Talk:Pre-Roman Iron Age (Northern Europe)

message: :A possible  better title: Archaeology of Iron-Age Scandinavia Would there be any objection to such a plain description? It is archaeology, isn't it?  Wetman 01:10, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is archaeology. The problem is that the culture(s) that are covered by this term (in the Montelian sense) did not exist exclusively in Scandinavia, but also in northern Germany, nor did they exist in all of Scandinavia. It was only in the southern half, and along the coasts, that we can talk of Pre-Roman Iron Age. In most the northern half there was a hunter and gatherer culture (probably Fenno-Ugric). If I'd rename it, it would rather be Pre-Roman Iron Age (Germanic) (since it probably corresponded to the distribution of Germanic languages at the time). However, I am not sure that the term applies to areas where Germanic tribes mixed with previous cultures, such as the Wielbark/Willenberg culture in northern Poland. We could wait with the naming until someone makes a page about the British Pre-Roman Age, then we could make Pre-Roman Iron Age into a disambiguation page.--Wiglaf 19:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: The Pre-Roman Iron Age in Britain is currently treated at Prehistoric Britain, also not a very felicitous title. The immediately preceding culture is described at Nordic Bronze Age: why isn't Nordic Iron Age acceptable? --Wetman 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: is there such a thing as  "Roman Iron Age"? according to Iron Age, the iron age is held to end with the roman conquest (while of course the romans metallurgically belong to the iron age, the term generally implies prehistoric times – which is strange, because "Bronze Age" is not restricted in such a way) dab 14:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, during the Roman domination of Europe, the Scandinavians and the Germans lived in the Roman Iron Age according to the still used Montelian time-line. This age was succeeded by the Age Migrations. The naming is logic since the influence of the Romans was not restricted to the Roman empire but was felt in the areas of Germanic settlement. IIRC, the terminology for cooking was largely borrowed into the Germanic languages during the Roman Iron Age. I did not invent the name. I am only introducing a used term into Wikipedia.--Wiglaf 14:58, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: A sub-section in the entry could work in this material, to orient the ordinary reader. The references to contemporary cultures outside the area covered are helpful. Are there some sites that could be described briefly? External links? The Dejbjerg wagon is unfamiliar: a full-size wagon? a votive object? a funerary wagon? If the term describes the level of technology, then that should be described and contrasted with the Roman Iron Age that followed. Wetman 02:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ideas. I will get back when I have finished my present project.--Wiglaf 08:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A better title?

message: *"(also called the Celtic Iron Age)" I removed this interpolation. The map still seems specifically to exclude Celtic regions, and isn't the whole point (not yet being clearly made) that this culture is not the La Tène culture?
*"(ca 600 BC or 500 BC - ca 1 AD)" Is "ca 1 AD" a code for the beginning of the Roman Iron Age? What makes the date so precise?
*"Fimbul winter" I removed this ancient expression, which for Rutger Sernander in the 1920s linked the sudden onset of cold to the saga cycles: a red herring here, unless you want to make it the specific theme of a paragraph. This sudden climatic chill (ca 600BC?) must have a standard name in current climatology: use it in the text, and I'll make a hyperlink, and I'll make a stub article for it, so that identifying it further doesn't hamper your narrative here. I linked the Gundestrup Cauldron. Tollund Man and the Hjortspring boat are mentioned: have other Pre-Roman Iron Age sites and finds already received articles at Wikipedia?
I've made notes in the html of the article: I hope you'll take them seriously, as I tried to make them specific and clear. --Wetman 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The name Celtic Iron Age is a factual term that is used about this age, just like the next age is called the Roman Iron Age. The dating varies. It is 600 BC for northern Germany and 500 BC for Norway, but this article should have the appropriate geographic scope. The date 1 AD, is just convention, and has little to do with any "objective" change. As for the name of the climate change, I don't know if it has a proper English term, but I will find out.--Wiglaf 07:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Celtic Iron Age you refer to is the La Tène culture isn't it? Wouldn't it help the reader to say so? --Wetman 19:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. I have not invented this set of terminology. When Scandinavian archaeologists talk of the Celtic Iron Age, they are talking of this period in Northern Europe and not the La Tène culture. I understand that this kind of terminology is confusing, but I think that the article should state what the time and culture is called.--Wiglaf 19:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: An Iron Age Celtic culture in Scandinavia will make an interesting article. --Wetman 07:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're misunderstanding. The name Celtic in the expression Celtic Iron Age only refers to the fact that northern Europe was under heavy Celtic influence, cf. the Ambrones.--Wiglaf 07:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further criticisms

message: the timeline seems offtopic here. What you'd expect would be a timeline of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, not a gigantic timeline where the P-R IA is featured as a single item. dab (ᛏ) 13:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: timeline

message: I think that the references to nineteenth century danish archeologists should either be deleted moved to a special section at the end of the article. They make the introduction unnecesarily long and confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.184.26.120 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the introduction 

message: It says: "Its area was first delimited by the Weser in the West, the Aller in the South, and the Danish Islands in the North, but later it expanded southwards towards the Rhine and the Harz." According to the information illustrated on maps the Jastorf culture never passed the Harz. Please supply any sourced reference on this theory that Jastorf expanded to the Rhine. I don't think this is established truth, I suspect OR. Rokus01 06:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did an extensive websearch for sources now. To be fair, I found no reference that the culture expanded beyond Lower Saxony. I thus agree that any claim concerning the Rhine needs a clear reference. Otoh, since the Harz actually forms the southwerstern boundary of Lower Saxony, I see no problem with keeping it in (the Weser in fact originates to the south and the west of the Harz). dab (𒁳) 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: per :Image:Pre-roman iron age (map).PNG, our reference for the Jastorf culture extending west to the Rhine delta appears to be the the Harper Atlas of World History (1993), . dab (𒁳) 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the img discription claims the purple area is Jastorf. I did not verify this, you'll have to consult the Harper Atlas. dab (𒁳) 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The linguistic side is pretty clear. The Proto-Germanic stage we can reconstruct cannot be particularly old, as our oldest attestations (especially runic inscriptions, but also the classical Nebenüberlieferung) are close to this reconstruction. Earlier stages can only be reached indirectly and are much less certain. Old loanwords in Uralic languages may represent Bronze-Age stages of still unshifted, still laryngeal-containing (Pre-Proto-)Germanic, but the precise affiliation of the language(s) or dialect(s) represented in these loans is by no means clear and they may represent a rather generic, undifferentiated northern Indo-European dialect or group of dialects that may or may not include dialects ancestral to Proto-Germanic. It is frustrating to deal with the period in between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Germanic (likely about 3000 years at least!) because in the absence of close relatives of Germanic, and of revealing loanword layers (except perhaps in Uralic), almost nothing reasonably certain can be known about this period. So we're on safe ground only from the time Proto-Germanic proper (the latest common ancestral stage of the Germanic languages) begins to diverge. It is unlikely that this already happened in the time of the Nordic Bronze Age, perhaps at its very end. However, it is completely unclear what kind of Indo-European was spoken in Bronze Age Scandinavia. It's right in the dreaded gap. My guess would be some collateral branch to Germanic, like Sabellic (or Italic in general) to Latin, not necessarily a direct ancestor. (Again, this could be the source, or part of the source, of the Northwest Indo-European loanwords in Uralic.) Keep in mind early loanwords from Celtic such as *Walhaz, which indicate that the consonant shift is not all that old. The Pre-Roman Iron Age is the most likely period when Proto-Germanic proper was spoken, and when the divergence began. So it is reasonable to identify the Jastorf culture with the earliest speakers of Germanic as we know it (and can recognise by the presence of the consonant shift). It is absolutely essential to keep the distinction between Proto-Germanic proper and its ancestral stages in mind. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Jastorf expansions

message: I have removed this unsourced section:
:Strong evidence contrary to the above paragraph comes from the fact that "Germanic tribes" were apparently quite content to remain in comparatively improverished conditions for at least a thousand years before their first appearance in southern European consciousness. Given that rich territories to the south were within a few weeks march -- at most -- of the Jastorf locale, this points to the conclusion that these northern peoples were hardly aggressive for the greater part of pre-history. What may have set off aggressive behavior on the part of these more northern Germanic speakers was the example set by Gauls, Greeks and Romans. The organization and communication needed to mount a serious attack was probably imported from the south. As far as the expansion of Jastorf, the first impression would that it would have been an expansion into the relatively unpopulated no-man's land of central Europe. (See John Collis, The European Iron Age) Discredited 19th Century thinking suggesting some kind of innate warrior mentality often leads to poor historical analysis.
This section appears to contradict what we know about the Teutons and the Cimbri, and the claim that pre-historic peoples were happy to live peacefully in "improverished" (sic.) conditions until educated to organize warfare by Celts and Romans appears to be original reseach. Moreover, I strongly doubt that the Celts were so incredibly superior to the Germanics culturally that the former were able to wage war while the latter were incapable of such organizatorial feats.--Berig 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is pure editorializing. Sure, this is prehistory, there is a lot of room for speculation. This is however no excuse to compose rambling essays. In particular "Discredited 19th Century thinking suggesting some kind of innate warrior mentality often leads to poor historical analysis" is nonsense in this context. This simply doesn't apply to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Not even the 19th century could depict a culture without any weapon finds as warrior society. The warrior aspect emerges in the Roman Iron Age, which is undoubtedly Germanic, and which from the 2nd century AD indeed shows a predilection for weapons. So if you must shoot down 19th century strawmen, please do it on the pertinent article at least. dab (𒁳) 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Superiority" in a culture usually means "technological superiority". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: removed section

message: Referenses from old scriptures about The slow transition from hunter and gather cultures and slash and burn shifting cultivation cultures to stationary agriculture due to the iron plow--Svedjebruk (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic referenses 

message: I came here to elaborate more on the pre-Roman Iron Age from a Danish (Scandinavian) view. From my sources (Jørgen Jensen and others) which is solid and credible, it appears that there is some major differences between how this era unfolded in Scandinavia and "the southern regions" (Netherlands and northern Germany). Enough differences that the article would probably benefit from a separation. Not in two separate articles, but with separate sections. I am sure there are many similarities as well of course. 
I might even suspect there to be major differences within Scandinavia also. In particular because bog ore is/was only to be found in south-western Jutland in larger quantities. But I am not very knowledgeable about how the Iron Age unfolded in either Norway or Sweden at the moment. 
Important differences between Scandinavia (S) and "the southern regions" (tsr):
* Initial population decline in S. Expansion in tsr.
* The introduction of a well established iron industry in S was very slow.
Important and deep changes in S. Not aware if the same happened in tsr:
* A dramatic change in agricultural practices.
* The arable land was deforested and the ecology was deeply affected. Especially in Denmark. 
* Slave workers was introduced.
* Social changes. focus shifted from lineage (broadly) to immediate family and community. 
Guess work:
* Perhaps tsr traded more and had more contact with the central European Celtic tribes?
RhinoMind (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandinavia vs. Netherlands and northern Germany 

message: Perhaps northern Europe is too broad a geographical term to be of use here? 
Northern Europe also includes Great Britain, Finland, The Baltic states and more. To be complete, this article should also include a treatment of Celtic and Slavic tribes as well. Is that realistic or desirable?
RhinoMind (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I have moved a post from the article itself to TalkPage. Is this the right place to put it? RhinoMind (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean , Prehistoric Britain? as your example stated "Pre Roman" the article it self another USAGE of Classical Period  so Not only Roman (as the statement of User:RioHondo, or Greeks plus, it is been stated as Classical period followed by "Pre-roman." ? and africa is a continent it self not a country bcoz all of the continents have been encircled by explorers, That even i can say "Pre Colonial Southeast Asia" right? . where talking about a single country  (Philipandrew2 (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Europe?