Systematic methodology

Systematic ethnology

 Systematic anthropology

Systematic linguistics

Population geogenetics

Systematic poetics

 Systematic folkloristics

 

 

Reformatorium

Prehistoric tribes

 Prehistoric races

Prehistoric languages

Prehistoric archaeology

   Prehistoric religions

Prehistoric folklore

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*       Racial taxonomy

*       Ethnic taxonomy

*        Europe

*        Asia

*        Anatolia

*         Caucasus

*       Africa

*       Arabia

*       India

*       China

*       Indonesia

*        Indochina

*        Polynesia

*        Australia

*       North America

*       South America

 

 

*        Spain             France

*        Italy       Schweiz

*        Britain      Celts

*       Scandinavia  

*       Germany

*       Slavs     Balts      

*         Greece   Thrace

*        Anatolia

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Ancient Races of Germania

Clickable terms are red on yellow background

 

 

 

 

The tribes and races of ancient Germania

(from P. Bělíček: The Analytic Survey of European Anthropology, Prague 2018, Map 16,  p. 75)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Germanic archaeology

 

   Germanic genealogies have to be revisited from the archaeological point of view. Germanic ancestors came to western Europe from the east with three Microlithic cultures. The northern stream was represented by Maglemosians (c. 9000-6000 BC) and the central Hercynian stream was conducted by the Beuronians or Tardenoisians (7450-7000 BP). The southern Danubian stream was of earlier origin, its first pioneers were Magdalenians (17,000 BP), who specialised as reindeer hunters. Their territories were later occupied by two affiliated groups of microlithic flake tool assemblages, at first the Azilians (14,000-10,000 BP) and then the Sauveterrians (8500-6500 BC). What united these filial cultures and waves of migrations into one group was a similar composition of tribal phratries. Their migration tracks seemed to multiply the basic five of ethnonyms alluding to the phratries of Cimbrians, Teutons, Turanids, Germans and Casites (Table 17). Such paradigm of ethnonymic associations was roughly applicable also to microlithic sites in Central Asia and India.

 

Map 15. Cimbrian settlements after Maglemosian, Beuronian and Sauveterrian colonisations

The Taxonomic Disambiguation of the Germanic Peoples

 

   The major crux in Germanic philology is the ethnic identity of Germans, who are classified as one of Indo-European families but exhibit many heterogeneous cultural traits. According to Tacit’s genealogies, Germans descended from Tuisto, his son Mannus and three grandsons Irmin, Istvo and Ingvo: “the God Tuisto sprang from the earth, … he and his son Mannus were the founders of the race. To Mannus they ascribe three sons, whose names are borne respectively by the Ingæuones next to the ocean, the Herminones in the middle of the country, and the Istæuones in the rest of it.”1 Modern philology prefers to spell Ingæuones as Ingaevones and Istæuones as Istvaeones. Jacob Grimm2 anticipated modern interpretations by identifying the Ingaevones with the Saxons, the Istvaeones with the Franks, and the Herminones with the Thuringians.3 His conclusions were further developed by Friedrich Maurer4, who identified Germanic tribes with Herminonen and divided them into subfamilies of Teutonen, Istväonen, Ingväonen and Illevionen.

   Tacit was aware that contemporary Germanic populations included heterogeneous ethnic enclaves that defended their own claims to Tuisto’s heirdom: “Others, with true mythological license, give the deity several more sons, from whom are derived more tribal names, such as Marsians, Gambrivians, Suabians, and Vandals; and these names are both genuine and ancient.”5 They reflected the state of many disconnected chieftaincies competing for hegemony in the territory of Roman Germania. His Marsians, Suabians and Vandals were real ethnicities: Suabi were identical to Swabians, Vandalen were Germanised Wends in south Poland. Their name arose by appending the diminutive ending -l, which appeared in the toponym of Vendelli near Cortina d’Ampezzo. Ingaevones probably referred to Angles and Istvaevones denoted Franks and Swabians, who were descendants of the Beaker Folk. These tribal populations were probably Pre-Germanic autochthons related to Goths. They were not consanguine relatives of the real Eteo-Germans but only Germanised native tribes, heterogeneous nationalities diluted and assimilated in the Germanic milieu. They assumed a tributary position in respect to genuine Germanic invaders, whose genetic lineage included only the moieties of Teutonen and Herminonen. Further consanguine phratries of their family clan were concealed in the tribes of Cimbri and Ambrones. Their names were associated by the phrase Cimbri, Teutones et Ambrones6 and must have belonged to the same tribal confederacy.

   Fallacies of royal genealogies. Another account of Germanic genealogies was given by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis historia. In his view the Herminones and Hermunduri descended from the same line of descent as Mannus. Their stock encompassed also the tribes of ChattiCherusci, and Suebi.7 Jacob Grim derived the origin of Istvaeones from a hero Ask featuring in Norse mythology. He mentioned passages from Historia Brittonum by Nennius, where a certain Escio was counted as an ancestor of the Istvaeones. In our view such genealogies evolved from royal catalogues of ruling dynasties that were composed as an assemblage of several incoherent pantheons. Their purpose was to subordinate the deities of subjugated ethnicities to the supreme god of the reigning clan. This deception was construed by adopting them as step-sons into the family of their earliest ancestor celebrated as the supreme divinity. In ancient Greece they were born illegitimately by mothers raped by the concupiscent lecher Zeus.

   Germanic genealogies have to be revisited from the archaeological point of view. Germanic ancestors came to western Europe from the east with three Microlithic cultures. The northern stream was represented by Maglemosians (c. 9000-6000 BC) and the central Hercynian stream was conducted by the Beuronians or Tardenoisians (7450-7000 BP). The southern Danubian stream was of earlier origin, its first pioneers were Magdalenians (17,000 BP), who specialised as reindeer hunters. Their territories were later occupied by two affiliated groups of microlithic flake tool assemblages, at first the Azilians (14,000-10,000 BP) and then the Sauveterrians (8500-6500 BC). What united these filial cultures and waves of migrations into one group was a similar composition of tribal phratries. Their migration tracks seemed to multiply the basic five of ethnonyms alluding to the phratries of Cimbrians, Teutons, Turanids, Germans and Casites (Table 17). Such paradigm of ethnonymic associations was roughly applicable also to microlithic sites in Central Asia and India.

The Ethnic Substrates of Germanic Dialectology

 

   The German linguist Friedrich Maurer took Tacit’s legend about Tuisto and combined it with Pliny’s reports about Mannus and [H]illeviones.1 Their synthesis resulted in a widely-accepted classification of Germanic languages and dialects.2 It counted with the mythic tripartition splitting Germanic nations into Istvaeonic and Ingvaeonic and Irminonic tribes but included also a less reliably evidenced branch of Illeviones. His Irminones encompassed the Elbe Germanic group headed by Thuringians, Bavarians and Alamanni. The core of Ingvaeones was formed by the North Sea Germanic people, who consisted of Frisians, Angles and Saxons. The subgroup of Istvaeones provided a convenient label for the Weser-Rhine Germanic branch uniting chiefly Franks and Chatti (Graph 1). His considerations built a passable bridge between ancient Latin historiography and modern Germanic philology inclusive of dialectology.

Graph 1.  Friedrich Maurer’s subcategorisation of Germanic language families

 

   Maurer’s contributions influenced Germanic dialectology but suffered from classical preconceptions of Germanic historical grammar. His elucidation of Germanic languages consisted of one-sided misinterpretations of Germanic myths grafted on a sound rational partitioning of dialectal groupings. The second prominent founder of Germanic dialectology appeared in Ferdinand Wrede1, who elaborated the Irminonic theory of Elbe Germanic dialects to perfection. Their followers added several substantial refinements.2 They realised that the Ingaeonic covered the block of Goths, Jutes and Frisians inclusive of Dutch, Jutlandic and Low German. The Istvaeonic subfamily was dubbed as Weser-Rhein-Germanisch and its domain covered the Franconian family with West Central German dialects. Illeviones were posed as a hypothetical group covering Silesians and Oder-Vistula subfamily. Fruitful results were brought especially by the popular theory of Ingvaeonisms in Germanic dialects. It developed theoretical considerations on the Ingvaeonic origin of Anglo-Saxons.3

   The fallacy of prehistoric nations. Maurers errors require a digression to contrasts between the ancient and modern concept of a tribe. Modern authors suffer from an irresistible inclination to conceive prehistoric tribes as large united compact nations coextensive with the present-day republics. They are liable to discard all indications of inner ethnic plurality and deny all long-range links between continental tribes. In opposition to their biased views, the ancients acknowledged the surviving state of diversity and saw genetic consanguinity between remote related cognates. Their geographers did not mind linking different Eurasian factions of Scythians, Sarmatians, Kimmerians, Pelasgians or Hyperboreans. They confirmed immense geographical diversity and scattered distribution of ethnic groups. The ancient world did not see any compact nations and homogeneous countries without a rich internal stratification of castes, classes, enclaves and minorities. In their eyes ancients Jutlandic and Subalpine Cimbri were related to the Kimmerioi4 on the Crimean Peninsula in spite of long distances and different environment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Archaeological Roots of Germanic Minorities

 

   Turanids. Mesolithic cultures with microlith implements drifted from Central Asia and their chief representatives have to be classified as Turanids. Their southern branch with the haplogroup R1b underwent local transmutations und created regional varieties of Semitic Akkadians, Hebriods, Phoenicians, Cushites, Etruscans and Iberians. All European varieties suffered effects of acculturation and lost the most conspicuous Asiatic features such as the Mongolic lid, epicanthus, slanting eyes and prominent cheekbones. Nevertheless, they retained other principal features: mesocephaly, flat and high narrow faces (leptoprosopia), slender figure, smaller hands and feet and leptorrhinic noses.

Euro-Microlithic (Mesolithic microlithic flake-tool cultures of Turcoid descent) boreal Turanids 

   (Maglemosian, Cimbrids) + meridional Turanids (Magdalenians, Iberids) + Punids

Euro-Turanids

Euro-Turcoids

Cimbrids

Iberids

Maglemosians (9000 BC) + Magdalenians (17,000 BP)

Cimbrids with pointed-base pottery + Iberids with black burnished ware

Cimbrians + Teutons + Thuringii + Germans + Silingi

Iberians + Toutones + Tyrrhenians/Thyrsenes/Etrusci + Hernici + Siceles/Siculi

Madgalenians

Iberids

Iberids (rockcut-dwellers, reindeer hunters, burnished ware, Y-hg R1b, 17,000 BP)

Iberians + Eburones + Kimbern + Cambrians + Hibernids

Madgalenians

Kimbern

Ahrensburgian

Azilians (rock art, imprints of phalanges, iatromancy, 14,000 BP) > Cantabrians

Hamburgian (15,500 BP) > Ahrensburgian culture (12,900 BP)

Ertebølle culture (ca 5300 BC)Kimbern (Himmerland) + Trønderids

Trønderids

Cambrians

Eburones

Hibernids

Ahrensburgian

Tardenoisians

Komsa culture in western Norway (10,000 BC)

Creswellians (Y-hg R1b, 13,000 BP) Cumbri/Kymri in British Cambria

Seine-Oise-Marne group (> Eburones, 3100 BC, rock-cut gallery tombs)

Fomoire (Irish cliff-dwellers) +  Hiberni, inhabitants of rock shelters in Ireland

Tardenoisians (Y-hg R-U152, 8000 BC)

Tyrrhenes (> Etruscans) + Siculi (> Sicilians)

Maglemosians

Kimmerioi

Swiderians

Punids

Phoenicians

Cimbrids (bog people, fishers, pointed-base pottery, Y-hg R1a, 9,000 BC)

Dnieper-Donets culture (5000 BC) →  Khazars + Cossacks

Swiderian culture (11,000 BC) Silesians/Silingi + Hermunduri

Carthaginians (800 BC) Phoenicians  ichthyophagi in Ethiopia and Gedrosia

CarthaginiansTartessani + Turduli + Turdetani

Table 20. The varieties of European Turcoids, Cimbrids, Germanics and Punoids

   The Germanic newcomers were Epi-Maglemosian ‘bog-people’, who inherited the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a-M420. They went fishing in boats and used canoes as coffins for burials of their dead. Their Madgalenian relatives in South Europe were less dependent on nomadic fishing and complemented its subsistence with hunting and herding goats. They were known as goat-keepers with the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-M343. Neighbours recognised them as cavemen since they dwelt in artificial rock-cut caves and produced burnished ware. Their cultural heritage is visible in Old Irish and Welsh that retain umlaut plurals and marked traces of vowels harmony.

 

Hun- + -r

Tat- + -r

Herm-

Kaz- + -r

Sil- + -r

Turkic

Hun, Kumandin

Kuman, Kumyk

Tat, Tatar

Turk, Turkmen

 

Kazakh,

Khazar

 

Salar

Chulym

Iranian

Kimmerioi,

Iberia, Comisene

Tat

Derbices

Hyrcania

Guria

Qashqai, Cossaei

Kassites, Kaspii

 

Celtic

Cumbri/Cymru

Cambria, Inverni

Eburones

Toutones

Taurini

Turones

Garumni

Horestii

Cassii

 

Italic

Uberi,

Umbrians

Taurini, Etrusci

Tyrrhenes

Hernici

Graioceli

 

Siceli

Siculi

Spain

Iberi

Celtiberi

Turmodigi

Turboletae

 

Cosetani

 

Germanic

Cimbri

Ambrones

Gambrivii

Teutones

Thuringians

Torcilingi

 

Herminiones

Herules

Cherusci

Hermunduri

Hasdingi

Chasuarii

Hessenians

Silingi

Table 21. The comparative ethnonymy of Turanids and Turcoid tribes

  Cimbroid cultures exhibited features characteristic of peoples producing Epi-Magdalenian, Epi-Azilian and Epi-Tardenoisian microlithic tools. Their descendants are usually mentioned in historical annals as Celtiberians, Eburones, Eburovices, Etruscans, Irish Iverni or Hiberni. Their life-style differed a lot from Punids, who were renowned as maritime fishermen and pirates. They lived in cliff-dwellings that were hewn in coastal crags and accessed through vertical shafts. One of their branches was formed by Phoenicians who specialised in seafaring. The ancients believed that they came to the Mediterranean Sea from the Red Sea coasts and descended from the Gedrosian Ichthyophagi in southern Iran. They extended fish-eating subsistence by adding piratic skills that made them reminiscent of Lycian, Cilician and Cypriote buccaneers.

   Prehistoric Germanic tribes were associated with Gotho-Frisian Nordids only by contact vicinity and integrated into European phenotypes as Mediterranids or Subnordids. More influential impact was perceptible in the constitution of Romance, Italic, Slavonic and Baltic languages families. They descended from Gravettian and Lusatian colonisations that took their course as peaceful infiltrations. They inoculated the Gothonic core of Indo-European and differentiated from its standard by importing nasal vowels, satem shifts, palatal stops and affricates. Traditional doctrines classify them as brachycephalous Subnordids and describe their tongues as genuine Indo-European languages. Their structural import consisted in numerous innovative additions such as masculine o-stems and feminine a-stems. They contrasted with the inflective morphology of Anatolian Proto-Indo-Europeans, who distinguished only animate and inanimate gender and recognised only neutral i-stems with nominative s-plurals.

 

Extract from Pavel Bělíček: The Analytic Survey of European Anthropology, Prague 2018,  pp. 145-86.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Tacit, Germ. 2.

2 Jacob Grimm: Deutsche Mythologie Göttingen, 1835.

3 William Stubbs: Constitutional History of England, I, 1880, p. 38.

4 Friedrich Maurer: Nordgermanen und Alemannen: Studien zur germanischen und frühdeutschen Sprach-geschichte, Stammes- und Volkskunde. Bern: A. Francke, [1942], 1952, pp. 123-126.

5 Tacit, Germ. 2.

6 Plinius, Naturalis historia 37, 35; Ptolemaeus 2, 11, 9.

7 Plinius, Naturalis historia 4, 100.

1  Plinius, Naturalis historia I, 1.

2  Friedrich Maurer: Nordgermanen und Alemannen: Studien zur germanischen und frühdeutschen Sprach-geschichte, Stammes- und Volkskunde. Bern: A. Francke, 1952, pp. 175-178.

1 Ferdinand Wrede: Ingwäonisch und Westgermanisch. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten, 1924: 270-283; V. M. Zhirmunski: Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin 1962.

2 Carol Henriksen – Johan van der Auwera: 1. The Germanic Languages. In:  Johan van der Auwera,  ed. The Germanic Languages. London, New York: Routledge, 1994, 2013, pp. 1-18. p. 9.

3 Ferdinand Wrede: Ingwäonisch und Westgermanisch. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten, 1924: 270-283; T. Frings: Grundlegung einer Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Halle 1957.; V. M. Zhirmunski: Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin 1962, p. 50-51.

4 Strabo, Geography 7.2.2; Diodorus Siculus, Bibl.5.32.4; Plutarch, Vit.Mar. 11.11.