Talk:Iron Age Scandinavia

Extent and origins of the Iron Age cultures in Scandinavia
created as a link target for Iron Age. Not sure if this should be a WP:SS or a WP:DAB page. dab (𒁳) 08:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I must ask myself, what was between the Jastorf culture and the La Tène culture in the 5th c. BC period? this would seem to concern the stretch of land connecting Prague, Frankfurt, Cologne and Rotterdam. This would have been the Celtic–Proto-Germanic contact zone. La Tène influence seems to occur only from about the 2nd century BC in this area, i.e. briefly before Germanization. Was this some sort of non-Celtic, non-Germanic no-mans-land in the period 500-200 BC? (I realize this cannot be answered with any certainty). dab (𒁳) 12:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ok, there are the Boii of Bohemia. These would then be candidates for the first Celtic (Iron Age) contact of Proto-Germanic culture. dab (𒁳) 12:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * the Baltic region may also be interesting in this respect. At least according to de-wiki, there would have been a mixture of Scythian and Celtic influence from 500 BC. It would then appear that for the beginning of the Nordic Iron Age, we'd need to research the Baltic Iron Age first. dab (𒁳) 12:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Times Atlas of World History contains some pages on this question.--Berig (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps


Found this map in the commons category. It seems a bit inconsistent with the map presented in the article. The map in the article depicts the settlements in the early Pre-Roman era, but is this all? And why has the settlements dried up so much? Or are the maps not as exact as one would like to think? Would be nice to clear this up.

Differencies:
 * Settlements in Finland
 * Settlements in Norway at very high latitudes
 * Settlements in western Norway has dried up
 * Settlements in mid-southern Sweden has dried up
 * Settlements in Öland has dried up.
 * The map above stops at the current modern southern Danish border with present day Germany for some odd reason.

Both maps are sourced, but which one is right?

RhinoMind (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I wonder what the map-maker means by "central settlement". That is not a term I recognise from the literature. Certainly many white areas on the map weren't unsettled wilderness, notably Småland province. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 10:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. That explains parts of the differences. But it is truly remarkable that Lofoten (north Norway) and Finland is included. This is not on the map in the Wiki article. I know that recent excavations at Lofoten Viking Museum has revealed Iron Age longhouses. Should we include Iron Age in Finland in this article on "Scandinavia"? Would this be a good idea? I have highlighted remaining issues of interest in my initial post. RhinoMind (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Finland? How about the Samis?
Since "The Nordic Iron Age" leads to this same article ("The Scandinavian Iron Age"), should be include the Finnish Iron Age to it? Now the Finnish Iron Age is only under "The History of Finland". The common view in Finnish research tends to be that the culture (cultures?) of south-western Finland was part both of the Nordic Bronze Age and Iron Age at least by their material culture - regardless what languages they spoke - because the archeological finds show very close contacts with the Germanic Scandinavia. There are no Iron Age runestones found in the area of Finland, which most likely tells about some kind of cultural gap.

One big difference is that in Finland, the Iron age ended later than in Germanic Scandinavia, not before Northern Crusades (around 1100-1300) and Christianisation. In Sami-speaking Lapland the Iron Age continued later.

Concerning the linguistics, according the traditional Continuity Theory the area of modern Finland had been Uralic-speaking since the Neolithic - and this view still has its supporters especially among archeologists, that must be said - but recently many linguists like Petri Kallio, Jorma Koivulehto, Jaakko Häkkinen, Mikko Heikkilä and Antte Aikio have stated that Uralic proto-language was not able to start to spread from Volga-Ural region, its suggested urheimat, before its contacts with Proto-Indo-European and Indo-Aryan speakers at the beginning of Bronze Age. During the Bronze Age, the belt of West Uralic languages reached the Baltic region and most likely replaced Proto-Baltic in some areas.

According this view, Finnish dialects (Finnish proper, Tavastian and Karelian) replacing a (proto?-)Scandinavian language spoken on south-western Finland, possibly some local, archaic north eastern Indo-European dialect and Sami spoken inland was mainly Iron Age phenomenon. According Aikio, Sami itself had spread very expansively during the Iron Age, most likely replacing some unknown Paleo-European language(s) which is still visible in its vocabulary (non-Finno-Ugric substratum). On early-middle Iron Age the burial field cemetaries spread from Estonia to Finland, which some see as a mark of people migrating and culture changing. Both views, the Neolithic and the Iron Age expansion (expansion at least in a linguistic sense), have their eager supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarkusp (talk • contribs) 05:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting viewpoints. Could you please sign your post and add some references to your core claims? It will increase the probability that they will be included in the article at some point. RhinoMind (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge with page on Jastorf Culture?
I can't see the difference between this subject and 'Jastorf Culture', which has its own page. Should they have links to each other, or should they merge?Dean1954 (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)