The Goths and Götaland.

Delvestius

Banned
Nice but the Jutes are different from the Goths.

Yes, I didn't say they were not. Based on linguistic evidence and similar historical situations, I believe that the "Jutes" were originally "Gutes" who displaced the Cimbri of the peninsula in the fourth century A.D. and quickly morphed culturally and linguistically to become their own distinct entity by the next generation after migration. Danes, a originally a stock of Swede, would eventually conquer Jylland.


And are more likely to have entered Kent from Frisia/Low Countries than directly from Jutland (if indeed they originated from Jutland and isn't another similar name confusion thing!)

I'v heard of that before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I will look more into it.
 
Of course it is difficult to know for sure what the Romans meant with Celts and Germans, but the current meaning has to do with language. And the Celtic languages clearly belongs to another branch of the Indoeuropean family than the Germanic languages.

I don't think that Romans ever referred to "Celts" (which was a Greek word). "Gauls" however encompassed (probably) Celtic-speaking populations (but some groups may have differed linguistically) in Gaul, Northern Italy and the Danube Basin. AFAIK, it did not extend into the British Isles or all the Celtic-speaking parts of Iberia. So there were groups who spoke languages we now consider Celtic, which weren't associated with Roman Gauls by the them. I think the use of "Celts" in Greek sources mirrored closey the use of "Gauls" by Romans.
However, they both though in terms of kinship, not language.
 
Danes, a originally a stock of Swede, would eventually conquer Jylland.

Not quite sure that fits what I remember ... Danes most likely came from what today is Southern Sweden (Scania), given the fact that they were said to have moved onto the islands throwing the Heruli off, and the Danes was likely family to the Geats, although how close or distant they were is up for debate. But they were unlikely to be close family with the Svears (whom lived around Uppsala), which have given the name Sweden, even if Sweden was predominantly east/west Geats.

Although they all likely came from the same proto-germanic stem, they are most likely 'brotherly' tribes, and not decended from each other
 
I don't think that Romans ever referred to "Celts" (which was a Greek word). "Gauls" however encompassed (probably) Celtic-speaking populations (but some groups may have differed linguistically) in Gaul, Northern Italy and the Danube Basin. AFAIK, it did not extend into the British Isles or all the Celtic-speaking parts of Iberia. So there were groups who spoke languages we now consider Celtic, which weren't associated with Roman Gauls by the them. I think the use of "Celts" in Greek sources mirrored closey the use of "Gauls" by Romans.
However, they both though in terms of kinship, not language.

But wouldn´t kinship be related to language? If people have a lt of contact they would also more likely speak the same language, particularly if they intermarried a lot (there would have to be intermarriage in case of kinship, by definition).
 

Delvestius

Banned
Not quite sure that fits what I remember ... Danes most likely came from what today is Southern Sweden (Scania), given the fact that they were said to have moved onto the islands throwing the Heruli off, and the Danes was likely family to the Geats, although how close or distant they were is up for debate. But they were unlikely to be close family with the Svears (whom lived around Uppsala), which have given the name Sweden, even if Sweden was predominantly east/west Geats.

The Greek Procopius and Byzantine Jordanes both wrote that they were related to the Swedes. This could be a generalization of closely-related Nordic Germans, though given their location it would make sense that they became Isolated from the rest of the Swedes after the Gutnish/Geat invasion.

Although they all likely came from the same proto-germanic stem, they are most likely 'brotherly' tribes, and not decended from each other

Tribes multiply and divide, and conquer. You can't look at tribal genealogies and cultural evolution without considering assimilation and isolation.
 
obivously its much more dynamic than as such, but saying that Danes are a sub-stock of Svears are pushing it, most likely the Suiones noted by Tacitus and the Sueones mentioned by Jordanes aren't the same but merely a similar etymology (same as Suebi), and while I'm certainly willing to buy that they come from the same proto-norse stock (most likely diversifying somewhere around 5-600ad, given the differences between the areas' respective elder futhark writings, whereas when it arrived in ~200ad it was similar across the scandinavia), saying that one is the source of the other is highly questionable
 

Delvestius

Banned
obivously its much more dynamic than as such, but saying that Danes are a sub-stock of Svears are pushing it,

Originally a stock, not sub-stock. They evolved to become not just distinguishable, but distinct, whereas the Swedes... stayed the Swedes.

most likely the Suiones noted by Tacitus and the Sueones mentioned by Jordanes aren't the same but merely a similar etymology (same as Suebi),

Most likely they're the same people, especially if they're used to describe a tribe that inhabited the exact same area...

and while I'm certainly willing to buy that they come from the same proto-norse stock (most likely diversifying somewhere around 5-600ad, given the differences between the areas' respective elder futhark writings, whereas when it arrived in ~200ad it was similar across the scandinavia), saying that one is the source of the other is highly questionable

I don't understand what you're saying here.

EDIT: I get it but it doesn't make sense. Just because a general linguistic/cosmological culture is shared doesn't mean distinct communities with different histories, kinships, lifestyles and linguistic divergence (which includes small variations like accent) won't form from processes I'v already mentioned.
 
Last edited:
EDIT: I get it but it doesn't make sense. Just because a general linguistic/cosmological culture is shared doesn't mean distinct communities with different histories, kinships, lifestyles and linguistic divergence (which includes small variations like accent) won't form from processes I'v already mentioned.

He's objecting to you saying that the Danes are an offshoot of the Swedes rather than having a common ancestry (be they named Suiones or whatever).
 
... the sources makes absolutely no statement as of where the Danes came from, but the belief that they came from the area around Uppsala as a splinter group out of what later became the Svears is doubful. The Svears, which later again gave name to the Geatish dominated Sweden, with the tradition saying that the reason for the name 'Svea Rike' and the capital being placed in Svearland was a PR stunt from the leading Geats (East geatish House Bjelbo, usually the power-behind-the-throne, until they finaly got in mid 12th) to get the Svears to argee to the whole deal.

More likely (although still only remotely more plausible) is the idea that they moved at the Heruli as a response on the Geats coming over from Gotland in even greater numbers than they had done previously, or even more likely Danes being a third independent tribe that previously lived in Scania, and grew out of their lands making their move on the Heruli, a 'mere' expansion, instead of an exodus of some kind.
 
I think its generally accepted as the most plausible, given place-name evidence and archeological evidence as most of the cemeteries ceased being used quite rapidly in 200-250ad, and the few still in use after this point was only used sparingly, so all point at an exodus from the island around this point, and given the other evidence then the link its obvious, if not ironclad if only because nearly nothing is for what we only have second/third hand literary sources.
 

Delvestius

Banned
... the sources makes absolutely no statement as of where the Danes came from, but the belief that they came from the area around Uppsala as a splinter group out of what later became the Svears is doubful. The Svears, which later again gave name to the Geatish dominated Sweden, with the tradition saying that the reason for the name 'Svea Rike' and the capital being placed in Svearland was a PR stunt from the leading Geats (East geatish House Bjelbo, usually the power-behind-the-throne, until they finaly got in mid 12th) to get the Svears to argee to the whole deal.

More likely (although still only remotely more plausible) is the idea that they moved at the Heruli as a response on the Geats coming over from Gotland in even greater numbers than they had done previously, or even more likely Danes being a third independent tribe that previously lived in Scania, and grew out of their lands making their move on the Heruli, a 'mere' expansion, instead of an exodus of some kind.

I read this three, four times to make sure everything checked out... This is exactly the situation I recalled at the mention of Danes and have tried to be explaining to you as most plausible. I just feel there's a lack of clarity, because I'v already said this more or less and you've been debating semantics with me.
 
But wouldn´t kinship be related to language? If people have a lt of contact they would also more likely speak the same language, particularly if they intermarried a lot (there would have to be intermarriage in case of kinship, by definition).

Not in the mainstream Classical views as I understand them. The Persians were often regarded as descendants of Persaeus (assonance made into historical theory) but they obviously did not speak Greek. There was no such a thing as historical linguistics at the time. OTOH, the traditional division of the Greek four lineages very roughly mirrored dialectal divisions (but the match was not exact, e.g. Arcadians IIRC were not regarded as Achaeans).
 
I don't think that Romans ever referred to "Celts" (which was a Greek word). "Gauls" however encompassed (probably) Celtic-speaking populations (but some groups may have differed linguistically) in Gaul, Northern Italy and the Danube Basin. AFAIK, it did not extend into the British Isles or all the Celtic-speaking parts of Iberia. So there were groups who spoke languages we now consider Celtic, which weren't associated with Roman Gauls by the them. I think the use of "Celts" in Greek sources mirrored closey the use of "Gauls" by Romans.
However, they both though in terms of kinship, not language.

Celtae and Celtica were both used by Romans to describe the Gauls and Gaul. The word "Gaul", which is of Germanic etymology, the same as Wales, Wallachia, and Walloon, was never used by Romans. Gallia was, however, though it's etymology is unrelated to the word Gaul, and likely to be related, in fact, to the word Celtae. Also, Gauls referred to themselves as Celtos or Celti. So there's that.

Celtic identity is tricky however. If we were to go by Roman designations (which is dangerous at best), you'd have British, Gallic, Belgic, Iberian, and Helvetian, Boiian, Hibernian, Noric, and Galatian all related to each other within what we would designate as Celtic. They all seem to have shared a related material and linguistic heritage, though their genetic relationship varied. Note most Irish DNA is more closely related to those of the Basques than those of, say, the Bretons.

To the OP: the simple answer is YES, the Goths are related to the Gotlanders, and shared a common ancestor.
 
Celtae and Celtica were both used by Romans to describe the Gauls and Gaul. The word "Gaul", which is of Germanic etymology, the same as Wales, Wallachia, and Walloon, was never used by Romans. Gallia was, however, though it's etymology is unrelated to the word Gaul, and likely to be related, in fact, to the word Celtae. Also, Gauls referred to themselves as Celtos or Celti. So there's that.

True, I was simplifying using the (etymologically unrelated, as you rightly point out; I knew that, but I thought it was irrelevant in context) English word for Latin Gallia/Galli. I am unaware of any Latin source using "Celtae" in the extensive sense, although it may well be some, as "Keltoi" was used in Greek. "Celtica" was used in Latin, but it referred to a part of Gaul, not to the whole Celtic-speaking area.

Celtic identity is tricky however. If we were to go by Roman designations (which is dangerous at best), you'd have British, Gallic, Belgic, Iberian, and Helvetian, Boiian, Hibernian, Noric, and Galatian all related to each other within what we would designate as Celtic. They all seem to have shared a related material and linguistic heritage, though their genetic relationship varied. Note most Irish DNA is more closely related to those of the Basques than those of, say, the Bretons.

I am not entirely sure that Hibernians were explicitly included in Roman designations. I think that they would have used "Galli" rather than "Celtae" to indicate the whole group in its entirety, but I am not sure they ever actually did in a way that comprised both continental and insular peoples. I am willing to be proved wrong though.
 
Top