From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This article seems to me to emphasize the possible Nordwestblock character of many tribes I think most scholars would call uncontroversially Germanic.--Andrew Lancaster 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This article seems biased to me: This nordwestblock certainly participated in the Great Migrations, since the Saxons and Frisians inhabited England and the Franks went south to go on and practically claim the whole of Europe. Older northwestern Germanic tribes exclusively participated to the formation of Franks. The mere fact this block was excluded from Nordic immigration does not contradict local Germanic continuity within an ancient Germanic Sprachbund. Rokus01 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[edit] is a website by a bunch of university students (who duly remember to disclaim any "responsibility for any referral to this site from politically motivated websites"), indulging in the "revitalization" of 19th century "racial types" nonsense. It is unacceptable as a primary source. If you use their material, for better or worse cite the sources they are using, not the website. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I've expanded on this. However, to call racial types nonsense is not very encyclopedic. Rokus01 15:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange you deleted my contribution on this subject even now I complied to your request to specify the primary sources. I don't agree you implore to consider politics. The Nordwestblock hypothesis exposes the people as an ethnic group being distinct from Germanics and Celtics. Within this context, material on racial composition is relevant and encyclopedic. You just can't delete information because you don't like it to be mentioned.Rokus01 19:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, the present version presents that "Nordic vs. Mediterranean vs. Alpine races" nonsense as if it was state of the art anthropology. This is outdated racial nonsense and at best of interest as a historical curiosity. If you want to discuss genetics, discuss genetics, that is, recent studies of mt or Y DNA haplogroups etc. Don't give us this "races" stuff. You can discuss this at Race (historical definitions), but it really has no place here. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC) is apparently inspired by the Nordish race of Richard McCulloch. We are in pure white supremacist territory here. This has no place in an article on archaeology. dab (𒁳) 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are imposing a political view. Nordish.Com are not white suprematists and since I refer to anthropologists and not to their views this assumption would even be immaterial. I do not agree to the stance phenotype differences do not exist or without encyclopedic value. In fact, phenotype differences are important to archeologists in defining migrations, mixing of cultures or local continuity. If you want to insist on the validity of your stance that those differences should not be described, or have been described without knowledge or professionalism, I would like to request anthropological sources supporting this, or we can resume to third opinion. Otherwise, destroying information "just because" would be vandalism. Rokus01 06:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only problem there, Rokus, is that you are being blind by taking the side of extreme impartiality rather than using reason and good judgement. *is* biased toward providing a very thinly veiled body of racialist information that was discounted a long time ago as unscientific, and therefore unprovable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:20, 5 March 2008


Is it true that the Hilversum culture is in the "southern region" of the NW-block (i.e., left of the Rhine)? Hilversum itself appears to be located in North Holland... dab (𒁳) 10:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "the Rhine" is hard to define in the delta of the Low Countries. Elp is situated east of IJssel, the easternmost subsidiary of this delta. Hilversum includes parts of the delta and continues south. I have a better graph instead, showing the archeologscal dispersal. I think the graph actually presented concentrate on the nordwestblock theory, that counters to the enigma that no clear immigration of Celts or Germanics have been found.Rokus01 18:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mythology, Frisians and other things called "off topic"[edit]

The Frisians were one of the people that already roamed the area well before the first century. Like the other inhabitants of this area, there are no clues whatsoever on any origin from outside the Nordwestblock area. They share the same origin, and the proof we are still talking about the same people and not about immigrants can be found in archeological facts that are not confined to a special period: to the contrary, much of the real evidence of local continuity is obscured by Roman imports that might wrongly suggest discontinuity. Remember we should not express a view on whether or not the Nordwestblock theory is valid. Archeological indications pointing towards continuity would apparently contradict the theory, unless we assume a good deal of diffusion. Other circumstancial facts are likely to give support to the theory. Features that are not or only partly shared by related people "outside" should be mentioed, since this gives an impression about their real or assumed uniqueness, whether this unique features are related to phenotype, mythology or otherwise. Let the reader decide!

In recent archeology the notion that this area was very different from neighboring developments is not all pervasive. The general view is that the area was never isolated and shared developments with both the Northern hemisphere and the Atlantic world. Related people, though never identical, were to be found in Britain, northern Germany and Scandinavia, and southern ties were strong with cultures similar in other ways. The language could be anything, all options are open, although the possibilities a language very different from Celtic or Germanic was spoken are not supported by any evidence and are based on mere speculation. Likewise, there are no real indications the people were anything else but Germanic or Celtic. Actually, cultural differences are the only thing we have to support the view of a different cultural background. Thus, all information that points to local features is "on topic". For instance, the Frisian god Fosite does not have any equivalent in Norse mythology, since Forsite - the only Norse god coming close- is considered (sourced) a Frisian loan. Unique gods from other germanic areas are not so very common. You would have to explain why this is not remarkable or even off topic to an article dedicated to a theory emphasizing the uniqueness - and marginality - of this very region: a view I consider suspect of being tainted by definition anyway. Rokus01 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


removed lengthy rant on how all academics always get it wrong. dab (𒁳) 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Efjke (talk · contribs), Wikipedia talkpages aren't your soapbox, they are for discussing the article. If you have something to add, do it. If you have a suggestion, tell us, but don't spam the talkpage with 30k essays, nobody is going to read them. dab (𒁳) 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is too lengthy but I found it a very interesting read. He slightly ruins it by calling some academics/scientists liars and using the word fraud. There are no lies/frauds just interpretations. His gist seems to be that the Nordwestblock people shared a common ancestry with all people within the North Sea rim(East England, Western Scandinavia, Friesland etc) due to a shared ancient ancestry via the sunken Doggerland. That may be true, but the Nordwestblock theory would still hold as those peoples were at some point converted to speaking Indo-European and their language (Lower German) is clearly different to other dialects of German, probably due to the influence/blend of the archaic language they spoke on that flavour of proto-Germanic.-- (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


ethnic: [1]

  • pertaining to or characteristic of a people, esp. a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.
  • referring to the origin, classification, characteristics, etc., of such groups.
  • of, pertaining to, or characteristic of members of such a group.
  • belonging to or deriving from the cultural, racial, religious, or linguistic traditions of a people or country

To Berig: Racial (I would prefer genetic and anthropologic) characteristics are implied by usung the word "ethnic".

To Dbachmann: please source your statement that suggests a "Nordwestblock" identity, being a separate linguistic identity, does not imply an ethnic identity. Isn't this a statement against basic anthropology? Rokus01 22:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

just cite your sources Rokus, don't embark on contorted syllogisms. Who said Nordwestblock was a linguistic unity? Your attempts to squeeze a national myth out of Kümmerkeramik are not a pretty sight, especially in light of your insistence on style racialist anthropology. dab (𒁳) 22:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proper logic based on the proper use of your own dictionary is perfectly valid. To deny the ethnicity of any people speaking a different language would be at risk of being called a racist crime against humanity. The Nordwestblock has been presented as a linguistic block - even though for some obscure reasons you like to call this "contorted syllogism". It seems you are taking my sourced opposition against your obsolete points of view a bit too personal now, since I do not understand this bitter remark about Kümmerkeramik. Did I complain when you indulged in describing the bad quality of this kind of pottery? To the contrary, I encourage truth to prevail, although in your case I would like to encourage also some kind of true interest to the subject. Rokus01 19:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, assertions about what is "truth" are *not* revelant. This is relevant: WP:CITE and WP:OR.--Berig 19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Berig, we are not talking about derived opinions here, thus your accusing of OR and bad sourcing does not make any sense. Your struggling with the meaning of the word "ethnic" is a semantic problem that should be solved by your dictionary. Be brave and ask a third opinion on this. Rokus01 20:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, are you trolling? I have never used that word on this talkpage, nor in this article. Please, try to stay on topic.--Berig 20:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to qualify for talk. What are you talking about? What word you never used? Dear Berig, please be so intelligent as to grasp the meaning of your own words and accusations! If you talk about CITE and OR, you are talking about opinions! If we are talking about ethnicity we are talking (also) about (cultural) anthropology! Please don't waiste my time by defying reason in order to wage a senseless war, and don't waist yours by (again) deleting things you don't understand. This would only give you a bad reputation. I repeat, you could ask third opinion. Is this trolling? Rokus01 21:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not used the word "ethnic" so please stop accusing me of something I have not said. This is a pre-historic archaeological culture, and so we don't know anything about the various "ethicities" that may have corresponded to the culture. You, however, are adding off-topic information about "Dutch myhtology" and the genetics of modern Dutchmen. That borders closely on OR and Dieter may be right in his suspicions about your intentions.--Berig 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic sections[edit]

Rokus01, do not add off-topic subjects like the genetics of modern Dutchmen. If you could find a study of pre-roman Nordwestblock skeletons, it would be a different matter.--Berig 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't accept your definition of off-topic, since the Nordwestblock theory clearly insinuates a separate ethnicity. To be clear about this: I do not support the Nordwestblock hypothesis and think other, more recent views are more credulous: having pre-Celtic (Linear Pottery) resp. Celtic and Corded Ware/Beaker resp. Germanic people intricately interrelated on this strip of land split in two parts by the Rhine. But why should you bother? Didn't you adhere to the Germanization of a separate and immaterial Nordwestblock area? Rokus01 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about whether the Nordwestblock people were the original Germanics or whether they were anything else. What I do not like is the addition of irrelevant material such as the genetics of modern Dutchmen and and "Dutch mythology" with far reaching speculations based on careful wordings in the source material. This is an archaeology article.--Berig 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not. The Nordwestblock proposition was also linguistic and thus introduced issues that concern cultural anthropology.Rokus01 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
indeed. You can do a "genetics" section on Dutch people, or you can do a Dutch mythology. You can even link to these from here, but such things are patently offtopic on this article. It's a blatant attempt to build some sort of Dutch national myth. Wikipedia is not for that, write a book about it first. dab (𒁳) 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I made this impression. I think it is exaggerated: Belgium is mentioned three times, "Dutch" is employed two times and always in relation to other neighbours. Unfortunately the Dutch region is part of the Nordwestblock, and also the Frisian region. Of the Belgiums we don't know very much (at least they did not preserve their original culture as well, as far as we know of), and I explicitly expanded on the whole region including (German) Rhineland. The Rhineland region we know of in Roman times was centred in Bonn and Xanten and shared some ancient beliefs I mentioned. Rokus01 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
then stop your editorializing. You are attempting to squeeze some positive statement of "distinct ethnicity" out of Kuhn's careful statement. Don't do that. If you find a discussion of some scholar speculating about "distinct Nordwestblock ethnicities", refer us to that, but stop contorting out of context references to suit your personal tastes. dab (𒁳) 10:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First, a Germanic superstrate at the time of Arminius has only been theorized, not proven. You can't turn this statement into a proven fact, as you are doing in your last edit. But your edits are very contradictory, as if you prefer to focus on what the Nordwestblock wasn't and don't allow a focus on what it might have been - adding some valuable circumstancial information. The Illyrian alternative has been ridiculized, but the "Nordwestblock" entity has been referred to by others suggesting the existence of some (pre-Indo European or other) substrate cultures. I don't see any reason why this should be censorized, for this is what it looks like. So please try some neutrality. The things you remove are not off topic and are completely valid, don't insist on your POV. This is getting quite boring. Rokus01 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

my edits may seem 'contradictory' to you because (unlike you), I do not have an agenda. I am merely trying to keep this clean of fantastic speculation. That there was a Germanic superstrate by AD 1 is undisputed, the question is when did Germanization begin, in 600 BC, or only in 100 BC. I frankly don't give a hoot, and don't think we can know. We can speculate about "distinct identities" or Illyrians for the period 600 to 100 BC all we like, that's so much hot air, what we know is that by the 1st century BC, Germanic influence became dominant. dab (𒁳) 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here you go again. Undisputed? The Chatti and Cherusci did not need any Germanic superstratum, since their Germanic identity is not at all so much in doubt as you suggest. If you want to keep Wikipedia clean from fantastic speculation then please restrain from OR here. I already addressed your inclination to unsourced statements and OR extensively here [2]. You don't think we can know? Here you are contradicting again scholars that to the contrary think they can make some preliminar conclusions. You don't give a hoot, I'm glad you admit this. However, this is no reason to vandalize a positive and completely valid contribution, and less on an assumption against the wikipedia policy of WP:AGF.Rokus01 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, Rokus01, but your homecooked ethnic theories are in minority, and contradict mainstream scholarship.--Berig 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Just one example:
Nibelungen, telling the story of Siegfried von Xanten, a mythical hero from the Netherlands, and of Hagen, a Frankish nobleman, relates of their encounters with "mermaids from the Rhine", typical from this region and virtually without mainstream Germanic equivalent.[3]
Where do you pick ideas like this?--Berig 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why some people always prefer to abuse alleged mainstream thoughts? Mainstream scholarship does not mean a thing when you refer to obsolete views, or scholars that have no bearing with other information. Scholarship is not a democracy. The worship of pre-Indo European triple river goddesses in the region is obvious, typical and documented. Rokus01 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

But your text is one of the most local patriotic speculations I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Where does it say that Sigfried was Dutch? That ethicity did not exist at the time, and even according to the Nibelungelied he came from Xanten, in what is today Germany. Moreover, your claim that the mermaids from the Rhine are without "mainstream Germanic equivalent" is totally wrong.--Berig 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
PS, Nibelungenlied placed the "mermaids" in the Danube and not in the Rhine. It was Richard Wagner who placed them in the Rhine. I hope that you understand that your edit had no place in this article.--Berig 07:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. The classical Nibelungen comes, like the Wagner version, somewhere at the end of a long and diverse epic tradition within the Germanic world. The well known German version derives from an Austrian lost "Diu Not" version written at 1160 (this means, close to the setting of Etzel but far from the place of origin of the story itself), while versions within the Nordic world (e.g.Thidrekssaga) derives from a Low German version. It has been generally assumed that the Nordic version leans closer to the original tradition(s). The question would be: what tradition lays at the source of the mermaid additions? The Penguin classics 'The Nibelungenlied" of A.T.Hatto call the Nordic version of mermaids "mermaids of the Rhine". I could not lay my hands on an original Nordic version yet to confirm this would be a correct transcription. However, the actual geography is likely to be distorted, in the same way as Brunhild was imagined to live in Iceland. Brunhild herself seems to have her roots within a Valkyre tradition and a key scene of the story has her taking a bath in the Rhine. To go to the origin of some tradition we should rely on scholars. Important is the explicit involvement of Hagen, having a clearcut Frankish background (the strange thing is why Hagen is the only Frankish hero here, the story having originated within an already completely Frankish continental Europe: more explicitly, he would have been an Salian Frank like reflected by his name); and of Siegfried, that both somehow show a strong reminiscence of local Nordwestblock traditions- although you might be right those indications are not conclusive. My aim to this edit was not to proclaim truth, just to give such indications.Rokus01 11:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

why are we discussing the Nibelungen here? You very clearly need to take a good step back, Rokus, and reconsider. You would be much better off maintaining your personal Nordwestblock webpage, where you could expound your racial and mythographic theories to your heart's content. This is not what Wikipedia is for. dab (𒁳) 08:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Why" this still isn't obvious? Nordwestblock mythology entered Nibelungen, through both written and oral tradition. Why should this be strange if you recognize (as far as some kind of obscure German nationalism doesn't prevent you from recognizing such a fact) the Franks to have both the Nordwestblock heritage and a pivotal role in the development of medieval Europe? It is not my fault you and your allies so completely misunderstand the concept of the Nordwestblock identity. As most amateurs (including obsolete scholars), you are modernizing too much on prehistoric matters. The Nordwestblock identity does not have anything to do with modern nations, in fact ancient local features do not exclude extended genetic ties with neighbouring people since those features may be too locally persistent to mind divisions according to modern lines. The reminiscence of "otherness" include linguistics, ethnics and mythology. Some of those features probably go back thousands of years, like Peter Schrijver proposes, some ethnic and cultural peculiarities could give a clue to the prehistoric cultures involved and differences in mythology provide an insight as well. I have repeated this many times in different ways, even though I am aware you are not as "neutral" as you pretend to be. I don't mind germanic nationalists that find some glory in barbaric innocence and even want to revive some kind of germanic "superiority" pretending that something like a unified "pure" germanic culture ever existed. People like you base their POV on obsolete publications and hypercritical negationism of valid recent research. It is nationalism that make people like you deny the impact of Nordwestblock culture on the germanic world. There is no evidence whatsoever that Frisians or Salian Franks were "germanized", even though the latter ultimately took all the credit to hegemonize Europe where the "real" germanic tribes from Scandinavia or Germany failed to achieve anything more but boasting bloodshed and destruction. So why would the cultural heritage of this people be immaterial? What is the threat to your Swiss identity posed by Nordwestblock mythologic elements that once also pervaded medieval (Frank) Europe? Mermaids and mermen are mythological elements that were important within the Nordwestblock area, especially the lower and middle Rhine, there are "some" equivalents in Keltic and other mythology (probably also very ancient) but none of this is typical to other Germanic areas. Sabotage does not change this. Rokus01 22:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

wth? my "pov" is that this is a bunch of prehistoric archaeological cultures. It is you who are trying to turn them into Dutch national mysticism. If I am a "Germanic nationalist" for not buying your private fantasies, so be it. dab (𒁳) 09:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just compiling information on what is typical of the identity of Nordwestblock people. I can not help those people did not stay at all within those boundaries, they never did, so much of the information became dispersed among other cultures, nations and people. The Nibelungen is one example, this is essentially a Frankish tale with elements that originated in the Dutch wetlands - quite different from typical Norse folklore and having elements that rather correspond to Celtic mythology. There are more examples exposing the Nordwestblock as a transition zone between the Germanic and Celtic worlds rather than a mixture of both. Maybe I will find some time soon for an effort to explain the Nordwestblock concept and arguments better, including the thoughts I do not agree with. Rokus01 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rokus01, the way you present the origins of the Nibelung tradition is so interesting that I am curious as to the sources you base your information on. I have never heard of any other mainstream origin but the destruction of the Burgundians in Worms in Germany.--Berig 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To discover the Salian Frankish core of Nibelungen, you could read Heinz Ritter (Sigfrid ohne Tarnkappe, Herbig Company, Munich, Germany, 1992) or Rolf Badenhausen (Die Nibelungen, Dichtung und Wahrheit, 150 Jahre Nibelungenforschung neu gesehen, 2006, ISBN 3-86582-044-1) This core was all about remarkable eventes related to a king of obvious Rhine-Frankish descent(Badenhausen) And by the way, here they also speak of Rhenish mermaids. Rokus01 19:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add this to Nibelungen with proper references. --dab (𒁳) 11:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am more interested in the unbiased core and Nordwestblock origin of the myth, since it features some very particular PIE elements that are definitely not Norse. Rokus01 21:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Question to Rokus: from what I've independently gathered so far, Hans Kuhn was a German linguist, so is this basically a hypothesis based on linguistics? Goldenrowley 00:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Goldenrowley. Sorry, I still did not arrive at supplying more information. The theory has been forwarded in 1962 by Hachmann, an historian, by Kossack, an archeologist, and Kuhn, a linguist. They coninued the work of the Belgian linguist Gysseling, that got his inspiration from the Belgian archeologist Siegfried De Laet. The original proposal was a Belgian language somewhere inbetween Germanic and Celtic, within a language continuum. It seems those two language families only started to diverge strongly later (1st century AD by memory, still trying to remember the source for this), but another view is Celtic succumbed to Germanic, or Celtic only spoken by a kind of temporal elite all over the region. Other ideas concentrate on affinity to Italic (strongly related to Celtic anyway) and the possibilities conveyed by assuming non-Indo-European populations. Don't know your mastery of Dutch, Herman Clerinx "Kelten en de Lage Landen" is a nice and readable book with interesting details and leaves a lot of options open. Interesting to you for evaluating the "off-topicness" are their references to a prehistoric situation since about 3000 BC. The main players: an unknown substrate whose linguistic influences still linger (Peter Schrijver) and the one-time unity of this area during Beaker times (the Rhine developed into a moderate cultural barrier that lasted until Frankish times). Although this theory has not been quoted much (Mallory only dedicates one paragraph), it still has influence so the theory is a kind of "living thing" rather than a fixed set of dogmas. Frequently the theory is tested with new information that becomes available. Rokus01 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. The article currently it seems to give most credit to Kuhn and none to Hachman or Kossack or the others. Howver, since to me its only hearsay I look forward to the time you can add a proper identification of these men. Goldenrowley 03:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this addition would help the article immensly (I just copyedit-ed Ruko's words above). Are there any objections?: "The theory has been forwarded in 1962 by __ Hachmann, an historian, by ___ Kossack, an archeologist, and ___ Kuhn, a linguist. They continued the work of the Belgian linguist ___ Gysseling, that ^who^ got his inspiration from the Belgian archeologist Siegfried De Laet. The original proposal was a Belgian ^included research on a ^another^ language somewhere inbetween Germanic and Celtic within a language continuum." Any objections? Goldenrowley 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I added it with citations. I think it helped. Goldenrowley 18:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fresh perspective[edit]

Mythology: these gods were 1st recorded in writing in Latin and the names may have been Latinized and misunderstood, between the 1st and 6th century so how can you be certain they were from prehistory, where's the sources placing them bbefore the 1st century and naming them thus? The smoking gun would be a little figure in a digging that you can identify and carbon date before the 1st century that is unlike anyother place on earth. If there isnt any just be honest say we cant identify gods during this era by name but they may have become the gods known as x, y and z in Latin. IN fact, I'd refer to archeology as the primary source in this article to either prove/disprove there was a distinction to the society. Goldenrowley 02:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Wanted some English sources. I can't read or evaluate the main German references given. In addition there may be something translatable in the following references BUT I can't read them: Goldenrowley 03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Hans Kuhn , Vor- und frühgermanisch Ortsnamen in Nord-Deutschland und die Niederlanden, Westfälische Forschungen, 12, pp. 5 - 44, 1959. (German)
  • Hans Kuhn, Rolf Hachmann et Georg Kossack, Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten. Schriftquellen, Bodenfunde und Namengute zur Geschichte des nördlischen Westdeutschlands um Christi Geburt, Neumünster, Karl Wachholz, 1962. (German)
  • Wolfgang Meid, Hans Kuhn "Nordwestblock" Hypothese: zur Problematik der Völker zwischen Germanen und Kelten", in Germanenproblem in heutiger Sicht, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1986. (German)

Add Redirect?[edit]

Could someone who knows how please add a redirect to this article from Nord-West Block which currently doesn't, but perhaps should exist? I spent a half hour trying to find this article, (I remembered the name from Mallory 20 years ago) and finally found it after searching page after page of google results.Kjær 01:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talkcontribs)

I think it's either Nordwestblock or North-West Block, but not "Nord-West Block". I note, in passing, that "North-West Block" seems to be a term also in use in the context of the geology of the British Isles. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the genetics section[edit]

I am familiar with all the sources named in the deleted section. None of them discuss anything about the Nordwestblock theory. This section was therefore clearly original research.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)