The Womb of Nations - a thread on Danish history and the survival of ancient tribes in Denmark.
(1) Denmark as we know it today originated as a tribal gestalt - a myriad of different peoples, all closely related but originally distinct, united under the dominant Danes.
2) The movements and invasions of the Viking-Age Danes are of course well known, as is the earlier migration/invasion of Jutes and Angels into England. On the latter I have a thread.
Today, we will be going even further back - to the origins of the Cimbri, Burgundians and more.
(3) "Burgundians" - famous as the Nibelungs of Wagner and Norse legend, their name survives today in the French region of Burgundy. There is one other place their name survives - the Danish island of Bornholm. Likely the cradle of the tribe, its name in Norse was Borgundarhólmr.
(4) "Cimbri" - Perhaps just as famous for their devastating wars with Rome, the southward trek of the Cimbri and the ensuing Cimbrian Wars instigated the broader Germanic Wars that would last until (and largely cause) the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
(5) Where did the Cimbri originate? The Romans describe a Cimbrian Peninsula, a namely widely identified as, and still used to refer to, Jutland.
Indeed, their name survives to this day in the province of Himmerland, "Himmer" from Old Danish "Himbræ" < Pre-Germanic *Kimbre
(6) "Teutons" - A group whose very name became a Synonym for "Germanics", they accompanied the Cimbri in their wars.
Though as with nearly all Dark Age history, some debate exists, their name likely survives in the North Jutland region of Thy.
(7) "Thy", the modern name of the region, is a shortening of Old Danish "Thiuthæsysæl", itself from Old Norse "Thjóð", Proto-Germanic "Theudō". They, like the next people way are about to discuss, seem to have followed the Cimbri in their migration out of Jutland.
(8) "Ambrones" - Also accompanying the Cimbri, the Ambrones seem to have originated on the islands off the south of Jutland, plausibly from the Wadden Sea isle of Amrum (originally "Ambrum") or Femern in the Baltic, whose old name was Imbra.
(9) "Vandals" - The last tribe we will look at, they are also the murkiest. First recorded in what is now Southern Poland, their language was likely East Germanic, and thus related to Gothic. How, then, can they be connected to Jutland?
(10) It is often proposed that the Goths themselves originally migrated from Scandinavia, specifically from what's now Sweden. Also in Sweden, the place-name of "Vendel" indicates a possible Vandal presence. Yet there is another clue - the northernmost part of Jutland, Vendsyssel
(11) Vendsyssel is recorded by Adam of Bremen as "Wendila", and by Icelandic texts as "Vendill" - exactly the same as the Norse name for the Vandals. Indeed, their name may (it is debated) come from the root *wanđ- ("water"), reflecting their origins by the broad Limfjord.
(12) If so, there remain, to this day, people who call themselves Vandals, through the denizens of Vendsyssel, the Vendelboer. Similarly, the names both of the Cimbri, Teutons and Burgundians all endure, in attenuated forms, in the rural districts of Denmark.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A striking takeaway of the last 10 years of the aDNA revolution - from the Indo-Europeans, to the Bantu, to the Swahili, to the Japanese - is that you might sooner trust a toddler to pick out a 50-meter target with a revolver than an archaeologist to identify an ancient migration
It should be self-evident that we cannot simply derive from this a reverse principle, and conclude that wherever contemporary archaeologists denied a purported migration, it really did take place - yet the scope of the discrediting is remarkable.
What are we to make of as-yet unresolved fine-grained questions, such as the Dorian invasion, the Hebrew conquest of Canaan or other traditional narratives long contested by the now-dubious consensus? Again, we cannot simply default to the inverse conclusion, but one wonders.
"Real, unembellished history" according to quite a number of historians seems to consist largely of ppl sitting around, munching bread and porridge, between periodic bursts of fighting over miscellaneous economic factors.
>Knight is recorded as composing a poem to persuade his captor lord to free him:
"Bet that happened lol"
>King gives a stirring speech before battle:
"Sure that happened"
>Viking is heads out to Constantinople, motivated by a dream:
"Definitely not embellished mhm"
Never underestimate a dusty historian's ability to regard as improbable literally any display of human spontaneity, whimsy or unconditioned willpower.
This is only half true. Rwanda is a cohesive, fairly well-run and (by regional standards) prosperous and stable country. The Congo, it is true, is essentially not a real state, hence why the massive size disparity between it and Rwanda confers no military advantage.
It is an interesting quirk of the global export of the nation state system that we aren't really able to account for "unorganized regions" anymore. With the exception of Antarctica, every plot of land *must* be attached to a specific polity with a government and a flag.
This works well enough in some parts of the world, but it obviously fails elsewhere, where the reality on the ground simply fails to match the internationally recognised construct. The Darién Gap is only "part" of Panama and Colombia in the most tenuously nominal sense.
There is a phenomenon I've noticed a lot in many contemporary walks of life - term it "introductionism": ppl never actually reading primary literature, or watching classical movies, or engaging directly with high art, but interacting with everything through "accessible" mediums
In a world of limited time, I've come around to the realisation that 8/10 times, instead of reading a book ABOUT Shakespeare, read Shakespeare. Read Plato. Just read that book you want to get to, don't read endless books ABOUT reading that book.
"You can just do things", but for literature and the other arts.
Sure, you might need some help to interpret, say, Aristotle or Hegel - so maybe get a complimentary book to help you, or read a brief introduction to the core concepts, but *do not* then stop there.
Unclear why so many seem to struggle to understand that just because the original speakers of Proto-Indo-European *were* a single, definable ethnogroup, that doesn't mean IE-speakers *today* are.
Obviously there's no such thing as an "Indo-European race" - Indians, Afghans, Kurds, Spaniards, Germans and Lithuanians are not all part of one esoteric, "hyperborean" identity. But the original PIE-speakers would indeed have been a particular tribe or cluster of related tribes.
"Indo-European-speaking peoples" is the correct term today, because thousands of years after the aboriginal PIE-speakers left their Urheimat, the correlation between steppe-ancestry and language is extremely small. But, again, that doesn't mean this retroactively applies as well.
One of the most frustrating tendencies in academic conversations around novel belief systems like Wicca or New Age spirituality is researchers caveating all their (invariably devastating) assessments of the historical claims with varieties of "-of course far be it from me to devalue people's deeply held beliefs, I don't want to say that anyone is wrong in their convictions..."
Rubbish. If somebody is claiming to be "reviving the authentic religious expression of the British Isles (or wherever)", and you are systematically demolishing every one of the assertions underpinning said religious system, then you patently ARE devaluing said misguided notions.
Truth claims are truth claims - it is not "kind" or "respectful" to treat these as ultimately irrelevant, and indeed doing so is ultimately a sign of supreme arrogance and contempt, since you don't even consider it worth *looking at* whether said beliefs are correct.
I ultimately have substantially more respect for both Richard Dawkins & Ray Comfort than I do for the dithering, obsequious academics who, in their attempts to be conscientious, end up treating ppl like you would a little girl being told that yes she is a princess.