/534). In fact also the eastern half of what was directly south of the Harz. Imo Thuringians were not pushed away (ruling Thuringian nobility may have been, though) but assimilated and they also became subject of Saxon colonisation. Somewhere I read that Germanic conquests were often performed that way that the conquerer got ceded 1/3 of the arable land. You have interesting smaller colonisation areas there south of the Harz like Friesenfeld (Frisian field) and Hassegau. As the latter is documented as ho(c)hsegau it is considered not derived from Hassians but from Chauci.
That means you disagree about the location of Runibergun being near Hannover?
Are you referring to when they expanded eastwards? Probably not. Most of the Germans in the Ostsiedlung weren't even from Nordschwabengau, but from the Netherlands and Rhineland, which weren't really historically Swabian. It's interesting to see that name exist in the Northeast that late. How did Northeast Germany later become [Low] Saxon after being Swabian?There was a drama following the Longobard conquest of Italy in 568. Alboin had managed to attract also 20,000 Saxons to join his undertaking. After the conquest of Italy these Saxons were very disappointed because the Longobards allegedly broke their promise that these Saxons could live in Italy under their own Saxon law. They returned and wanted back their former land which was in the aforementioned Hassegau. But the new owners were prepared and they totally destroyed the returning Saxons (I guess not the women and children, though). Northeast of the Harz you also have a Nordschwabengau which is somewhat surprising. That are likely no Swabians from Southern Germany but kind of original Suebians that withdrew from Brandenburg in the context of the Slavic expansion. Interestingly, the noble dynasty of Ascanians that was very important in the later German Ostsiedlung hails from the Nordschwabengau and is said to be Swabian. Did they have any memory and conciousness about that they made a kind of re-conquista?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks