Template talk:Germanic tribes (750 BC – 1 AD)
Seems to disagree
[edit]this map appears to be in blatant contradiction to Image:Pre Migration Age Germanic.png which shows similar a expansion pattern, but dated to about 400 years later. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I know, and I have already thought of it. Unfortunately, I don't know what to do about it.--Berig 10:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- well, what are our sources for the 8th century BC exodus? Rokus has a point that there is a hole here that needs mending (not that his approach was helpful, but the observation stands). "early/common/proto- Germanic" for me means Pre-Roman Iron Age, from the 5th c. BC at the earliest. How do we account for the three centuries 750 to 450 BC? Does the Penguin Atlas give any sources? dab (𒁳) 09:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- wait, on closer inspection, it isn't all that bad. "before 750" is just the NBA, that's alright. The "up to 500 BC" more or less corresponds to Putzger's "before 100 BC", which is alright too: Penguin just makes an additional claim of a 750-100 BC expansion. The "until 1 AD" more or less corresponds to the "until 100 AD" of Putzger's, so that we have a discrepancy of one century. The only thing that really is significantly different is the expansion to the Rhine "before 500 BC" (Penguin) vs. "after 100 BC" (Putzger): this corresponds precisely to the question "who were the Nordwestblock people": Penguin thinks they were Germanic, Putzger thinks they weren't until the 1st century BC. dab (𒁳) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- another problem is the Alsace and Black Forest, here Germanic "before 1 AD". Compare Image:Alemanni expansion.png: I don't think it is possible to claim Germanic settlers for the region before the 3rd century. Seeing this, I have my doubts about this map, the "Penguin chronology" seems to be one or two centuries too early throughout. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no. The Penguin atlas does not cite any sources, which is natural since most historical maps in any Western historical atlas are quite uncontroversial and verifiable in most comparable sources. Personally, I am happy to have found a map at all about this time period.--Berig 12:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- yes of course -- the problem being that we have found not one but two, contradictory, maps. We'll have to go beyond maps at this point and look for some academic source discussing the question. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just discovered a scan of the map I used as source for Image:Germanic tribes (750BC-1AD).png.--Berig 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- yes of course -- the problem being that we have found not one but two, contradictory, maps. We'll have to go beyond maps at this point and look for some academic source discussing the question. dab (𒁳) 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no. The Penguin atlas does not cite any sources, which is natural since most historical maps in any Western historical atlas are quite uncontroversial and verifiable in most comparable sources. Personally, I am happy to have found a map at all about this time period.--Berig 12:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- another problem is the Alsace and Black Forest, here Germanic "before 1 AD". Compare Image:Alemanni expansion.png: I don't think it is possible to claim Germanic settlers for the region before the 3rd century. Seeing this, I have my doubts about this map, the "Penguin chronology" seems to be one or two centuries too early throughout. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- wait, on closer inspection, it isn't all that bad. "before 750" is just the NBA, that's alright. The "up to 500 BC" more or less corresponds to Putzger's "before 100 BC", which is alright too: Penguin just makes an additional claim of a 750-100 BC expansion. The "until 1 AD" more or less corresponds to the "until 100 AD" of Putzger's, so that we have a discrepancy of one century. The only thing that really is significantly different is the expansion to the Rhine "before 500 BC" (Penguin) vs. "after 100 BC" (Putzger): this corresponds precisely to the question "who were the Nordwestblock people": Penguin thinks they were Germanic, Putzger thinks they weren't until the 1st century BC. dab (𒁳) 09:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
WP:ERA
[edit]This edit established the usage of this template as AD/BC. It's fine to nix the "to the birth of Our Lord" bit, but maintain the era formatting pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 16:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)