Talk:Early Germanic culture

Topic clarity: it should not only be about Germanic language speakers?
This article seems to have been quietly split out of Germanic peoples, perhaps to avoid a debate there about how to cover early Germanic peoples who might not have spoken Germanic languages. However, the same problem has been transplanted to here. The article sometimes seems to be about Germanic peoples generally, such as the Istvaeones for example, but at other times it is written as if it is only about the people who spoke Germanic languages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This article was split from Germanic peoples after this debate. The articles cover distinct topics, and should be kept separate per WP:SIZESPLIT. Information about the culture of Celts, Balts, Slavs, Baltic Finns, Illyrians, Dacians and other peoples who lived in the vicinity of Germanic peoples are covered at their respective articles. There is neither need nor room for such content in this article. This is in accordance with our sources on early Germanic culture. Krakkos (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The link you give to Germanic peoples is just to the talk page in general. So in which discussion, anywhere, was the creation of this offshoot article discussed?? Whether your concerns and ideas are agreed with or not, you have to, for your own sake and Wikipedia's start bringing them out of the shadows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The link has now been corrected. Krakkos (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion you linked to shows (1) no clear explanations from you about the actions you were taking or proposing (2) disagreement of other editors. So if anything it makes this look worse. I have created a talk page section about this article creation here. You should not have worked this way. Please learn to coordinate with other editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

To start with the lead, it needs to define what the topic covers, and explain any aspects which might be unclear or controversial or indeed not covered. Currently the article says it is about the same "people" as discussed in Germanic peoples, but that article is clearly about peoples with several different cultures and languages. For example the Goths were culturally Scythian. Looking through the article, some parts are about Norse people in medieval times, some about the first century peoples between Rhine and Vistula. It is as if the article is saying that all these peoples in all these periods shared one culture.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As you've previously said, we can't cite other articles to justify edits at this one. This article must be based upon reliable sources. Do you have a reliable source for the claim that "the Goths were culturally Scythian" rather than Germanic? Krakkos (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we first need to have an uncontroversial and sourceable definition of what this article is about? Is it even about Goths? What sources are being used in this article for any unified culture of the Goths, let alone the "Germanic" designation of any such culture? Isn't it just WP editors who have decided here that Goths have a Germanic culture just because they have a Germanic language?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to put it another way, I think you know it is easy to find many sources saying Gothic peoples were always called Scythians, never Germanic. The difficult term is "culture" but that raises a bigger question: I am not sure I could quickly find ANY good recent source mentioning "Gothic culture" of any kind (apart from language, and archaeological cultures, which both don't seem to be the topic of this article) let alone Germanic (apart from people who like wearing black, or build big churches).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

this article is problematic?
This article, which split out of Germanic peoples, is now bigger than it. However for anyone familiar with the topic it reads like something from at least 50 years ago and now reflects a worldview which is arguably WP:FRINGE, and based on romanticist speculation and fantasy. Most of the sources are very old, and/or tertiary, and/or NOT focused upon the topic being discussed, but just cherry picked because something suited. (Several of these specially chosen sources are used for similar purposes on other related articles.) Some of the publication dates given are misleadingly recent, presumably reflecting a new printing or similar. Ideas about this topic have been controversial after WW2, and evolved quite a lot. I think anything from before about 1990 should be used only with caution. Playing devil's advocate maybe the best way to consider the future of this article is to start by asking if ANYTHING can be well-sourced for this topic, and building from there.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the existence of an early Germanic culture was a fringe theory, it is doubtful that Wikipedia would have had articles on Early Germanic law, Early Germanic warfare, Germanic paganism, Germanic mythology, Early Germanic calendar, Germanic kingship etc. There are scholars, such as Guy Halsall, who denies that there were such a thing, but as Halsall admitted in 2014, such as dismissal is "far from generally accepted or integrated in current study". As of 2018, The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity writes that the Germanic peoples were "distinct from other barbarians by their Germanic languages and civilization".


 * The subject of early Germanic culture is covered in detail in works such as:
 * This article is indeed longer than necessary, and some of the sources are of questionable relevance or possibly outdated. These issues can be fixed through using the above-listed sources and trimming superfluous content. It is my intention to do this in the future when i have time. In the meantime, i recommend that you first clean up the mess you made at Germanic peoples before you embark on the similar mutilation of this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are more articles on Wikipedia which need similar review, but we certainly can't cite them in order to justify this one. Just naming some books also means nothing unless they actually reflect something similar to the topic which has been written up here, obviously. But this article is in conflict with these and other works. OTOH, there is no reason this article should be based only on sources chosen by one Wikipedian, and this article MAY NOT ignore well-known controversies in the field - not in the lead and not in the body. So we may NOT block mention of Halsall, Goffart, Gillett, etc. We NEED to mention them. Concerning "mutilation", I can't look into your concerns unless you can learn to communicate your ideas in a constructive and clear way. Though of course what I suspect is that your ideas are known by you to be in conflict with Wikipedia policy. On the other hand, who says I need to do all the editing. If you believe you can structure this article according to appropriate 21st century sources and WP policy, then no one is stopping you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is indeed longer than necessary, and some of the sources are of questionable relevance or possibly outdated. These issues can be fixed through using the above-listed sources and trimming superfluous content. It is my intention to do this in the future when i have time. In the meantime, i recommend that you first clean up the mess you made at Germanic peoples before you embark on the similar mutilation of this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are more articles on Wikipedia which need similar review, but we certainly can't cite them in order to justify this one. Just naming some books also means nothing unless they actually reflect something similar to the topic which has been written up here, obviously. But this article is in conflict with these and other works. OTOH, there is no reason this article should be based only on sources chosen by one Wikipedian, and this article MAY NOT ignore well-known controversies in the field - not in the lead and not in the body. So we may NOT block mention of Halsall, Goffart, Gillett, etc. We NEED to mention them. Concerning "mutilation", I can't look into your concerns unless you can learn to communicate your ideas in a constructive and clear way. Though of course what I suspect is that your ideas are known by you to be in conflict with Wikipedia policy. On the other hand, who says I need to do all the editing. If you believe you can structure this article according to appropriate 21st century sources and WP policy, then no one is stopping you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is indeed longer than necessary, and some of the sources are of questionable relevance or possibly outdated. These issues can be fixed through using the above-listed sources and trimming superfluous content. It is my intention to do this in the future when i have time. In the meantime, i recommend that you first clean up the mess you made at Germanic peoples before you embark on the similar mutilation of this article. Krakkos (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are more articles on Wikipedia which need similar review, but we certainly can't cite them in order to justify this one. Just naming some books also means nothing unless they actually reflect something similar to the topic which has been written up here, obviously. But this article is in conflict with these and other works. OTOH, there is no reason this article should be based only on sources chosen by one Wikipedian, and this article MAY NOT ignore well-known controversies in the field - not in the lead and not in the body. So we may NOT block mention of Halsall, Goffart, Gillett, etc. We NEED to mention them. Concerning "mutilation", I can't look into your concerns unless you can learn to communicate your ideas in a constructive and clear way. Though of course what I suspect is that your ideas are known by you to be in conflict with Wikipedia policy. On the other hand, who says I need to do all the editing. If you believe you can structure this article according to appropriate 21st century sources and WP policy, then no one is stopping you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are all the sentences currently in the lead with comments/concerns: I hope that someone can address such issues, starting with the lead, but also in the body of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Early Germanic culture refers to the culture of the early Germanic peoples. <2 things unclear: That article gives a few different possible definitions, so which is intended here? If the article is, as it seems, being limited to a certain period, then which period? How is "early" being defined here?>
 * Largely derived from a synthesis of Proto-Indo-European and indigenous Northern European elements, the Germanic culture developed out of the Nordic Bronze Age. 
 * It came under significant external influence during the Migration Period, particularly from ancient Rome. 
 * The Germanic peoples eventually overwhelmed the Western Roman Empire, which by the Middle Ages facilitated their conversion from paganism to Christianity and the abandonment of their tribal way of life. 
 * Certain traces of early Germanic culture have survived among the Germanic peoples up to the present day. 
 * You've previously said that we can't base edits at this article upon the content of other articles. Now you're suddenly citing the Germanic peoples article to present arguments here. This seems like a double standard.
 * That early Germanic culture derived from a fusion Indo-European culture and local traditions is hardly controversial.
 * It implies what it says: That early Germanic culture came under the influence of ancient Rome in the Migration Period. Again, this is hardly controversial.
 * Read sippe, Norse clans and early Germanic law.
 * Germanic languages are still spoken and early Germanic festivals such as Yule are still celebrated. These are traces from early Germanic times.
 * I'm in the process of improving the article with further top scholarly sources, but this will take some time. Krakkos (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is good to hear. But in response:
 * No, this article (not me) currently sends readers to another article to help define what it is about, so that is relevant for how our readers and editors should understand what the topic is. This is fine, because article scope is a decision we editors make together. Do you understand the difference? But all this is beside the point. "Germanic peoples" is a pretty broad topic that can be defined several ways. If this article is about all proposed cultural connections between ANY of those, apart from language I suppose, then this should be spelled out. (This would also help readers understand that the article might cover some topics that are speculative or controversial, whereas currently the lead implies that the article is about a straightforward topic than is uncontroversial and certain.)
 * I disagree. Indo-european is a language family. The WP article you now point to is actually titled "Proto-Indo-European society" and discusses attempts to reconstruct aspects of society in a single specific proposed prehistoric culture, not a family of cultures. Do you have any good recent source which discusses concrete cases of families of cultures based only on language families?
 * The wording certainly implies more than it should. The new kingdoms of late antiquity were part of the culture of late antiquity. The current sentence implies that the Germanic peoples lived in isolation originally. It also treats culture as a fixed asset. Cultures are constantly changing, and constantly influencing each other. Please consider.
 * What is the definition of a "tribal way of life" and how is it relevant here? Do you argue that the terms you link to are aspects of something commonly known as the "tribal way of life".
 * Yule is the best non-linguistic example to justify this sentence? In the "present day" this is not the name of any festival other than Christmas? Is there any other example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , this article is about Early Germanic culture (i.e. pre-Roman), while Halsall and Goffart are contesting the "unifying ethos" of Germanic tribes during the Migration Period (and I think they're right). Again, the controversy lies in the period we are referring to more than anything else, as it is clear from linguistic, religious and legal evidence that Germanic tribes had shared a common culture before the Roman period. That said, Owen (1960), the main source used in this article, is an outdated scholarly work. The article should be rewritten based on recent sources. Azerty82 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * good point, but there is another issue which not only Halsall and Goffart but also I think most scholars now accept (even Liebeschuetz and Heather etc) concerning the earlier Germanic peoples: for the most part we can only guess what they were like. That is why Owen and other pre-scepticism sources are not really appropriate. What I think this article could better be built upon:
 * We do still have Tacitus and Caesar, but these days there is a whole secondary literature about how to interpret them and what to be careful of. We can't just use someone like Owen, who adds to the fantasy rather than helps us know when to be cautious.
 * We have the great book by Dennis Green which uses language reconstructions to suggest what the early Germani were like.
 * I think that these days Liebeschuetz does not defend much certainty but does feel there is evidence for some Germanic legal ideas. That is as I understand it not universally accepted, but it is in any case a good well-known argument.
 * We have the archaeologists (and in the future we will have more genetic data). Again, there is a good corpus of secondary literature about why to be careful of archaeology, but it is not evidence anyone can ignore.
 * Sound right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can only approve. This is the method I've tried to use when I wrote Proto-Indo-European society (except that there is, obviously, no written testimony). Azerty82 (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of entirely rewriting this article based upon more recent works by Dennis Howard Green, Brian O. Murdoch, Malcolm Todd and others. Stay tuned. Krakkos (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck. I hope my four bullets help in thinking ahead about the structure. (I am always keen on thinking ahead about structure!) FWIW I would be thinking an opening section on the limited classical sources might be a good way to start, because then readers have that material, which will probably be mentioned again in every other section. (In each field such as linguistics etc, this is also kind of how the field worked: Tacitus -> Tacitus plus lots of imaginative speculation -> new criticism -> tighter arguments.) That's my 2 cents anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the scope of this article? Above somebody says "pre-Roman", but the article contains a Germanic literature section that is of necessity almost 100% post-Roman. I suspect different authors (and Wikipedians) have totally different ideas of what is "early". After all, "early Germanic literature" is not associated with the "early Germans", who had none. Srnec (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a big issue with the current article yes. Older sources were happy to extrapolate back from medieval evidence to the Roman era and earlier. This was challenged hard and now what can be seriously said is narrowed down.
 * And I also agree that the word "early" seems to have become a bit mysterious on this and related articles on Wikipedia. If it means Roman era and/or earlier, then I think we should say that and not an un-anchored word like "early" or "late". is interpreting it as pre-Roman. I am not sure where the line is drawn between that period and the early imperial, say Caesar's era, or that of Tacitus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Early Germanic is pre-Roman (i.e., pre-50 BCE; i.e., pre-historic; i.e. pre-Caesar's Gallic Wars) but this is not my own interpretation. As per Peter Heather (Encyclopedia Britannica): Evidence from archaeological finds and place-names suggests that, while early Germanic peoples probably occupied much of northern Germany during the Bronze and early Iron ages, peoples speaking Celtic languages occupied what is now southern Germany. This region, together with neighbouring parts of France and Switzerland, was the original homeland of the Celtic La Tène culture. About the time of the Roman expansion northward, in the first centuries BC and AD, Germanic groups were expanding southward into present-day southern Germany. The evidence suggests that the existing population was gradually Germanized rather than displaced by the Germanic peoples arriving from the north. Solid historical information begins about 50 BC when Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars brought the Romans into contact with Germanic as well as Celtic peoples. Azerty82 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So even evidence from Tacitus is outside your scope? I wonder if that will be a scope everyone can accept and I wonder if the published sources really divide things up that way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This is just a naming issue. This article should be called "Proto-Germanic Culture". In linguistics, we use the prefix 'proto-' for any period that is pre-historical (i.e., before written sources; i.e. a reconstructed culture based on linguistic/philological comparison and, if possible, archeological/material evidence). For instance, Proto-Norse should be renamed Primitive Norse. Tacitus is not out of scope. Caesar only serves as a border because it is the earliest written source available on Germanic tribes. Azerty82 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

still wondering how the topic will be defined, and what the title should be. It seems clear, so to speak, that "Early" is not clear. Concerning pre Roman, or Roman-era, my question is more how the pre-Roman and Roman-era evidence and secondary commentary can be separated. If the idea is to combine late pre Roman and early Roman then the period is approximately the Iron Age? Using the term "early" gives flexibility and has some precedents in the more generalist secondary literature, but being flexible about topic definition is not always a good idea - even if the field has a wide range of approaches and definitions, or perhaps especially then? Sorry: just raising problems without solutions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of rewriting this article largely from scratch with sources from Dennis Howard Green, Brian O. Murdoch, Malcolm Todd and other specialists. As you've already pointed out, this is not an easy task, and will take some time. Be assured that I'm working on it. Krakkos (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Early Germanic' is not perfect indeed (I would have preferred 'Proto-Germanic'–like the language–or 'Pre-Roman'–like pre-Columbian), but it's still a term used by reliable and recent sources ("Language and history in the early Germanic world", "The Early Germans", etc.), so I'm ok with keeping this title. Azerty82 (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn't it discuss more sexualities?
The main reason for looking at this article was to research the germanic culture's ideas of sexuality and how they thought of other sexualities. I would have liked to see their view point of gays and lesbians and how they treated them during this time period. Lex.342 (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They killed them in secret. Hanging and tossing in the bog. It is the only culture I know of totally intolerant of homosexuality. 79.106.203.98 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No temples?
The article states:

"The Germanic peoples did not construct temples to carry out their religious rites."

What about Upsala? 79.106.203.98 (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)