Specific Phase names for the Germans

[Grautvornix]

Frankly, I actually do enjoy the quest two of you are into as your both try using arguments and evidence as far as possible instead of entering into personal attack mode (which is too often the case today). Your examples and references - although not conclusive for me - are providing new insights and background in any case.

To me as a complete ignoramus in this subject (except for being a native German speaker), it is of course impossible to decide for clear right or clear wrong. Maybe it is not possible at all as Germanic tribes of that time might have been quite diverse? Should we try finding a more generic solution that could be good enoughfor players to grasp the spirit?

Three words describing three phases (knowing that some tribes of that time did not (yet) develop cities as you wrote).

Afer all this is a simplified game.

[Genava55]

3 hours ago, Thalatta said:

he's trashing their way to do it, for him they looked like big farms (and the ones you posted seem to be the biggest ones, a few extended families).

The original Latin text is the following:
"Nullas Germanorum populis urbes habitari satis notum est, ne pati quidem inter se iunctas sedes. Colunt discreti ac diversi, ut fons, ut campus, ut nemus placuit. Vicos locant non in nostrum morem conexis et cohaerentibus aedificiis: suam quisque domum spatio circumdat, sive adversus casus ignis remedium sive inscitia aedificandi."

Note that he uses the word "vicos" (accusative plural of vicus). So for him, they are like vici, not like villae, aedes, casae or domus. 

If these were truly isolated, solitary farmsteads miles apart from one another, the word vicus would actually be quite misleading. By choosing this terminology, Tacitus is making a specific point about the Germanic social structure. He describes dwellings that form local communities. Here is why he uses that specific term even if the houses don't touch. 

In fact, it doesn't really matter whether the buildings are close to each other or not. The real question is whether it is a territorial unit. Consequently, did the Germanic peoples give a name to this group of buildings? I think so. And I think that the word *haima- is more appropriate in this case. Because it is a terminology that can be applied to a family, a clan, or a tribe. 

I am reposting the description from the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017):

-heim (page 254)

-heim. Germ. *haima- ‘Home of a tribe’ (Heimat) ; in the individual Germanic languages with various stem formations and genders, e.g.: OHG heima Fem. ‘Home, homeland, residence’, late OHG/MHG heim Neutr. ‘Homeland, dwelling place, house’, OSax. hēm Neutr., MLG hēm(e) Fem. / hēm also Neutr., OFris. hām / hēm Masc. or Neutr., ON heimr Masc., OE hām Masc. ‘Village, estate’, Goth. haims Fem. ‘Village, small town’. The latter meaning likely applied from the beginning to -heim group settlements, although -heim originally occurred for individual settlements (farmsteads) as well.

The -heim names, like those ending in -ingen, show characteristics of great age. They likely occurred sporadically as designations as early as the early phase (around the birth of Christ) and then became common during the early land acquisition (frühn Landnahme) of the 3rd–5th centuries (perhaps also as a translation of the Latin villa). In contrast to the PN-orientation (personal name) of -ingen names, the defining factor here is possession (‘Home / Estate of ...’). By the Merovingian period, the type was fully established and remained productive until the Middle Ages (MA), though varying by region.

The fact that the -heim type played practically no role in the area of the Ostsiedlung (Eastern settlement) suggests its simultaneous unproductivity in the Altland (ancient lands). Most -heim names have a PN as the specific element (Bw.), usually in the genitive case. Younger names are mostly those formed with appellatives (common nouns), of which the schematically oriented ones with Nord-, Süd-, Ost-, West-, Berg-, Tal-, etc. (“Bethge-type”) certainly represent the result of Frankish-controlled naming in the vicinity of former royal estates or fisks; these predominantly arose in the 7th/8th centuries.

The geographical occurrence of -heim names essentially corresponds to that of -ingen names in locations favorable for settlement; however, a striking distribution of the two types is evident particularly in the Upper and Middle Rhine regions, which can be explained by "compensation" and "radiation," as is known from dialectology. Notable are the mixed forms -ingheim, which occur with varying distribution in Westphalia, Lower Saxony (NI), Hesse (HE), Thuringia (TH), in the Rhineland, and further south. In addition to -heim, dialectal variants are encountered early on, some of which are fixed in official settlement names (SiN), such as -ham, -hem / -hēm, -um, -em, -an, -en, -m, -n, -a, -e, or total loss (elision).

Literature: Bach DNK II, 2; Schuster I; Wiesinger 1994; Jochum-Godglück; NOB III; Debus / Schmitz, H.-G. FD

3 hours ago, Thalatta said:

and if we agree that wīhsą can describe some kind of big farm or small village (which, again, could also be put into question according to yet another one of your cherry-picked criteria, since weihs has been used to translate agrós),

There are two Gothic 'weihs' in the Gothic bible. One is used for 'holy' and 'saint' while the other one is used for village. But in this case it translates the Greek kōmē (Marc 8:23). It is a word with only a few mentions (with this meaning). The only reason I chose it as my second choice is that it seems to have been used much later, in the early Middle Ages, to refer in some cases to small Roman towns. Settlements which were more urbanized than the usual Germanic settlement. Anyway, it is also interesting because it is already mentioned in Gothic with a meaning that designates a kind of settlement, which is 4 centuries earlier than the later evidences. In Gothic bible, it seems Weihs was larger than Haims. My point of view is mainly to take a critical approach to linguistic reconstructions. These reconstructions are based solely on phonological rules and sound laws. A reconstruction is not a semantic analysis. That's why I prefer words that are closer chronologically. And the Gothic Bible provides an excellent case study for semantic analysis.

Here what the Deutsches Ortsnamenbuch (2017) says about it:

-wik / -wiek (page 692): 

Old Saxon wīk ‘dwelling, village’, Middle Low German wīk ‘place, settlement, (sea) bay’, Old/Middle High German wīch (masculine) ‘residence, city’ has been a subject of controversial debate regarding its origin and meaning. While older research assumed a loanword from Latin vīcus (‘quarter / city district, farmstead, manor, hamlet’) or assumed the meaning ‘trading/market place’ based on the North Germanic vīk (‘bay’), wīk has more recently been traced back to a Germanic word related to the same root as Latin vīcus, with the original meaning of ‘fence.’ This meaning evolved further in various contexts, for example, to ‘manor’ or ‘small settlement,’ and eventually to ‘district with special legal status or immunity’ (linked to terms like wikbelde / -greve).

-wīk names are encountered in: Nordic countries and England; Particularly in the Dutch-Flemish region; In the Lower Saxon-Westphalian area (e.g., Braunschweig, NI); In Schleswig-Holstein (e.g., Schleswig; Wyk auf Föhr, District of Nordfriesland).

This formation type likely dates back to the period of land development (Landesausbau) in its productive phase; in the Western Netherlands, it remained active until the 12th/13th century.

Literature: Bach DNK II, 2; Schütte 1976; Debus / Schmitz, H.-G. FD

Edited Saturday at 23:27 by Genava55

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, Grautvornix said:

To me as a complete ignoramus in this subject (except for being a native German speaker), it is of course impossible to decide for clear right or clear wrong. Maybe it is not possible at all as Germanic tribes of that time might have been quite diverse? Should we try finding a more generic solution that could be good enoughfor players to grasp the spirit?

Three words describing three phases (knowing that some tribes of that time did not (yet) develop cities as you wrote).

It is indeed quite difficult to find exact equivalents for village, town, and city in Proto-Germanic, but Wufila's Bible is a truly incredible resource for this, as he had to translate many Greek terms into Gothic so that they would be understandable to the Goths. 

In Wufila's Bible, there is a sort of hierarchy with Haims < Weihs < Baurgs.

Haim- is used for villages and hamlets. To designate less densely populated rural communities.

A few examples: 

Mark 6:36 : ...galeiþandans in bisitandans haimos jah weihsa... / ...that they go to the surrounding countryside and villages...

Mark 5:14 :  ...gataihun in baurg jah in haimom. / ...they announced it in the city and in the countryside.

John 7:42 : ...us Beþlaiaim þamma haima... / ... from the village of Bethlehem...

Luke 19:30 : ...in þo wiþrawairþon haim.../ ...in the village across the way...

Mark 8:27 : ...in haimos Kaisarias þais Filippaus. / ...in the villages of Caesarea Philippi.

The issue with Þaurp is that it is mentioned only a single time in a fragment of the Old Testament in Gothic (Codex Ambrosianus D) and it can only mean in this case 'farmland' or 'estate' because it is used for Nehemiah 5:16. It cannot refer to a village or a hamlet.

Edited Saturday at 23:42 by Genava55

[Vantha]

Debate is scientifically very valuable and it seems that you both know a lot about the topic (certainly more than me). But please keep a professional tone and don't get personal. There's nothing wrong with someone simply because they disagree, especially since the language is resconstructed anyway, so there is no right and wrong, just more plausible and less plausible.

I think you both made fair points, and with the knowledge I have I honestly am unable to decide which is the better option.

 

On 10/02/2026 at 1:55 PM, Thalatta said:

Warją could be used for the fortress, it means fortification (also embankment or dam), and it's the root of the German "Wehr", meaning defence

Seems right, thanks, I can add it to the PR.

[Genava55]

2 hours ago, Vantha said:

I think you both made fair points, and with the knowledge I have I honestly am unable to decide which is the better option.

In any case, it's you and @real_tabasco_sauce who decide. 

2 hours ago, Vantha said:

But please keep a professional tone and don't get personal.

Noted.

Edited 2 hours ago by Genava55

[Genava55]

On 10/02/2026 at 6:34 PM, Thalatta said:

those books are over 20 years old (almost 40 in the first case), studies now support the notion that they were mutually unintelligible, for example linguist Wolfram Euler’s (curiously, yes, related to the famous mathematician) Das Westgermanische summary, https://www.verlag-inspiration.de/euler-das-westgermanische, already states “by the time of the Gothic translation of the Bible, Western and Eastern Germanic were already so dissimilar that Gothic and for example Frankish people could not have held a fluent conversation”.

On 11/02/2026 at 12:02 AM, Genava55 said:

Euler and Maurer are certainly respected, but they represent the 'divergence' school of the mid-20th century. Modern computational phylogenetics (like the Ringe work I cited) suggests a much tighter 'Germanic Core' than Maurer’s 1940s theories allowed for.

On 11/02/2026 at 10:31 AM, Thalatta said:

But Euler’s work comes after Ringe’s

I'd like to return to this point because I've noticed my message wasn't understood. When I say that Euler represents a school of thought from the mid-20th century, I don't mean that he originated from that era, but rather that he is associated with that methodology.

Wolfram Euler is a German linguist specializing in Indo-European languages, whose work is rooted in the tradition of classical philology. An independent but prolific researcher, he distinguishes himself through an approach based on traditional comparative analysis, the study of hydronyms, and internal reconstruction, rather than the multidisciplinary methods that dominate the field today (such as phylogenetic modeling, computational linguistics, or historical sociolinguistics). This methodological orientation, rigorous yet conservative, gives his publications strong internal consistency while placing him on the fringes of mainstream theoretical trends.

His best-known contributions concern the history of Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages, where he defends several minority positions: a prolonged cohesion of West Germanic, a location of the Germanic Urheimat in Central Germany rather than Scandinavia, an internalist interpretation of Germanic innovations, and a critique of the existence of a unitary Proto-Balto-Slavic language. He also adopts a late chronology for the formation of Proto-Slavic, following the thesis of Georg Holzer. While these propositions are rigorously argued, they stand in clear opposition to the prevailing consensus and are regarded as heterodox contributions rather than authoritative reference models.

For these reasons, Euler cannot be presented as a representative of the general scientific community's viewpoint. His work is respected for its erudition and precision, but it does not form the basis of the reconstructions accepted by the majority of Indo-Europeanists. His adherence to an ethno-historical lens, which explains linguistic shifts primarily through population movements and ethnic continuities, stands in sharp contrast to the modern archaeological and linguistic 'caution' (notably due to the rejection of the Siedlungsarchäologie). Coupled with his ties to conservative intellectual circles (like the Bibliothek des Konservatismus in Berlin), this methodological stance consigns his work to the margins of mainstream academia, even as the erudition of his research remains recognized.

Personally, I don't think this is a figure to be put forward as an absolute reference in a debate.