dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja: 01/29/14

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

29-01-2014: minors, white ribs & bird death @ the dominion tavern basement, windsor

their music:
https://weareminors.bandcamp.com/
https://whiteribs.bandcamp.com/
https://birddeath.bandcamp.com/

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2014/01/29.html

event listing:

video:

i'm doing some research on this right now, and it's largely the conclusion i'm coming to. the reality is that charlemagne attacked them first. maybe they went a little overboard in their response, but it's not like the church had a good track record by the year 800.

if you look at the larger context, it wasn't just the vikings. even around the year 800, the areas north of the rhine and the danube were still mostly wilderness, inhabited by wandering tribes of various ethnicities. berlin wasn't founded until 1237, probably by poles, who migrated as far west as denmark. charlemagne fought remnants of iranian tribes living near belgium. the whole wide swath of territory from the atlantic to the caspian was just forests, small farms and huts.

...and they all worked together to fight the empire. it's tempting to almost build the context up of a world war, a clash of civilizations. i mean, that context is there. you don't have to look hard to find it. but it's usually presented in a colonialist narrative about how the christians came in and civilized the backwards barbarians.

but there's enough evidence to piece together a counter-narrative about a collection of intertwined peoples who were struggling to maintain their way of life.

i've never understood some of the viking tactics. i mean, it's one thing to pillage and plunder. it's another thing to burn down entire cities. the vikings specifically targeted churches and mosques. that's not plunder. that's war.

http://medievalnews.blogspot.ca/2010/01/viking-attacks-on-europe-were-self.html

as an "advanced civilization", northern europe (including germany) is not much older than the united states is.

seems a little romantic, but the norse did in fact practice direct democracy. it would have looked sort of like the "loya jirga" you hear about in afghanistan, where the whole tribe gets together and tries to reach consensus. even in the norman invasions of italy, around the year 1100, they were still electing leaders rather than passing power through paternal links. it took papal hard power to put an end to it, and a dozen histories by monks to erase it.

http://freya.theladyofthelabyrinth.com/?page_id=483

"There were consequently hierarchies of things, so that the local things were represented at the higher-level thing, for a province or land."

somebody at wikipedia is having a little bit of fun with words regarding norse assemblies.

hiallt

born:
died:
ascendency: vikings
plausible descendency: d'hauteville family[1]
plausible descendency: de crepon family

hiallt is a legendary warrior that was said to be a friend of rollo. his existence is highly dubious, but the fact that the pope annulled robert guiscard's first marriage provides strong evidence for a close genealogical relationship between the d'hauteville and de crepon families. that's all there is to this link.

[1]: the deeds of count roger of calabria & sicily & of duke robert guiscard his brother , p. 1-5

http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/gen/lines/hauteville/hiallt.html

i've added the malaterra reference to rollo as a norwegian because it is interesting, but i'm a little unclear as to why it's been ignored. malaterra's history is wonky, no doubt. however, he was writing from italy at roughly the same time as the norman invasion of england, which makes him a relatively early source. he would have lacked any of the political motivations that dudo or jumierges may have had to connect the norman dukes to denmark. dudo is certainly known to have fabricated a few things here and there. further, 'dane' is an ambiguous term, in context. with malaterra, there's no reason to think he would have been expressing anything other than the understood knowledge of the time. as far as i can see, he's the best source we've got.

certainly, the malaterra reference is older than the sagas (as they exist in written form).

what i'm a little iffy about is if the translation is accurate. i suppose it could have merely been overlooked, it is after all an italo-norman history rather than a franco-norman history. but i'd have to collectively slap all historians of the period for missing this, if that's the case. so, could we get an expert check the translation? if the translation is accurate, i think this answers the question.

it doesn't, however, corroborate the sagas. not exactly, anyways. it simply fixes rollo's background as norwegian. i'll let the experts take it from there and get back to me on it.

actually, i checked the latin and it says "sea norvegia". that was translated as norwegian in the translation i've provided, but it seems to reference the orkneys and rolf ganger. can we get an expert here? is malaterra providing a latin corroboration of the saga narrative from far away italy c. 1099?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rollo#added_malaterra_reference)

me
i've searched long and hard and cannot find anybody else that has seen any relevance in the fact that ptolemy places a tribe called the marvingi at the confluence of the rhine and the main. could this have anything to do with merovingian (and therefore frankish) ancestry? one may note that the fact that the franks did not retain germanic legends of descent from odin is unusual if they were indeed a german confederation, and further note that the dominant religious practices in clovis' time were gallo-celtic (arduina) in nature. then again, i suppose a gallic continuity hypothesis is just too simplistic, isn't it?

Til Eulenspiegel
It's not whether or not it's simplistic - it's whether or not this is in any WP:RS. If it is, no problem citing it. If it's not, please see WP:OR.

me
well, ptolemy was an ancient roman geographer writing from egypt. you need to be careful with him. what i'm doing here is throwing out a request for somebody in the field to address the issue, because i've never seen it addressed. i can't just jump from "ptolemy identified marvingi near the rhine" to "the marvingi ptolemy identified were the frankish merovingians", especially considering that the accepted scholarly opinion is that they were riparian (atlantic) franks. it's just that there are a lot of holes in the idea, and a lot of myths surrounding their origin. it's an idea, not an assertion.

Srnec
I made an edit to Merovingian dynasty with a source. Some other stuff comes up at Google Books, but I don't have access to those books.

me
thank you.

and just to follow up on this: gregory of tours (who is usually considered the better source, apparently) claims the franks originated in pannonia rather than belgium. this is generally discarded as "nonsense" because it doesn't fit other evidence, but perhaps that dismissal is a little too hasty and ought not to be total. there's a source here: http://books.google.ca/books?id=yhaSRVnI1Y4C&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=franks+from+pannonia&source=bl&ots=hBrvPEEJcY&sig=_iUp9GQb-EDmH6Mh-dmrXOUO1WY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q_brUrmaKuS22gXU9oGQAw&ved=0CG8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=franks%20from%20pannonia&f=false (sorry for the ridiculous link) that briefly deconstructs the myth as incorporating tribes that moved from the east into the frankish confederacy. it doesn't mention the marvingi explicitly, but it's consistent with the idea that a large of amount of the frankish ethnogenesis was composed of tribes that do not have an extended history in the low countries. it's still not direct evidence, but it's building up towards a hypothesis.

i'm going to leave this alone, now, in hopes that somebody picks it up as a research topic and reports back here about it.

...except to point out that there's a historical movement of alans from pannonia to france that fits the entire narrative and could have merged with a few german tribes along the way. it's discussed in a relatively recent book, Deutschlands unbekannte Jahrhunderte, Geheimnisse aus dem Frühmittelalter by Richard Schmoekel (i can't read german).

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franks#marvingi_.2F_merovech)

seine vikings

appearance: c. 800
ascendancy: vikings

the seine vikings were considered to be "danes", but how literally true that is is up to some interpretation. the initial attacks on charlemagne's empire may have been in retaliation for trying to conquer the world, or it may have been due to climate, or it could be a combination of the two. however, it seems that the group of vikings that actually settled in the seine came to the region some years later via the "great heathen army" that annoyed england for much of the ninth century, and was eventually defeated by alfred of wessex. that would make this a mixed group of people, although the commanders were said to be ynglingas in descent from ragnar lodbrok. the conventional history is to think of them primarily as danes.

rollo may, however, have been a vestfoldian viking. this is lost to history. tancred was said to be an ally of rollo.

descendancy: rollo
descendancy: tancred

[1]: anglo-saxon chronicles, 880-920
[1]:

i know it's not as glamorous as descending from sea monsters, trojans or jesus, but ptolemy is very clear that there was a tribe of south (west) germans called the marvingi that lived near the confluence of the rhine and the main, pretty much perfectly positioning them to jump the river with the rest of the franks. remember that frank is an inexact ethnic term that translates to "free" (meaning not roman) and refers to a coalition of german, celtic, slavic, iranian and other peoples rather than a specific german tribe. ptolemy may have mistaken germans for celts - he wouldn't be the first southern geographer to do so. further, the connection is vague; as i'm presenting it to you right now, it's not in any better shape than the cimmerian suggestion (cimmerian looks like cimbri looks like sicambri). so, i'm not suggesting that ptolemy's map proves that the merovingians were of the marvingi tribe. yet, the geographic and chronological positioning - combined with the very down to earth nature of the idea - is quite enticing. it's something i'd like to present is an idea that requires further research. specifically: can we trace the merovingians to the confluence of the main and the rhine? because, if we can, ptolemy has a very simple and rational answer for us.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Merovingian_dynasty#ptolemy)

loire vikings

appearance: c. 800
ascendancy: vikings

the loire vikings were said to have been "vestfoldian" (see [1])

descendancy: gunnora
descendancy: tancred

[1]: the vikings in brittany, p. 25
[2]:

vikings

appearance: c. 793
ascendancy: swedes

this is a little messy. it's generally acknowledged that vikings were mostly danes and norwegians. however, if the idea that they were aristocratic jarls is to be upheld then the sagas descend both danish and norwegian aristocrats from a swedish ruling class. for now, i place this here for convenience - i will eventually distribute the constituent pieces in more precise locations

descendancy: seine [dane] vikings
descendency: loire [westfold] vikings

ynglingas

appearance: c. 0
dispersal: possibly still alive?
ascendancy: swedes[3]

the ynglingas seem to have come from the area around the netherlands, before establishing themselves in the area around uppsala. from there, they conquered denmark and colonized norway. they also extended their sphere of influence deep into russia. the lines that flow from here are either mythical or convenient for the moment, but will eventually be explored more rigorously.

descendancy: dyggvi [2]

possible descendancy: radbardians
possible descendancy: vikings

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200

page last updated may 15, 2005

swedes

appearance: c. 0
ascendancy: north germans[3]

i link the swedish aristocracy to the south primarily due to the fact that the new ruling line began with one "yngve" and the western germans were at this time known by the name "yngvaeones". if read correctly, the sagas seems to imply exactly what i'm proposing: usurpation by a new ruling elite. it all adds up to an invasion after -100 or so and from the south.

descendancy: ynglingas [2]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: jason parent, 2004
[4]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

chauki

appearance: c. -
dispersal: c. -
ascendancy: north germans[1]

the chauki were originally described as more closely related to the teutones and cimbri, but this is not helpful because we don't really know a lot about who the teutones or cimbri were. they were probably germans with a heavy celtic influence, and this would speak to a northern distribution and not a southern one.....

so, the chauki/saxon affiliation seems doubtful. the saxons would have invaded from the south, stayed in the north, and then gone back to the south.

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

danes

appearance: c. -
dispersal: c. -
ascendancy: north germans[2]

the danes seem to have begun a little further south, closer to the netherlands. however, this particular patriarch of skjold does not continue patrilineally into modern history - it is destroyed by a family that invaded from russia but was probably originally swedish.

descendancy: skjoldings[2]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

north germans [ingvaeones]

appearance: c. -800
differentiation: c. -400
ascendancy: south germans[1]

it makes more sense to derive the north and west germans from a common trunk. this is not to say that west and north german are closer than north and east german are, because this is clearly false. this is to say that when the 'east germans' first moved to scandinavia, there was probably very little difference between the three major dialects primarily because they didn't exist yet. also, this is in place more to attack the religious grouping than the linguistic one. however, if we accept the fact that the ancient sagas and legends position the danes and the swedes further to the south and in a closer religious tradition with the west germans, we can perceive of the west germans splitting into two distinct sub-cultures: the danes and swedes in the north and the germans in the south. linguistically, this allows us to recover 'north german' as the language that developed in denmark with the danes and future swedes, which would have been halfway between the 'east german' that was spoken in sweden and the 'west german' spoken further south. then, 'east german' still developed directly from 'north german'.......but, so did 'west german'. get it? these are the germans that took the longest to leave the german homeland of denmark and hence didn't change a whole lot in their isolation, whereas the more southern germans changed much more drastically given their interaction with celts, slavs, romans, etc....

descendancy: cimbri [1]
descendancy: teutones--->jutes? [1]
descendancy: heruli [1]
descendancy: danes [1]
descendancy: swedes/heardings [3]
descendancy: chauki[1]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: jason parent, 2004
[4]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965
[5]: german myths and legends, donald a. mackenzie, avenal

page last updated may 15, 2005

skiri

appearance: c. -230
destruction: 469
ascendancy: east germans[1]

the skiri were an originally east german tribe that, under celtic influence, invaded the eastern parts of rome about -230. the skiri maintained their independence for several centuries before they were eventually destroyed. note: odoacer was skiri. edika-->odoacer-->thela. link to modernity is undefined.

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

bavarii

appearance:
destruction:
ascendancy: rugians[1]

the bavarians were the result of the germanic rugians mixing with the celtic boii. although the celts had a large influence on the rugians, it was the rugian-bavarians that retained aristocratic-social control and the german language became the dominant one in the confederacy.

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

rugian

appearance:
destruction:
ascendancy: east germans[1]

after invading southwards into the heartland of the celtic boii, the rugians seem to have gone so far as to adopt their name. in time, they emerged as the bavarii.

descendancy: bavarii[1]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

gepids

appearance:
destruction:
ascendancy: east germans[1]

before about 200 or so, the gepids lived in northern poland and their culture can be identified with that of the wielbark. the gepids were under gothic domination until the invasion of the huns who then became the new gepid overlords; they were destroyed by avars.

descendancy: [1]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

east germans

appearance: c. -500
assimilation and differentiation: c. 10
ascendancy: south germans[1]

these are the real east germans, the ones that lived in eastern europe as far as the carpathians and the black sea before the gothic invasion. their language was likely closer to the west german, east and west sharing a common southern descent, whereas the later "east germanic language group" is descended from the north german invasion of the goths. that's not as confusing as it may appear at first. all of these tribes were heavily influenced by silesian celts and several of these tribes would have eventually come under the domination of the goths as well.

the later part of this culture, particularly that in the area of the gepids, can be identified with the wielbark culture.

descendancy: bastarni[1]
descendancy: gepids[1]
descendancy: marcomanni[1]
descendancy: quadi[1]
descendancy: rugians[1]
descendancy: skiri[1]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

merovingians

appearance: c. 150
differentiation: c.
ascendancy: west germans[1]

i'm more than willing to jump to the conclusion that the merovingians can be connected with the marvingi of ptolemy.

[5]: geography, ptolemy, c. 150?

page last updated dec 10, 2005

hermanduri

appearance: c.
dispersal: c.
ascendancy: west germans[1]

once in the heartland of the celtic sennones/semnones, the hermanduri appear to have joined forces with their celtic cousins. those hermanduri who chose not to join the new confederation underwent a slight sound change from "herman" to "thurin". ironically, however, 'herman' seems to be the result of a roman identification of odin with hermes. and, 'german' was what the romans eventually called their northern enemies - apparently as a direct result of their worship of hermes.

descendancy: allemani[1]
descendancy: thuringii [1]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last june 1, 2005

suevi

appearance: c. -72
disappearance: 586
ascendancy: west germans[1]

the suevi were originally not so much a tribe as a confederation of tribes and, as such, it is difficult to list them in a tree like this. in fact, this problem is recurrent throughout early german history and prehistory because tribal confederations were rarely led by a single tribe. this federation would have originally formed in the areas around saxony and thuringia but, like all early germans, they wandered around over a considerable distance. they have given their name to swabia and eventually settled in iberia. they were destroyed by the visigoths.

some tribes that were listed as "suevi" at some point or another were the angles, the marcomanni and the quadi. the suevi seem to have therefore been a mix of central and originally east german tribes.

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

chatti

appearance: c.
dispersal: c.
ascendancy: west germans[1]

something interesting is the khatti/chatti possibility.....tacitus singles these people out first and implies that they were older than everyone else. the khatti were said to be the people that lived in modern day turkey before the anatolian invasion and gave their name to the hittites.

certainly, the early farming invasion came directly from anatolia and went westwards almost linearly. could the khatti be an ancient remnant of the old european/anatolian/sumerians? could this explain the diana worship? could it explain the legends that the franks were from the east? could it explain the arcadian/bear recurrences?

hrmmmn.

the franks certainly do not descend directly from the khatti, and their aristocracy was not khattian. the franks were not a single tribe nor even a group of related tribes, they were a large confederation of people that were eager to finally have gained freedom from the romans and, while being originally led by the germans that overthrew them, were populated and eventually probably even run mostly by celts......and, also, perhaps, by a very old remnant of an early farming expansion.

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

franks

appearance: c. 241
differentiation: c.
ascendancy: west germans[1]

the franks were actually a large confederation of small tribes, the dominant one appearing to be the chatti or hessians. other probable early components of the franks are the chamavi, the bructeri, the amsivarians, the chattuarii and the sicambri. it is probable that the franks were only part german and part celtic. i am in fact skeptical as to whether their eventual dominant ruling class - the sicambrians - is even german. it seems more likely that they were celts.

one idea about the name 'frank' is that it means 'free'. i have been a little skeptical of this up to now. however, it really does kind of makes sense. under this hypothesis what happened, basically, is that when the empire collapsed the people living in northern france, belgium, luxembourg, the netherlands and western germany finally became.....well....free from a roman colonial occupation. however, this means that the franks were basically just the sum of the conquered peoples of northern europe and not an identifiable "tribe" in any way whatsoever. some of these people would have been celts, some germans and some perhaps even iranians, slavs, thracians or who knows whom else. one thing that is certain is that the franks were following a gallo-greek religion when history sets in. to follow this train of thought consider that the franks did not butcher their way southwards like the tribes around them although they did of course cross the rhine with everyone else. however, they seem to have been put in power as opposed to having seized it. now, recognize that most of western europe spent the entire roman occupation fighting against italy and even managed to win a short lived independence from time to time under different gallo-roman leaders who wished to create a united, celtic empire. it is true that there were 'mercenaries' under roman control but these seem to have primarily been defectors - neither germany nor france nor britain nor spain ever really accepted roman rule and they all revolted at every possible opportunity. the (primarily celtic) resistance certainly lasted until the empire was in it's last stages of collapse. so, if there were certainly celtic elements within the franks, their religion was essentially gallic and the leaders seem to have come from either within gaul (my memory says belgium) or just over the river.....

nonetheless, the riparians and salians seem to have been identifiable germans, the free germans on one side of the rhine and the free germans on the other. i'm not so sure about the sicambrians who may actually be the free celts.....and may eventually give them a celtic descent. what is the link between sicambri and cimbri? was cambrai built by the cimbri/sicambrians? if so, we must accept that they were celts, no? this is another question that i don't know the answer to at this point. however, the early legends say that the first semi-historical frankish king "captured" cambrai from the romans. could the family have really been living there all along? could the cimbri have simply been the celts from around cambrai? could they have been the germans that displaced the cambrian celts? hrmmmn.

oh.....and of course the cimmerians were not the cimbri although sicambri/cimmerian may perhaps be the source of this myth that the franks were cimmerians, which is all it is. note that if the cimmerians really were thracians, it makes the trojan/cimmerian legends almost rational as the trojans may have actually been very early thracians........and very early thracians were really just cimmerians.

descendancy: riparian [1]
descendancy: salian [1]
descendancy: sicambrian [4]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965
[4]: will certainly be a detailed book on accepted early frankish history

page last updated june 1, 2005

cherusci

appearance: c.
dispersal: c.
ascendancy: west germans[1]

what's the cherusci/etruscan evidence?

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 19654

page last updated june 1, 2005

saxons

appearance: c. 100
dispersal: c.
ascendancy: west germans[1]

the saxons show up around the time that they overthrew the chauki. the earliest reference i've seen is ptolemy that puts them at the base of the jutland peninsula. however, linguistically, the chauki could not have been the ancestors of the saxons because the chauki were 'yngvaeones' and the saxons would have been west germans and hence irminones. so, it does not seem right to start the saxons off in the north - more likely is that they really did start off a little further south. their northward movements are likely part of what pushed the swedes into sweden.

"english", despite the name, is mostly descended from old saxon. however, the closest language to english is not saxon but frisian. it is also said that kentish and anglian were pretty close. so, we can conceive of a large confederation of closely related tribes - saxons, angles, frisians - moving north-west and eventually over the channel. they themselves were probably pushed north by an expanding celtic/frankish confederation that eventually became the sicambrians.

descendancy: west (british)
descendancy: east (german)

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

angles

appearance: c. 100
dispersal: c. 400
ascendancy: west germans[1]

the angles are first described as a part of the suevian confederation, which puts their original origin somewhere in the middle of germany and towards the baltic. most people associate the angles with denmark, but the migration to denmark was a later occurrence - tacitus is very clear that the angles were originally suevians and hence from further east. saxo even begins his history by saying that the danes had two ancestors - dan and angul - and hence clearly separates the danes and angles into distinct peoples, although they are both sons of humble (who is a christian rationalization of bure). so, saxo even separates the danes and angles before odin, the traditional ancestor of everyone else. is this a remembrance of the yngvi/odin split?

an invasion north into scandinavia probably is what pushed the ynglingas into sweden and denmark, and probably wasn't until a little later than 100. the saxons show up with ptolemy and i would think it likely that this was about the time the angles started moving north. of course, the angles eventually went to britain where they renamed the island 'angle-land'.

once on the island, the angles split up into several communities.

descendancy: mercians
descendancy: east anglians
descendancy: northumbrians

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 22, 2004

frisians

appearance: c. 100
dispersal: c.
ascendancy: west germans[1]

the original (non-german) frisians must have been a late neolithic holdout like the picts and the name frisian itself is probably that of the ancient inhabitants and not the german pre-dutch invaders who eventually took over. i say this because frisia seems to derive from freyja and freyja could not have been an indo-european deity.

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

west germans [irminones]

appearance: c. -500
dispersal: by 250
ascendancy: south germans[1]

these were the germans around the rhine and into modern 'germany'. irminone is probably read as 'hermanone', ie. those who worship hermes because hermes was identified with odin and these tribes worshipped odin. or, at least, the angles and saxons did. there are some guesses that will need to be further researched.

descendancy: frisians[1]
descendancy: angles[4]
descendancy: saxons[1]
descendancy: cherusci [1]
descendancy: franks [1]
descendancy: chatti [1]
descendancy: suevi[1]
descendancy: hermanduri[1]
descendancy: merovingians[5]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965
[4]: germania, tacitus, c. 100
[5]: geography, ptolemy, c. 150?

page last updated june 1, 2005

south germans

appearance: c. -1000
differentiation: c. -500
ascendancy: germans[1]

"In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or recording the past they celebrate an earth-born god Tuisco (thor - j), and his son Mannus (halfdan - j), as the origin of their race, as their founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names, they say, the coast tribes are called Ingaevones; those of the interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istaevones." - tacitus, germania, chapter two.

that tacitus (and also pliny) splits the germans into three nations makes a good deal of sense. the yngvaeones appear to be those who worshipped frey-yngve and were located from the netherlands into denmark, the irminones appear to be those that worshipped odin-hermes and were located in modern germany and the istvaeones appear to be those to the east, near the hister (danube). this provides early cartographic evidence that the danes and swedes were located in denmark and the netherlands until at least the time of pliny.

starting with that breakdown, the next question is to ask where these people moved around to. that this movement doesn't correlate with the linguistic conventions is why my categorization is confusing. after migration, the yngvaeones became the north germans (culturally, not linguistically), the herminones became the west germans (this corresponds to linguistic and cultural convention) and the eastern istvaeones were submerged underneath the (linguistically) east german invasions. so, while linguists normally talk of north (including east) and west germanic, i have chosen to speak of north (including east) and south (including west and what would become north, culturally).

the southern germans did not live in isolation; large amounts of these german cultures were made up of celtic tribes and celts often even gave their names to these tribes [ie. bavarii, semnones, sicambrians]. celtic-german synthesis needs to be kept in the back of the mind moving forwards through this.

now, yes, it's true that most people think that ptolemy puts the angles and saxons to the north very early and hence that this is where they first showed up. however,

1) the saxons appear to have taken over the chauki by force and are probably not the same people as the chauki. an invasion from a little further south or east makes sense, then.
2) the information on the angles is actually very clear and it is inexplicable why so many later readers have been so stubborn. see, the problem is that the anglo-saxons want to take the anglo-saxon sources at face value and ignore the roman sources. however, tacitus is the earliest information and he claims that the angles were a part of the suevi federation, which clearly makes them either irminones or istvaeones. also, it is not until ptolemy that they are located anywhere at all and it's in southern denmark - again, a later invasion would allow this.
3) this later invasion is exactly what we need to push the danes and swedes north into denmark and sweden. the close geographical positioning of danes/jutes and angles/saxons would then compensate for the danes' closer religious ties to the west, while the swedes retained their older yngve worship.

so, it all adds up for the angles and the saxons. the frisians would have been closely related and wandered over at about the same time....

so, then, the interesting thing about the southern germans is that they have done a lot of this work for me in the sense that they descend themselves from a common ancestor, odin. when tacitus/pliny made up their maps/histories they probably split them up based on their religious affiliations more than anything else, which puts the north/west as thor worshippers and the people in germany as odin/hermes worshippers.....

i will certainly delineate these cultures through more historical means but i will include their legendary ancestors as a sort of peripheral joke.

i also reserve the right to swap individual tribes around from any of these three branches to the next as more specific information comes in on each tribe.

odin
\|
vegdeg		skjold	casere	whitlaeg	baeldaeg	thor	saeming
\|		\|	\|	\|	\|	\|	\|
whitgils		to the early danes	to the eastern angles	to the mercians	to the west saxons and then the english	halfdan	to the earls of trondheim
\|						\|
witta						ingve
\|						\|
hengst						to the swedes, norwegians, normans, varangians and later danes
\|
oesc	hartwaker
\|	\|
to the kentish	to the saxons

now that this is over with, i would like to refer you to some legitimate history:

descendancy: west germans [irminones][4]
descendancy: original east germans [istvaeones][4]
descendancy: north germans [ingvaeones][4]

descendancy: mythical lines: a way to get to the top of the different mythical families, and there are quite a few of them here.

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965
[4]: germania, tacitus, c. 100

page last updated june 1, 2005

scandinavians

appearance: c. -100
dispersal: c. 500
ascendancy: north germans[1]

i will differentiate the scandinavians from the goths only once the goths leave, which is some time around the year -100. that being said, most of the scandinavian aristocracy, including the ynglingas, deserves a south german descent in my opinion based on the ancient literary records.

now, as noted, the ynglingas were probably south german. however, after olav the tree cutter, the danish skjoldings [also south germans] invaded sweden and cut the ynglinga line in half. the ynglinga descent known to history is from a norse saga entitled the heimskringla and only details the kings of norway after their split from those of sweden; norway was a swedish colony. indeed, the swedes were expanding out in all directions at this time, including russia, and it was these russian ynglingas that eventually reconquered sweden and drove the danes out, even conquering denmark in the process. from this point, there are three powerful ynglinga lines: the norse line, the radbardian swedish and danish line and the russian rurikovitch line, probably in descent from radbard. however, we need to back up here a minute.

sometime between the years 650 and 800 a major revolution hit all of scandinavia that briefly led to denmark and sweden being united under one throne. where did that dynasty, which i will call the "radbardian" as he is the earliest traditional ancestor, originate from? the legends say russia, which is not outside the periphery of german control but is outside the periphery of german ancestry, unless we assume that what happened was an early raiding party sent by either the king of denmark or the king of sweden came back and overthrew both dynasties. otherwise, the ynglingas could only be baltic or slavic. however, the people that lived here at this time were really estonian/finnish, and these people were clearly not estonian or finnish. so, the only (rational) possibility is that these were varangians of some sort. the end result was the creation of the kingdom of uppsala, which led to the modern swedish state. thus, it is an important event, despite the fact that it is shrouded in mystery. who were randver radbardsson, sigurd ring and ragnar lodbrok? the little bit of evidence we do have points to a swedish descent rather than a danish one.

first off, radbard is connected to the skjoldings by marriage and not descent, meaning he probably wasn't a skjolding. second off, it was the ynglingas that invaded estonia and not the skjoldings. third off, the danish invasion of sweden would create a pretext for a swedish retaliation, perhaps from the only outpost of the ynglinga line left, the descendants of some earl named radbard in russia. presumably it would have taken some time for the message to get to these people, for them to raise an army and for them to subdue what must have been a fairly formidable danish force. at the end of the day, however, it was the radbardians that were in control and it was their aristocracy that brought scandinavia into historical record.

the important thing here is that none of these people seem to be norse, or even scandinavian; they're all west german. the only possibility of an internal revolution comes from the radbardians but the legends that put him in russia tell me he must have been an outpost of the established order living very far away. it could be that he simply took over power by force when he got home and realized sweden was under danish rule but he probably wouldn't have been in control of the raiding party in the first place unless he was an ynglinga aristocrat!

thus, surprisingly, at the moment, the viking-norse lineage is almost a dead end. actually....it's certainly not. there are probably close to a dozen norse families that eventually marry into the ynglinga line. unfortunately, i kind of ignored them on the first reading as i didn't really realize that the genealogy was so intricate. i really don't want to reread the whole damn thing at this point. besides, i have a hunch that the patriarchs listed in the heimskringla have more interesting (concocted) lineages back to legendary ancestors, and i'd like to get these in properly before i go through the book a second time. most of the detail is after harald harfager's time, if i recall correctly. however, at least one of these families actually produces a king (magnus erlingson) as well. i can take this line back to an erling of gerd, at which point i'm stuck. there are certainly many erlings to attempt to sync to...but that's the problem.....which erling to choose....hopefully some peripheral saga will help me out....

however, there also appear to be some goths that survived in scandinavia. now, some people don't think you can really connect the two peoples......but, come on. the argument is that there are so many place names with the word 'got' in it that you couldn't possibly begin to identify them all as belonging to the same people. well, that's kind of backwards, i think. rather, there are really so many place names with the word 'got' in it that they must all belong to the same people. the major three are in western sweden, on an island in the baltic and in denmark. usually, the place in sweden is called 'west gotland' and it is from here that any important families that i know of come from. i will descend these people as 'geats', from the anglicized bastardization. they would be the goths that never left sweden.

descendancy: geats [5]
descendancy: norse [1]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

norse

appearance: c. 500
differentiation: by 1000
ascendancy: scandinavians[1]

the norse were of course the non-gothic north germans, particularly localized in norway and western sweden. this is the majority of the population in scandinavia but there seem to only be a few lost fragments of their original aristocracy that make it into the tree. most of this is even legendary and many of these people, if they even existed, really have unknown ancestries. however, the sagas exist and they link them all together so there is some evidence that they really are all indigenous....

as far as the question of being finnish goes, i'm going to sidestep it. the only evidence for this is an ancient legend that says that the early finnish kings had names such as 'frost', 'snow', 'wind', 'fire' and 'icicle'. maybe they really did, but one would think that they would have been recorded in finnish and not norse. so, as this idea is one that is purely mythical it is not really very convincing to argue (based on the myths) that these people are finns and not norse. yet, they could be. it just seems more reasonable to think that the original kings of norway were of the same ethnicity as the majority of the people that live in norway: norse. finland is a good trek away and i know of no indication that says that the finns conquered norway at any time in the last two thousand years nor that there were originally finns living in the south of norway.

however, if you read the 'finns' as being 'saami' then things begin to make more sense. in this case, the legends would say that the earliest inhabitants were the saami and that from here both the norwegians (sons of nor) and some other people (the sons of gor - perhaps their drunken personas?) invaded and colonized. the norse were the sons of nor.

descendancy: halfdaninglas [5]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965
[4]: Skáldskaparmal, LXIV

page last updated may 15, 2005

geats and west gotlanders

appearance:
differentiation:
ascendancy: scandinavian[1]

this is a family of late goths that held out in gotland.

descendancy: gaut [1]

[1]: heimskringla, the ynglinga saga, 38

page last updated may 16, 2005

north germans

appearance: c. -1000
dispersal: -100
ascendancy: germans[1]

the northern germans migrated from denmark into sweden sometime in the very distant past, so distant that it's hard for me to say right now. however, given the roman cartographic evidence, it seems clear that it would have indeed been close to -1000, perhaps a little later. we need to give the north and east germans some time to split up. over time, this population developed into the scandinavians whom are linked only sparsely and perhaps not even accurately. all of the prominent "norse" families appear to be implanted west germans. however, these north germans are the proto-norse. something happened around -100 [probably a revolt by indigenous farmers] that pushed the goths out of sweden and across into poland. these "east germans" are the most prevalent "north germans" in the tree.

descendancy: scandinavians[1]
descendancy: east germans[1]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[3]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

deutsches

appearance: c. -2000
dispersal: c. -1000
ascendancy: proto-germans[1]

the deutsche is what the germans (eventually) called themselves and the teutons appear to be a very early name given to them by the people of the south. i'm definitely missing intermediary points but my understanding is that german archaeology is a bit sketchy anyways. i can, however, interject a few quick points before i wave my hands and put this off to future research. from either denmark or scandinavia, the germans began moving southwards sometime after -1000 but were checked by the early celts of the hallstatt culture. i would theorize that it was a rather late celtic onslaught north that awoke this sleeping giant and sent horde after horde of barbarians upon the settled peoples of the south, who happened to even be germans by the time of the later viking migrations. it seems to me that, as opposed to the usual linguistic classification of north-east-west, there was probably only a real divide between the north and the south. i say this because the eastern dialect appears to be derived from the northern, implying that it was a later migration from scandinavia. i would thus derive the eastern germans directly from the north and will identify the southern germans with those of the traditional "west". however, this is complicated by early cartographic evidence that places the swedes as originally located in the netherlands, meaning that the north germans were originally located in the south. as the religious traditions show a substrata from the netherlands to sweden (frisia/freyja/frey) that eventually show up in sweden (frey-yngve) from a late migration north (the yngvaeones were first located in frisia), this means that the east germans separated to the north first and were only later followed by the danes/swedes, ie north germans. so, the east germans were originally north germans, the north germans were originally south germans and the west germans were originally central/east germans. then the east germans moved west again, helping to push the west germans into the west....one almost perceives of an ancient cycle not unlike the constant western migrations from central asia into europe itself except that this one was circular and not linear.

the germans indeed make up the largest part of this site as of right now as the european aristocracy has been primarily german from the fall of the roman empire. there are few exceptions and they are far between. as the ancestors of the english, the germans are also the ancestors of the north americans and as ancestor to most of the spanish aristocracy, they are also the ancestors of the ruling classes in central and south america. german settlers also expanded eastwards into russia and make up the majority of the ruling class there, as well as throughout eastern europe and as far south as greece and cyprus. the crusades were essentially run by germans. no matter how you look at it, indeed, it is the germans that have shaped modern europe and america more than any other nation, not through developments in their homeland but through developments in the periphery of their rule - france, england, spain, america, italy and russia. this is why when people ask me what my opinion on a united europe is, my response is generally "well, they're all germans anyways....". under this understanding, nearly all of the wars in the history of europe from before charlemagne right up until the cold war and beyond can be seen as little more than a long series of german civil wars.

i'd like to take the ideas of gimbutas to their logical conclusion now, which becomes a complete absurdity that is as valid as any other sorting out of pre-german migrations. i will para-translate the heimskringla into modern archaeological terms. it goes a little like so......

see, the indo-europeans were from asaland, beyond the don or the dniester...it's hard to really tell because all of the rivers in southern russia have, essentially, the same name, from the danube to the donets. anyways, the indo-europeans [who are represented by the legendary warrior-king, odin, which may even be something of an early name for these people [there were similar invaders in afghanistan named "odals", however that is taking it way beyond the logical conclusion of absurdity here]] left asia and, through the route of russia [gandarike], entered modern germany from the north-east. once there, the indo-europeans [odin] of what was by this time the corded ware culture, differentiated into celts, slavs, italics, etc [the sons of odin in sax-land], eventually moving off in all directions, including north to denmark, where they settled [odin settled on the island that now bears his name]. thus, it is denmark that is the home of the proto-germans. once settled in denmark, the descendants of odin through skjold [the danes] intermarried with the indigenous inhabitants [gefion]. however, over time, the natives fought back [vanlanders, who were not, as is commonly mistaken, finns, but the descendants of the neolithic revolution. the suomi/kainu invasion from the east was much later than the extremely early events relayed in the mythology. the agricultural vanagods - frey, freyja, etc - show a common substratum as far away as the netherlands and could certainly not have been the proto-finns. the confusion is that "vanaland", the indo-european name for finland, which the modern "finns" do not recognize, is simply something much older than the finnish invasion and the germans either never figured out that the invasion took place or did not care enough to alter what they called the region or the people living there.]. at some point, there was a religious revolution, and the indo-european belief system was temporarily overthrown in favour of the much more ancient agricultural religious system of the middle eastern pre-norse [or something along those lines, anyways. njord was a vanagod that was transferred to asagod territory and became king after odin "died", which represents the final break between north german and south german. the differentiation point, indeed, seems to be a farming revolution in sweden that must have occurred some time fairly concurrent with the eastern migrations to northern poland.]. by this time, however, even the indigenous peoples of the countryside would have spoken a language ancestral to old norse. in time, tribes from the south-west, the ingvaeones, invaded the north and took power away from the indigenous inhabitants. these ingvaeones show up in the genealogy as frey-yngvi, frey being a very ancient agricultural deity and yngvi being the tribal name of the new conquerors. the southern herminones (who worshipped odin-hermes) eventually became the western germans.

this is a rather confusing series of migrations that some people may claim is unnecessary [although i would claim is highly incomplete!] but the fact is that, while also perfectly plausible, it allows us to reclaim the lost histories away from the dustbin that modern historians have thrown them into. it may be true that proof is required to classify a theory "true", but lack of proof towards a theory does not logically lead to discarding it. therefore, the sagas should not be discarded as historical evidence until such a time comes as that they can be demonstrably proven to be false. their written testimony is proof itself and there need not be any more specific proof. will people one day read the writings of howard zinn or noam chomsky and dismiss them as false because the historical evidence is against them? if so, the people of the future will have missed the point that it is the work of these scholars that has saved the true history of the past from the onslaught of media lies. this analogy, while not exactly transferable to pre-historic europe, is still something to think about; in the field of history, the act of writing is the act of creating proof and the burden of this is squarely in the hands of the historian and nobody else. poorly written history (such as that of the sagas) is not equivalent with poor historical writings and myth is not necessarily void of historical value; indeed, it must represent the past in at least the abstract.

another reason to speak of the "vanir" as autochthonous and not finns is that there appears to be a common substrate to finns, balts and germans alike, particularly in the word "sea" and other terms related to the ocean, fishing, etc. this itself may go back to a magdalenian substratum but i really doubt this; it is more likely the result of the trb culture. perhaps "zeeland" took it's name from these people. to discover and bolster the lexicon of the substratum in germany, you would want to go to southern india and study the language of the dravidians, dravidian being a distant relative of the language of the trb but truly the only living language in it's grouping and thus the most closely related.

to tone down some criticism i will (reluctantly) acknowledge that the other option is that these people are all scythians. odin was supposedly from 'swithiod', which geographically fits with scythia quite well. however, there are some reasons why i don't like this:

1) the sources for this are all post-christianity. it seems rather convenient that this particular descent fits in rather well with the biblical lines, which i of course refuse to even remotely consider as anything valid. most of the german sources we have were unfortunately scrubbed by early priests.
2) if you read the sagas carefully you will notice that 'swithiod' was certainly inserted into the stories at a later date......the older stories supposedly had 'mannheim' in replace of 'swithiod' and 'godheim' in replace of 'the great swithiod'. what we have here is snorri recognizing that the legends had been changed over time to fit odin into a biblical descent from noah. remarkably, beginning in chapter eleven, he goes back to the old usage! perhaps it was only the creation stories that needed to be altered to coincide with the new religion from the south.
3) most people seem to think that 'swithiod' means sweden anyways, but i'm not so sure. it is mentioned that there is a great mountain chain that goes from south west to north east and that once you have passed it is not far to turkland. that sounds more like scythia than like sweden, and the mountain chain is clearly the urals. however, that it is not far to "turkland" also shows that the source is rather late, at least after the huns, and even the legendary odin must have been well before the huns. so, this is another reason to be wary of the whole idea behind the sagas. on this point, note the fourth sentence in the ynglinga saga: "Northward of the Black Sea lies Swithiod...". that makes things pretty clear, doesn't it? nonetheless, snorri (or his sources) do appear to confuse swithiod/svithjiod with sweden. in other words, whether swithiod means sweden or scythia depends on the context because somebody got confused over the two a very long time ago.....probably some icelandic copyist that had never heard of scythia but knew all about sweden. anyways, in the context of the creation stories it is clear that they mean scythia and not sweden.

descendancy: original north germans[2]
descendancy: originally south germans[2]

[1]: in search of the indo-europeans, jp mallory, 1989
[2]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[3]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200
[4]: the indoeuropeanization of northern europe: seeworter and substratum, erika sausverde, 1996
[5]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated june 1, 2005

sicambrian franks

appearance:
ascendancy: franks[4]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965
[4]: will certainly be a detailed book on accepted early frankish history

page last updated june 1, 2005

burgundians

appearance: c. 100
differentiation:
ascendancy: north-east germans[1]

the scandinavian ancestry of the burgundians can be seen by topography, there being several places in norway and sweden that have retained their name. however, they appear to have entered poland with the goths and the vandals some time before 100. by 260, they were working with the alamannians, settling early along the german-roman buffer zone and were swept over the rhine with the crossing of 406. they set up a kingdom around worms but it was absolutely devastated in 436 by the huns who killed thousands of burgundians under an alliance with the gallo-romans under aetius. the story is told in the nibelunglied.

anyways, here is the royal family, beginning with the famous king gundicaire who was destroyed by the huns:

gundicaire I
\|
gundioc I
\|
chilperic II	gundobad
\|	\|
*chlotilde I	sigismund

descendancy: gundicaire [2]

[1]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[2]: the germanic invasions, lucien musset, 1965

page last updated august 23, 2004

proto-germans/single grave culture

appearance: c. -3000
dispersal: c. -2000
ascendancy: globular amphora[1]

the earliest germans are actually found in denmark where they migrated northwards into scandinavia, southwards into the low countries and later on back into germany, which was actually occupied by balts.

now, the early german legends clearly verify the modern dispersal hypotheses, or more accurately vice versa. the legends speak of two peoples here, the aesir and the vanir. the vanir, who have likely erroneously given their name to finland (the modern finns being the result of a later migration into the area that germans apparently never recognized), were actually the name of the indigenous peoples of the trb culture that had displaced the original nordic inhabitants, who were mostly pushed east by the invading indo-europeans, the aesir. aesir can be seen to have a common root with eire (ireland) and arya (iran) and indicates a memory of a common culture that once spread across eurasia.

the legends speak of an invasion of the aesir into the lands of the vanir and the archaeological evidence puts the end of this invasion some time around -2000 or so. thus, this "clade" is really the indo-european invasion of north-western europe.

the indigenous inhabitants, the vanir, were obsessed with farming and fertility cults, which sounds remarkably familiar to the culture of the neolithic farming invasion.

descendancy: deutsche[2]

[1]: in search of the indo-europeans, jp mallory, 1989
[2]: the role of migration in the history of the eurasian steppe, andrew bell-fialkoff, 2000
[3]: heimskringla, snorri sturlson, c. 1200

page last updated august 17, 2004