Talk:Istvaeones

Intro needs work
If the Istaevones appear in Tacitus, how can they be dated from ca. 500? Second point, they can't be in the Low Franconian category, as they are earlier by far than it. Moreover, the Istaevones must include the Ripuarian Franks, who went all the way upstream to Mainze. And finally, Istaevonic must fall into the Proto-Frankish period. At its eastern end it became various grades of Old High German. And post-finally, Istaevonic is only an unverified hypothetical. While I appreciate the desire to get something up on the topic we ought to try to get something accurate up, which is considerably more work. I suppose one would start by working through the references. Meanwhile this discussion entry gives some idea of the sort of reference work needed. Importance? Well, Istaevonic, Ingaevonic and Ermannonic are sort of being abandoned in favor of Proto-Frankish and other dialectical protos, so I would say medium or even low. It does have some historical value. Perhaps medium? Oh, and post-post finally, the part about the relationship of the Chatti and other tribes to the Istaevones is pure guesswork, manufactured history, so to speak. All we know is what Tacitus says. He covers the tribes rather than the Istaevones, etc. Earlier German linguists often got carried away in speculation. I can't say I blame them as the topic is so interesting, but stories made up using scattered fragments out of context is historical fiction not history.Dave (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think articles on this and similar subjects face a challenge. There are actually several inter-related definitions for the same term. First, Istaevones are mentioned in classical sources, but not clearly defined. (I disagree that we can say that they "must include the Ripuarian Franks" for example, who were a later people, whose ancestry is unknown. But there is a possible link.) Secondly, the word has been picked up by modern linguists, but, as you correctly point out, they are talking about distinctions in Germanic which were probably not even existent in the classical period when the term was original used. Again, there might be a connection, but we need to be cautious.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Could this be made more linguistic and less speculatively tribalistic?
The map with the various West and North Germanic linguistic variants correspond to some articles about Germanic tribes or "nations", which try to trace a kind of Germanic peoples subunits continuity not very commonly accepted among scholars today, and some articles about linguistic differences, which are much better founded. This article now is of the "tribalistic" kind, while Ingvaeonic languages is "linguistic". I think it would be good to make also this article mainly "linguistic", if someone with sufficient knowledge and access to good sources could do so.

Of course, this does not mean that all the references to Tacitus et cetera have to be removed. They should be retained at least for explaining the nomenclature, and with a short explanation of how the name-giving was related to an earlier hypothesised very strong correlation between having common language and genetic common origin. (In 1942, when the linguistics treatment by the German professor Friedrich Maurer was published, such hypotheses still had a rather strong support in Germany, to put it mildly.) Possibly, there might even be a split between Istvaeones (hypothetical Germanic supertribe) and Istvaeonic (linguistics); but this liguistically based map then only should belong to the linguistics article. Providing it in an article about what Pliny the Elder and Tacitus wrote about the distribution of Germanic tribes is completely misleading.

Actually, if Maurer did discuss his model as an alternative to the strict tree-model, as stated in Ingvaeonic languages, he was in a sense more modern. The modern idea is that people move around, and that some linguistic innovations may be spread geographically to some speakers of a "language" (here defined as "speakers of mutually understandable idioms"), both by some people moving, and by some people simply taking over a way to speak that they hear others using. Other linguistic changes may have spread to other parts of the same "language area". This leads to the possibility of a split between a northern and a southern part with respect to some features, an eastern and western split with respect to others, and a mixture, where some feature has spread along trade routes, but not affected more pure rural areas at the sides, with respect to a third set. This makes articles about such features, as Ingvaeonic languages, rather interesting.

I am not that happy about calling the dialects influenced by the Ingvaeonic (or e. g. the Istvaeonic) linguistic changes "languages"; this is a mistaken reflex of the strict tree-model, I fear. JoergenB (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes from calque:
I've added a lot of text from the current Istvaeonic languages article, omitting the linguistical information there. Much of the following phrasing has also been removed however, with rationales listed below the text:
 * The Istvaeones are therefore one of the least clearly defined of these groups, but Pliny and Tacitus and other classical sources clearly associated various with this part of the Rhine frontier, and the description of Pliny explains that the Chatti, Cherusci and Chauci are not included in the group. In this period, this leaves such peoples as the Chamavi, Chattuarii, Bructeri, Sigambri, and Ubii. Also by implication the definitions above include all of the Romanized Germani Cisrhenani on the Roman side of the Rhine. These were discussed by Tacitus, and before him by Julius Caesar at the time when Rome first took control of their region. Caesar and Tacitus agreed that these peoples were related to the Germanic tribes on the other side of the Rhine, and Tacitus mentions that in his time they called themselves the Tungri. Both the Tungri and Ubii were to become Romanized, while the fate of the Sugambri is unclear. The Chamavi, Chattuarii and Bructeri survived in the same area until late Roman times.

This because the Germani Cisrhenani included many tribes that modern scholars consider to have been Celtic, rather than Germanic. Also it speculates, without providing sources, on the tribes excluded from the Istvaeones ("Chamavi, Chattuarii, Bructeri, Sigambri, and Ubii") on the basis that they're not being mentioned by Pliny; which does not follow logic.
 * Further up the Rhine, the Ripuarian Franks (Latin Ripuarii, a name associated with the word for "river") eventually had a kingdom centred upon the Roman-founded city of Cologne, on the left bank of the Rhine. The Chattuari also apparently crossed the Rhine and held lands on both sides, in an area between the Salians and Ripuarii. A separate Chamavi population possibly still existed as late as the 8th century, when it has been proposed that a Chamavi legal code was published under Charlemagne, the so-called Lex Chamavorum

There is no source that validates the use of "Kingdom" nor that Cologne was its capital, this is conjecture and has been modified to be more neutral and scientific. The Lex Chamavorum is officially named the Lex Angliorum et Werinorum hoc est Thuringorum and dates from the 9th century. To claim this law implies the continued existence and coherence of the Chamavi, last mentioned contemporaneously by Julian 4 centuries earlier is beyond "being creative".
 * Much later, the Frankish frontier tribes and the Roman territories of Northern Gaul came to be politically united under Roman military leader and "King of the Franks" Clovis I, and his Merovingian dynasty, after which point the written record improves, exemplified by the work of Gregory of Tours.

Clovis was not a Roman, which the text seems to imply, but at times an ally of the dying empire. Also the Merovingian dynasty predates Clovis, it's not "his" dynasty. As for historiography, Gregory is mentioned as "exemplifying" the improving historical record of the early Franks ... when in reality he's the only source on the matter; and his writings are often considered to have bordered on the fantastical. AKAKIOS (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The prior discussion was on another article talk page and I note that suddenly we have 3 copy-paste versions of that article. This is not a good way to work. I suggest we move the discussion back to ONE article for now, and if you have proposals for splitting that article FIRST please start a proposal for that with reasoning etc. Can you agree with that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In answer (but please move this whole discussion to the original article where we started discussion):


 * I think your explanation of the logic of the text I wrote is clearly not the logic at all. Obviously I listed the tribes which the same authors place on the Rhine, because the quote we are discussing says these tribes were on the Rhine. This is just 1+1=2. In versions of the article prior to mine an even longer list was given with no obvious logic at all, and I thought this was more defensible than that for now. (Remember in the meantime you are talking about how many articles there should be etc.) Anyway, why did you want the bigger list which has no explanation at all?
 * You are right that the Germani Cisrhenani maybe spoke Celtic, but are you saying that this is not equally true of the related tribes on the other side of the Rhine?
 * Concerning the Ripuari, I followed the WP article for now (following the methodology I already explained that I am following), which you should perhaps also look at, but for this article I see no big concern about mentioning them being a kingdom or not.
 * I think the Lex Chamavorum is not the same as the Lex Angliorum et Werinorum, and you've misunderstood something. I have cited the primary source which shows this and also a secondary source which already explains that (a) far from being creative the Chamavi theory is a common and published one and (b) there are doubts about it also.
 * We can perhaps tweak the wording to avoid Clovis being called a Roman simply, but we should be careful. We have very few clear statements about Childeric and Clovis, but their main connections named in sources, and indeed shown by Childeric's grave, is to Gaul and the Roman empire.
 * In English, if you say "his family", "his country" etc, you are not implying "possession", only membership, and clearly no one possesses a dynasty, so there is no ambiguity.
 * Gregory is not the only source for early Franks. Early Franks are mentioned in many sources. WP already mentions some. We can discuss further but for now I am assuming that when you think about it, you will either agree fully or at least re-phrase your concern to make it more clear. As to whether he was sometimes wrong, no doubt that is a problem for him and also other sources, sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Istvaeonic languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There should be, but there is not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I started one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Istvaeonic_languages#RFC._Merge?_Split?_Re-name? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Note about article history
Future editors please note that some editing and talk page history relevant to this article is included at Istvaeonic languages which was temporarily a merged article incorporating material relevant to this article and also Weser-Rhine Germanic (which is where that article now redirects). Here is the relevant talk page material on the redirect article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)