Talk:Western Baltic culture

Untitled

Pomeranian (Western) Balts is like mixing apples with oranges. Either you write about Pomeranians or you write about Western Balts or Balts.

Pomerania only exists since 1040 AD and at that time they were a Slavic group of people, who were a part of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Balts or Western Balts refers to Old Prussian of western Prussia, later called (Pomerelia-West Prussia.

I suggest to change the article to reflect that there was/is not one group with the name Pomeranian (Western) Balts, that these different groups are not one and the same, but two different groups of people at different times

• 1. Pomerania: (Western) Balts or
• 2. Pomerania, (Western) Balts or
• 3. (Western) Balts in territory of current Pomerania

An Observer 26 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.197.97 (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Both names Pomerania (Pamarė) and Pomerelia (Pamarėlė) are of Baltic origin. As well as names of Berlin and Rugen. Pomeranian (Western) Balts lived in territory from Jutland peninsula to Vistula river. The name is absolutely correct. 78.60.0.90 (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And Beijing, Washington and London are Baltic names as well, I suppose. I love this megalomania of little nations. Unfortunately the most probably theory is that both Pomerania as well as Pomerelia is a latinized version of local Slavic Pomor'e, wchich means a country along/as far as the sea.Yeti (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Re "Pomeranian Balts" - Piotrus, Volunteer Marek and 78.60... have yet to show that such a tribe existed in the Bronze Age. I think it is pure OR. I will tag this sentence with a cn tag and see if they provide valid refs, else this shall either go to AfD, be renamed "Baltic culture in Pomerania" per Gimbutas (who does not talk about a distinct Pomeranian Baltic tribe) or be merged to some article about the respective Bronze Age cultures.
• Re "Baltic toponymes" - the research on this topic is valid, but relies on the premise that there was a Baltic language in the Bronze Age, which is not uncontroversial: it depends on where one computes the date of the split(s) between proto(!)-Baltic and its relatives and on how one calls the preceding language.
• Re "Old Prussians" - that is a later designation for the medieval Baltic tribes in East (not West) Prussia, but 'Observer' is right in that Gimbutas' reference to Pomerania refers to an ancestral culture of those which, according to her, comprised a territory much larger than East Prussia during part of the Bronze Age.
• Re "Pamarė" - are there any sources for a Baltic ethymology of 'Pomerania'? Afaik there is a scholary consensus that the term 'Pomerania' is of Slavic origin per Yeti above, but @Yeti, the megalomania reference was unnecessary.

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't misrepresent my edits. You gutted most of the article so that the only sentence left didn't even refer to the article title. I just tried to write an introductory sentence that would at least sort of be about the title of this article. I actually agree that the title is a bit ORish and "Baltic culture in Pomerania" might be better.
• I don't think I have made any edits concerning the toponyms. I tend to agree with this.
• Both the source and the current article text specifically states that these were the ancestors of the people who would later be called that.
• I tend to agree wrt to the origins of Pamare as well.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "Don't misrepresent my edits": You introduced the following line, quote:

The Pomeranian Balts were a Baltic peoples [sic!] who at one point inhabited the area of present day Pomerania. [1]

Just before, I had already reverted Piotrus' edit as OR, who had claimed that, quote:

"The Pomeranian (Western) Balts were Baltic tribes who lived between the Jutland peninsula in the west and the Vistula river in the east. They were partly pushed, assimilated, and surrounded by Germanic tribes advancing to the east from 1500 BC to the 1st century AD. When the Germanic tribes left this territory in the 1st to 5th centuries AD during the Migration Period, some Pomeranian Balts remained behind. These tribes integrated with Slavic tribes (arrived to Pomerania from the 6th century AD), forming Kashubians and other Pomeranian groups. Pomeranian Balts are connected with Pomeranian culture. This Baltic culture was highly influenced by Etruscans through the trade of amber. [2]"

When I reverted that and in my edit summary asked for reliable sources in case someone wanted to re-introduce it, you introduced the above-cited line w/o sources, which is the whole reason we are having this lengthy discussion now. So I really can't see where I have misrepresented your edits by saying "Piotrus, Volunteer Marek and 78.60... have yet to show that such a tribe existed in the Bronze Age."? As you agree above that "the title is a bit ORish", and since you said above that the line was introduced by you to "write an introductory sentence that would at least sort of be about the title of this article", don't you agree that this OR has to go?

And re the rest: the Gimbutas reference to a Bronze Age 'Baltic culture' in Pomerania is already included in Baltic_tribes#Formation of a Baltic homeland, and there is essentially nothing in this article beyond that. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Pomeranian Balts" is an incorrect O.R. invention by Wikipedia user(s). But as long as Wikipedia features the incorrect term Pomeranian Balts, which gives the wrong impression, that the Pomeranians were there in the bronze age and are Balts. Article would be better with a different title, but in the meanwhile should at least show some clarification. I rephrased it as follows: The term Pomerania Balts, or rather Western Balts, refers to Baltic people, who as early as the bronze age inhabited parts of the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, an area now known as Pomerania.. (71.137.202.167 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

I see the main problem in that the contents used to rely heavily on just one source, which immediately raised the question, whether the concept [3] is accepted by scholars or just a thesis advanced by one author. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Skapp: Yes, like I said, I made the first sentence actually refer to what the title of the article is (btw, "peoples" is the correct term if we're talking more than one tribe). Now, I'm actually fine with moving it to "Baltic culture in Pomerania" but since that hadn't been done I simply thought that the article title and article text should, you know, have something in common.

@Skapp: Re rest - it's a bit ironic that you're bringing up the fact that some of this text is already in another article, as you very frequently insert whole blocks of the same text into several different articles at once. Anyway - I'm sure the article can be expanded based on Gimbutas.

@Miacek - yes, it's a single source but that's not automatically a disqualifying consideration.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Buttsj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

correctur

The westbaltic group (Prussians) is a derivat of green: House Urns culture with strong coast-way upside of olive: Przeworsk culture before the gots settled (Oksywie culture). The Oksywie culture (Goths) is left from jastorf influenced (Greuthunger Dynastie) and right a bit from Prussians (Balthe Dynastie) Yellow down right is the Poienești-Lukaševka-culture (Bastarne in Moldavia ca. 250 BC) (with strong link to Przeworsker und Jastorf-cultur) later with influence of Daker (getic-thrakian-dacian horicont =left side neighbor). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:D46:AA15:A46F:FBBF:C04C:91C1 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baltic culture in Pomerania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719071623/http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-03.html to http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820232804/http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-contents.html to http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbutas/gimbutas-contents.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chronology?

What about the dammned chronology?? 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:5508:6824:BCFA:951F (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)