Talk:Pre-Roman Iron Age

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I believe it is CRUCIAL to point out the roots of the "Pre-Roman Iron Age" IN CONTEXT. You will note that iron was brought to NW Europe by the Celts... who, when they replaced the "Atlantic Bronze Age" in Gaul and Britain in c. 600 BCE brought iron to those lands. THUS, the "strong La Tene and Halstadtt" influences seen in the Germanic Pre-Roman Iron Age are COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE... the Celts were a power in their day and they influenced (conquered) Gaul, Britain and continental Germany all around the same time... around 600 BCE, around the time of Baalovesus.

This fragment has not been created as part of any existing continuous history. It does not stand on its own. Where should it be merged? Wetman 08:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is "Montelius" Oscar Montelius 1843 - 1921. What is the modern name for this culture? What does "pre-Roman" mean in an area that never was Roman? Why is "Scandinavia" not in the title? Wetman 09:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The name "Pre-Roman Iron Age" signifies that it was before the influx of Roman imports into Scandinavia. The following age, which I will write on in due time is called the "Roman Iron Age" because there were Roman imports and Rome was very powerful. The age following it is called the "Germanic Iron Age", but some also call it the "Age of Migrations" or even the "Heroic Age"." (User:Wiglaf responding on my Talk page Wetman 18:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC))

There is also a Pre-Roman iron age in Britain which is not mentioned in the article. Rmhermen 00:48, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding relevant information.--Wiglaf 19:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 A better title? 2 Further criticisms 3 timeline 4 Remove the introduction 5 Jastorf expansions 6 removed section

[edit] A better title?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good ideas. I will get back when I have finished my present project.--Wiglaf 08:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Further criticisms

• "(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)

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)

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)

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)

An Iron Age Celtic culture in Scandinavia will make an interesting article. --Wetman 07:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

[edit] timeline

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)

[edit] Remove the introduction

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).

[edit] Jastorf expansions

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)

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)

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), ISBN 978-0062700674. dab (𒁳) 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• First: thanks for the improvements
• About the map: I recognize the extend of Northern Bronze Age as it appears in articles nowadays, but this does not fit the description and the colors, nor the extend of Jastorf.

Rokus01 20:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Of this atlas I can read on the web that the contributors were encouraged "to give alternate positions on matters where there is not a generally accepted opinion" (p6). Unfortunately I can't check either and I propose to rather adhere to primary sources on this matter.Rokus01 06:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Correction: this quote is from another Harper Atlas edition. However, I don't think the Harper policy would have been any different in this one. Rokus01 06:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

look, there are two separate points:

• does the map faithfully represent the "Jastorf" area given in the Harper atlas?
• if it does, is it in conflict with other sources?

If you can show that the map isn't faithful, we'll remove it. If the map does give the Harper scenario faithfully, that's at least one notable source. It's not like we can choose from dozens of published maps of the Jastorf culture: it will then be up to you to present another respectable source. I am not sure why you are pressing this point so much: it is impossible to give exact boundaries of archaeological cultures. And if you want to argue that the Netherlands was part of proto-Germanic culture, as you seem to be doing, you will want to emphasize, not de-emphasize, Jastorf-Nordwestblock connections. At the end of the day, the lower Rhine was at the fringe of Jastorf/Proto-Germanic influence, and it is impossible to say when the area became linguistically Germanic. No amount of map-tuning is going to change the fact that we simply don't know. dab (𒁳) 07:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

At least the map conflicts with the written description of the area. However, more important is how the Jastorf culture is to be interpretated, ethnic, archeologic or cultural, since I would agree to the area being ethnically germanic. However, since the archeological difference between Germanic and Celtic culture is not always as obvious as this article suggests, ethnic division lines on such an archeological "Jastorf" basis are artificial, intuitive and tentative by definition. Worse, all efforts to link Jastorf with proto-Germanic instead of Germanic insinuate a claim of ethnic ancestry not supported by general opinion, clear evidence or definition. You think it is immaterial. I think it is essential. Britannica confirms there is no clue to assign the Germanic soundshift in any period including Bronze Age. So when? The timegap between proto-indo european and proto-germanic will remain huge, wherever you put proto-germanic on the timeline. At least, the sources I know of all conveniently use the nomer Germanic to Jastorf (or whatever Iron Age "Germanic" culture), not proto-germanic, I think this should be the same here for not giving too much weight to the point of view that Germanic could only have originated in the Iron Age. I repeat, according to general accepted thinking, Germanic still could have existed or originated in Bronze Age. The difference to proto germanic would be immaterial only in case the genesis of a unified Germanic happened by some kind of instantaneous process of diffusion, anywhere anytime. Instead, your view is reflected by the tendency to emphasis Jastorf military expansions and insert a recent germanization (6th-1st BC?). I repeat, no such intrusive links are evident to the west nor to other areas across the Harz. Proponents of such impact of Jastorf expansions can't rely anymore on a lack of excavations to push their tentative theories. The area is well searched and investigated. So why? Assuming one cultural area that shared linguistic developments by diffusion, neither the Nordwestblock nor Rhineland need a special link to Jastorf at all. It would be enough to consider (and assume, probably the only drawback to this alternative) the early common Indo European origin and the traditional cultural ties already in place during the Northern Bronze Age. With scholars still fighting to resolve the issue (with progress both on understanding linguistics and archeology), why should we pretend to know it all and insist on a particular view already? Rokus01 20:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed section

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)

What we know about Teutons and Cimbri came to us through the words of their enemies. The famous aggression of Germanic could be partly religious and typical to barbarians, and partly due to the countless annihilation wars waged against them by the Romans, the very powerful influence of the Roman military that recruited Germanics, the wealth bestowed on Germanics that cooperated with Rome or fought in name of Rome etc. Very often the Great Mgrations and the Viking outrages are looked upon as "typical". However, remember the conversion of Odin from god of creation, poetry and arts to god of war occurred in more recent times. The upheavels of history are never typical. I think it is worthwhile to keep a section dedicated to both sides of the story. Rokus01 09:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The rambling essay was already here and I expect anybody removing one thing to do some effort in putting something better: anybody who fail (or refuse) to understand alternative arguments I consider disqualified to destroy information. The intervention more or less solved this, congratulations. By the way : "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."?? Is superiority already measured in the ability to wage war? Now my love for truth seems to be mistaken for ideology, I really wonder what kind of non-ideology you would call such a statement. And, worse, whether I have to work double to continue checking ideological edits of this signature. Rokus01 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)