PDA

View Full Version : R1a from Haak et al. 2015



T101
02-13-2015, 03:34 AM
We got some great results. Everything seems to be lining up for the European history and phylogeny of R1a.

A Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia, Russia, (5500 - 5000 BCE) was found to be R1a-M459.

A Corded Ware pastoralist from Esperstedt, Germany (2473 - 2348 cal BCE) was found to be R1a-282.

And most brilliantly, something many of us had suspected for years now is confirmed!

The Late Bronze Age person from Halberstadt, Germany (Lusatian Culture, 1113 -1021 cal BCE) was found to be R1a-Z280!


Central Eastern Europe looks to be shaping up pretty good with Z282 in Corded Ware. Now Y2395, Z284 can florish later in the Nordic Bronze age. Z280, CTS 1211, and CTS3402 will fit nicely into the Western Trzciniec Culture, and later Lusatian Culture. While the Proto-Slavs (M458) are in Komarov on the middle Dnieper, and the Proto-Balts (Z92) are in the Sosnica Culture.

Now on to those Samara results... Wow!! Where are all our Z645/Z93 brothers at??? A lot of R1b to carve through... :)

Darko
02-14-2015, 08:58 PM
in R1a1a and Subclades Y-DNA Project there's five men belonged at the same subclade of korelian man, an Italian, a Tunisian, two belarusian and a Rusian, they are all R-M459, R1a1 * -M17- M198-, this branch is now called YP1272 sister of M198 subclade

Hok
02-14-2015, 09:03 PM
T101 where would you place L664?:)

newtoboard
02-14-2015, 09:26 PM
We got some great results. Everything seems to be lining up for the European history and phylogeny of R1a.

A Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia, Russia, (5500 - 5000 BCE) was found to be R1a-M459.

A Corded Ware pastoralist from Esperstedt, Germany (2473 - 2348 cal BCE) was found to be R1a-282.

And most brilliantly, something many of us had suspected for years now is confirmed!

The Late Bronze Age person from Halberstadt, Germany (Lusatian Culture, 1113 -1021 cal BCE) was found to be R1a-Z280!


Central Eastern Europe looks to be shaping up pretty good with Z282 in Corded Ware. Now Y2395, Z284 can florish later in the Nordic Bronze age. Z280, CTS 1211, and CTS3402 will fit nicely into the Western Trzciniec Culture, and later Lusatian Culture. While the Proto-Slavs (M458) are in Komarov on the middle Dnieper, and the Proto-Balts (Z92) are in the Sosnica Culture.

Now on to those Samara results... Wow!! Where are all our Z645/Z93 brothers at??? A lot of R1b to carve through... :)

Maybe there was an R1a corridor linking the two major subclades of Z645+ through the Don/Donets river corridor. Isn't it possible R1a took the Don route up north rather than the Dnieper route?

What does this Z280+ say about Lusatian? Weren't there arguments that Lusatian was Germanic/Gothic? What language do you think this Z280+ was speaking? West Baltic or perhaps some sort of other Balto-Slavic related language?

newtoboard
02-18-2015, 01:59 AM
I am curious about Baltic archealogy.

These are major cultures identified as baltic

Lusitian
West Baltic Barrow
Dnieper-Dvinia
Fataynovo-Balanovo

Which stage/branch of Baltic and y lineages are associated with those cultures?

Artmar
02-21-2015, 08:36 PM
What does this Z280+ say about Lusatian? Weren't there arguments that Lusatian was Germanic/Gothic?
Lusatian Culture developed from Trzciniec Culture under influences of Hallstatt/La Tene Cultures. I see no option that it could've been Germanic. Trzciniec Culture developed from some Corded Ware cultures, so presence of Z280 lineages isn't really much surprising . Although I have to admit that I'm happy to finally see an ancient Z280 :).

What language do you think this Z280+ was speaking? West Baltic or perhaps some sort of other Balto-Slavic related language?
I guess they spoke some kind of a Balto-Slavic or Baltic language, although I can't be fully certain.

T101
02-23-2015, 06:59 AM
Wow you certainly deserve a lot of credit for being right on this. Z280+ in Lusatian and its westernmost edge too.

Thanks.

It's a nice win. A lot of people had the Lusatian Culture pegged for U152, (due to the Celtic influences from La Tene and Hallstatt,) or U106 or I1 (due to the close trading ties with Scandinavia - the Nordic Bronze Age,) or I2 (especially the western end given the dearth of Z280 there today.)

But... as you well know... one result in a broad cultural horizon that encompassed a large chunk of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and a bit of Ukraine is still far from conclusive and settled!

Hopefully we'll get some more results soon. I'm now really interested in the western end of Corded Ware now that rms2 (stevo - the legend - Mr. 7 for 7, the man who said R1b originated from the steppe 10 years ago) and Jean are on board for U106. I'm intrigued and want to learn what their reasoning is for that, but right now, I'm certainly not leaning that way, and most likely will stay with my original Dna-Forums analysis (Z282*, L664,) but I'll save those thoughts and tweaks for the predictions thread.

And hopefully, yes hopefully, this will finally be the year that we get those long promised results on Wielbark, Przeworsk, and Chernyakhov! And maybe even the first ancient M458. Just not in Poland though! Uggh... if that happens we will never hear the end of David's gloating!!:)

newtoboard
02-24-2015, 12:13 AM
Thanks.

It's a nice win. A lot of people had the Lusatian Culture pegged for U152, (due to the Celtic influences from La Tene and Hallstatt,) or U106 or I1 (due to the close trading ties with Scandinavia - the Nordic Bronze Age,) or I2 (especially the western end given the dearth of Z280 there today.)

But... as you well know... one result in a broad cultural horizon that encompassed a large chunk of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and a bit of Ukraine is still far from conclusive and settled!

Hopefully we'll get some more results soon. I'm now really interested in the western end of Corded Ware now that rms2 (stevo - the legend - Mr. 7 for 7, the man who said R1b originated from the steppe 10 years ago) and Jean are on board for U106. I'm intrigued and want to learn what their reasoning is for that, but right now, I'm certainly not leaning that way, and most likely will stay with my original Dna-Forums analysis (Z282*, L664,) but I'll save those thoughts and tweaks for the predictions thread.

And hopefully, yes hopefully, this will finally be the year that we get those long promised results on Wielbark, Przeworsk, and Chernyakhov! And maybe even the first ancient M458. Just not in Poland though! Uggh... if that happens we will never hear the end of David's gloating!!:)

Yea it is one sample. But the fact that it is from the westernmost periphery is pretty significant. A lot of people were suggesting R1a would be absent in that region and that R1a would only be found in the eastern end. And then we ended up finding Z280+ not even L664. I am pretty sure those people suggesting U106 originated in Corded Ware are suggesting it originated in Eastern or north-central corded ware. The U106 in Western (or southern) Corded Ware is my theory. Interesting you think Z282* will be found in Western Corded Ware. I am the exact opposite. I think Z282* will be found in the most eastern Corded Ware (Abashevo) as well as in Timber Grave.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on what lineages you think we will be found in those cultures and the linguistic identity of those cultures. Aren't there theories that M458 could have originated in SE Poland near the Ukranian and Belarussian borders?

I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the more eastern corded ware sub cultures (Middle Dnieper-Fataynovo-Balanovo-Abashevo).

Volat
02-24-2015, 01:20 PM
While the Proto-Slavs (M458) are in Komarov on the middle Dnieper, and the Proto-Balts (Z92) are in the Sosnica Culture.

Proto-Slavs were likely to have dominant branch R1a-Z280. There is evidence to suggest that Middle Dniepr was Slavic homeland.

The central position of the population of Ukraine in the network of insignificant AMOVA comparisons, and the lack of traces of significant contribution of ancient tribes inhabiting present-day Poland to the gene pool of Eastern and Southern Slavs, support hypothesis placing the earliest known homeland of Slavs in the middle Dnieper basin. http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Rebala_2007.pdf

R1a-Z280 is dominant among eastern Slavs including Ukrainians. Also, it is well established in academic literature that Slavs expanded from Ukraine into Poland with the expansion of Prague-Korchak cultural horizon in 6-8th centuries AD.

Volat
02-24-2015, 02:20 PM
I am curious about Baltic archealogy.

These are major cultures identified as baltic

Lusitian
West Baltic Barrow
Dnieper-Dvinia
Fataynovo-Balanovo

Which stage/branch of Baltic and y lineages are associated with those cultures?


Lusatian is unlikely to be Baltic. It's far away from Baltic area. Besides, there're few hydronyms to suggest there were Balts living in Lusatian culture. These are Baltic archaeological cultures, which are mostly in eastern Europe and eastern Baltic.


Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD
Moshinskaya culture 4AD-6AD related to Dniepr-Dvina culture
Upper-Oka culture of Iron age related to dniepr-Dvina culture
Milograd culture 7BC-1AD
Yukhnovskaya culture 5BC-2BC
Eastern lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD
Bantser archeological culture – 4AD-6AD
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD
Possibly Kolichinsk (5AD-7AD) and Kiev (2AD-5AD) archaeological cultures.

vettor
02-24-2015, 05:14 PM
Lusatian is unlikely to be Baltic. It's far away from Baltic area. Besides, there're few hydronyms to suggest there were Balts living in Lusatian culture. These are Baltic archaeological cultures, which are mostly in eastern Europe and eastern Baltic.


Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD
Moshinskaya culture 4AD-6AD related to Dniepr-Dvina culture
Upper-Oka culture of Iron age related to dniepr-Dvina culture
Milograd culture 7BC-1AD
Yukhnovskaya culture 5BC-2BC
Eastern lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD
Bantser archeological culture – 4AD-6AD
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD
Possibly Kolichinsk (5AD-7AD) and Kiev (2AD-5AD) archaeological cultures.

Does not lusitian culture reach coastal modern Poland ( on the baltic sea )!
if so, you would find Flatbed graves as per the west-baltic barrow group uses which russian archeologists found in 2012

Volat
02-24-2015, 06:25 PM
Does not lusitian culture reach coastal modern Poland ( on the baltic sea )!
if so, you would find Flatbed graves as per the west-baltic barrow group uses which russian archeologists found in 2012

Vistula delta is the western border of Baltic settlements along the Baltic coast. Lasatian culture reaches the Baltic sea on the western side of Vistula delta.

vettor
02-24-2015, 06:33 PM
Vistula delta is the western border of Baltic settlements along the Baltic coast. Lasatian culture reaches the Baltic sea on the western side of Vistula delta.

Then its west baltic barrow group with their flatbed graves system ...............they would be Lasatian also

Volat
02-24-2015, 07:07 PM
Then its west baltic barrow group with their flatbed graves system ...............they would be Lasatian also

The only leading scholar who placed Baltic settlements as far as Oder delta and as far south-west as Selisia in Lusatian culture was Marija Gimbutas. That was a while ago. There is little evidence to suggest Baltic tribes lived further west of Vistula delta. There few Baltic hydronyms found further wester of Vistula.

There was Western Baltic Barrow culture reaching Vistula delta on Baltic shore. It consisted of sub-cultures such as Bogaczewo, Sambian-Natangian, Sudavian and other. The neighbouring cultures of western Baltic barrow culture were the Oksywie culture, Wielbark, Przeworsk and Stroke-pottery culture. Western Baltic Barrow culture was related to Stroked-pottery culture (eastern Balts ancestors of Lithuanians and Latvians).

Jean M
02-24-2015, 08:25 PM
The Late Bronze Age person from Halberstadt, Germany (Lusatian Culture, 1113 -1021 cal BCE) was found to be R1a-Z280!

I would be rather more cautious. The location of Halberstadt might place this sample into the western edge of the Lausitz zone of Urnfield, but without specific identifying characteristics with the remains, I have simply used the Urnfield label suggested in the text of the paper, though Urnfield is of course characterised by cremation in urns and not burials. This sample is from a burial. It could be a wanderer buried where there happened to be earlier burials. He was only recognised as Bronze Age from a radiocarbon date.

Jean M
02-24-2015, 08:40 PM
Weren't there arguments that Lusatian was Germanic/Gothic? What language do you think this Z280+ was speaking? West Baltic or perhaps some sort of other Balto-Slavic related language?

Nobody knows. But Lusatian/Lausitz was a long time before the Goths. Proto-Germanic seems to have developed about 500 BC. Proto-Slavic was even later. That leaves us with Baltic, of the modern IE language branches, but an L280 buried in Late Bronze Age Germany was a long way before any modern language. If we just think of him as speaking some dialect of IE, we won't go far wrong. :)

Volat
02-24-2015, 10:07 PM
Nobody knows. But Lusatian/Lausitz was a long time before the Goths. Proto-Germanic seems to have developed about 500 BC. Proto-Slavic was even later. That leaves us with Baltic, of the modern IE language branches, but an L280 buried in Late Bronze Age Germany was a long way before any modern language. If we just think of him as speaking some dialect of IE, we won't go far wrong. :)


There has been a lot of research since Gimbutas published her book on the Balts in 1963. The map of Baltic hydronyms below is based on research done by several leading linguists from Lithuania and Russia. The inner area shows a large number of Baltic hydronyms, while the outer area shows few Baltic hydronyms on the map.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9-DFhfz1jUs/Unq3NwdmRGI/AAAAAAAAAGA/7gRv8ZrmlK4/s1600/kalba-zemel.jpg



----

I listed archaeological cultures which are widely considered Baltic by archaeologists. Those cultures are Lithuania, Latvia, north-eastern Poland, Belarus , western Russia coinciding with the area of Baltic hydronyms

Western Baltic Barrow and related cultures
Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD
Moshinskaya culture 4AD-6AD related to Dniepr-Dvina culture
Upper-Oka culture of Iron age related to dniepr-Dvina culture
Milograd culture 7BC-1AD
Yukhnovskaya culture 5BC-2BC
Eastern lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD
Bantser archeological culture – 4AD-6AD
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD
Possibly Kolichinsk (5AD-7AD) and Kiev (2AD-5AD) archaeological cultures.


----

Lithuania anthropologist G. Chesnis suggested the area of Lithuania, Lativia, north-eastern Poland, Belarus and western Russia was settled by a group of related people after he studied more than 6,000 craniums excavated in Lithuania and neighbouring regions form different periods. Also, there is a large layer of Baltic loan words in Finnic languages including Finnish , which indicates ancient contacts between Balts and Finns. Finns believed to have migrated to Finland through Estonia. There is genetic evidence coming through suggesting present day Balts and nearby Slavs settled the area of former Baltic settlements are east European in origins.

---

There is little evidence for Balts living further west of Vistula. My guess ethnic composition of Lusatian archaeological culture was Celtic .

Jean M
02-24-2015, 10:25 PM
There is little evidence for Balts living further west of Vistula. My guess ethnic composition of Lusatian archaeological culture was Celtic .

Seems a good guess, as there was Bell Beaker in the area earlier, and Hallstatt later.

newtoboard
02-24-2015, 11:48 PM
Seems a good guess, as there was Bell Beaker in the area earlier, and Hallstatt later.

That is pretty hilarious given Lusatian developed from Eastern Corded Ware and now we actually have a Z280+ there. Sure the celtic theory might end up right but it is hardly a good guess right now.

And T101's statement about Baltic being distributed from the Oder to the Urals isn't some new concept.

newtoboard
02-24-2015, 11:50 PM
Lusatian is unlikely to be Baltic. It's far away from Baltic area. Besides, there're few hydronyms to suggest there were Balts living in Lusatian culture. These are Baltic archaeological cultures, which are mostly in eastern Europe and eastern Baltic.


Stroked-pottery culture 7BC-5AD
Moshinskaya culture 4AD-6AD related to Dniepr-Dvina culture
Upper-Oka culture of Iron age related to dniepr-Dvina culture
Milograd culture 7BC-1AD
Yukhnovskaya culture 5BC-2BC
Eastern lithuanian barrow culture 5AD-12AD
Bantser archeological culture – 4AD-6AD
Stone barrow culture 4AD-13AD
Possibly Kolichinsk (5AD-7AD) and Kiev (2AD-5AD) archaeological cultures.

How valuable are hydronyms? There are Iranian hydronyms as far west as Ukraine yet we know Scythians and such arrived there only after kicking the Cimmerians out.

newtoboard
02-24-2015, 11:52 PM
The only leading scholar who placed Baltic settlements as far as Oder delta and as far south-west as Selisia in Lusatian culture was Marija Gimbutas. That was a while ago. There is little evidence to suggest Baltic tribes lived further west of Vistula delta. There few Baltic hydronyms found further wester of Vistula.

There was Western Baltic Barrow culture reaching Vistula delta on Baltic shore. It consisted of sub-cultures such as Bogaczewo, Sambian-Natangian, Sudavian and other. The neighbouring cultures of western Baltic barrow culture were the Oksywie culture, Wielbark, Przeworsk and Stroke-pottery culture. Western Baltic Barrow culture was related to Stroked-pottery culture (eastern Balts ancestors of Lithuanians and Latvians).

You don't think Fataynovo-Balanovo was Baltic either?

Jean M
02-25-2015, 12:21 AM
That is pretty hilarious given Lusatian developed from Eastern Corded Ware and now we actually have a Z280+ there. Sure the celtic theory might end up right but it is hardly a good guess right now.
.

As I said, nobody knows. But somehow people don't like that answer. :)

Jean M
02-25-2015, 12:24 AM
How valuable are hydronyms? There are Iranian hydronyms as far west as Ukraine yet we know Scythians and such arrived there only after kicking the Cimmerians out.

And what language did the Cmmerians speak? I'm guessing a type of Iranian. They were a blend of locals and people from the Asian steppe.

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 12:27 AM
Has anyone noticed that the Unetice genomes can basically pass for Belorussians in terms of the EEE/WHG/Yamnaya ancestry proportions?

Wasn't Unetice supposed to be proto-Celto-Germanic according to some?

newtoboard
02-25-2015, 12:44 AM
And what language did the Cmmerians speak? I'm guessing a type of Iranian. They were a blend of locals and people from the Asian steppe.

I think we will never know but we can speculate. So could you point me to a source indicating that they were a blend of locals and people from the Asian steppe? All I have read is about some contact between Andronovo and Timber Grave along the Volga but nothing indicates that Andronovo nomads settled in the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the period that would have led to them contributing to the ethnogenesis of Timber Grave tribest. If anything maps about migrations in that period show the exact opposite (Timber Grave settlements in South Central Asia). The dominant contributor to Timber Grave appears to be Abashevo and the dominant contributor(s) to Andronovo appears to be Poltavka and Potpopovka. I see no reason to assume Abashevo and Poltavka spoke the same language so I don't see why Cimmerians should have spoken Iranian. Imo they spoke something that was the brother of Indo-Iranian.

Krefter
02-25-2015, 01:31 AM
Has anyone noticed that the Unetice genomes can basically pass for Belorussians in terms of the EEE/WHG/Yamnaya ancestry proportions?

Wasn't Unetice supposed to be proto-Celto-Germanic according to some?

Yes, but we can't be 100% sure the Yamna/EEF/WHG scores are going to be 100% consistent with telling relationship with modern pops. For example Bronze Hungary looks like it has more WHG than Balts. And ANE can only be expressed by Yamna. But anyways Bell Beaker(most similar to Czech) and Unetice do look the most modern-like. The other LN/BAs are scoring very high in Yamna and only in Yamna and EEF.

Volat
02-25-2015, 01:58 AM
You don't think Fataynovo-Balanovo was Baltic either?

Most scholars suggest people of Fatyanovo-Balanovo were Balts or Balto-Slavs. Baltic and Slavic languages split between 2,800-3,400 ybp. Many scholars also hold an opinion that the expansion of Corded Ware (eastern extension is *Fataynovo-Balanovo) was due to Indo-Europeans. This could be the region in which Finnic and Baltic speakers had contacts. Finnish language has a large layer of Baltic loan-words. One historian suggested people of Fataynovo-Balanovo could have proto-Tocharians. The suggestion seem to be far-fetched as there is little evidence of Tocharian presence between upper Volga and Oka rivers.

Volat
02-25-2015, 02:02 AM
How valuable are hydronyms? There are Iranian hydronyms as far west as Ukraine yet we know Scythians and such arrived there only after kicking the Cimmerians out.

What do you mean by valuable? Among toponyms hydronyms attract most attention by historians as hydronyms are most conservative among toponyms. The prevailing majority of hydronyms on the map something like 80%-90% are Baltic. There may be some problems separating Baltic from Slavic hydronyms due to similarities between languages ie both linguistic branches have numerous cognates.

Volat
02-25-2015, 02:12 AM
Yes, but we can't be 100% sure the Yamna/EEF/WHG scores are going to be 100% consistent with telling relationship with modern pops. For example Bronze Hungary looks like it has more WHG than Balts. And ANE can only be expressed by Yamna. But anyways Bell Beaker(most similar to Czech) and Unetice do look the most modern-like. The other LN/BAs are scoring very high in Yamna and only in Yamna and EEF.

Genetic profiles of populations in the Bronze age and modern populations changed. Not the extent that they are similar to populations from other continents. But it still difficult to determine the language people spoke comparing bronze age population based on few samples to modern day populations.

Krefter
02-25-2015, 02:33 AM
Genetic profiles of populations in the Bronze age and modern populations changed. Not the extent that they are similar to populations from other continents. But it still difficult to determine the language people spoke comparing bronze age population based on few samples to modern day populations.

We'll have to wait till Eurogenes gets the Haak genomes, till we can get a very detailed idea how they relate to modern pops. Haak was mostly focused on finding signs of admixture in ancient genomes, admixture proportions in ancient genomes, and their 2 PCAs are a bit shabby. To be honest I'm very surprised by how much more ENF and Yamna the LN/BA samples are compared to modern north Euros. There must have been sometype of WHG-rise.

We can be very confident all the bronze age genomes we have at least spoke Indo European languages. One way or another all IE tribes in west and north Europe derive from these Bronze age central Europeans. I agree with you though because the main ethno-lingustic groups in Europe today are believed to have spread after the bronze age.

There were more blurred lines between R1a-dominated IEs(ancestral to Balto-Slavs?) and R1b-dominated IEs(ancestral to Celts, Italics, Germans) during the bronze age in central Europe, and autosomal DNA reveals modern ones have common origins. Modern ethno-lingustic groups spread over layers of related Indo European tribes. Slavs I'm sure conquered other Corded ware descendants who had very similar genetic makeups. We know Germans mostly conquered Celts.

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 02:48 AM
There was obviously a western shift across all of northern Europe since the Bronze Age, including Eastern Europe.

So how could the Slavs have come from Eastern Europe to Central Europe after the Bronze Age and shifted the genetic structure there to the west?

Volat
02-25-2015, 02:59 AM
There was obviously a western shift across all of northern Europe since the Bronze Age, including Eastern Europe.

So how could the Slavs have come from Eastern Europe to Central Europe after the Bronze Age and shifted the genetic structure there to the west?

All Indo-Europeans came to Europe from the east rather than from the west or south during the Bronze age. Haak et al have shown it in their study.

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 03:14 AM
All Indo-Europeans came to Europe from the east rather than from the west or south during the Bronze age. Haak et al have shown it in their study.

The other thing that they showed, which they didn't spell out, was that the vast majority of the late Neolithic and Bronze Age samples were either as eastern as modern Balts and Slavs, or more eastern.

Thus, if there were post-Bronze Age migrations from Eastern Europe to Central Europe, then why aren't Balts and Slavs more eastern?

Volat
02-25-2015, 03:18 AM
The other thing that they showed, which they didn't spell out, was that the vast majority of the late Neolithic and Bronze Age samples were either as eastern as modern Balts and Slavs, or more eastern.

Thus, if there were post-Bronze Age migrations from Eastern Europe to Central Europe, then why aren't Balts and Slavs more eastern?

Why should modern-day Slavs and Balts be more eastern than they are already? The important part is that all Indo-Europeans came to Europe from the steppes of eastern Europe during the bronze age according to many scholars.

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 03:29 AM
All Indo-Europeans came to Europe from the steppes of eastern Europe during the bronze age according to many scholars.

Yes, I know.

But if the Balts and Slavs also came from Eastern Europe, shouldn't we expect Lithuanians, Belorussians and Ukrainians to be more eastern than Unetice and Urnfield genomes from Germany, which don't even represent fresh migrations from the steppe?

On a related note, what happened in Eastern Europe that shifted the Indo-Europeans there west of Corded Ware and even Unetice and Urnfield people of Germany?

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 03:37 AM
Why should modern-day Slavs and Balts be more eastern than they are already?

Because the Eastern European ancestors of Unetice and Urnfield people had the chance to mix with more western shifted locals in Germany.

Who did Belorussians and Ukrainians mix with to shift them so far west?

Volat
02-25-2015, 03:42 AM
Yes, I know.

But if the Balts and Slavs also came from Eastern Europe, shouldn't we expect Lithuanians, Belorussians and Ukrainians to be more eastern than Unetice and Urnfield genomes from Germany, which don't even represent fresh migrations from the steppe?


Europe was not an empty place. People mixed in the course of 4,000 years. So, those people of Unetic and Urnfield cultures who were as eastern as modern day east Slavs and Balts must have been less mixed with the locals of the Bronze age or other populations that may had migrated to Europe later.



On a related note, what happened in Eastern Europe that shifted the Indo-Europeans there west of Corded Ware and even Unetice and Urnfield people of Germany?

Not sure if I understand you question. Why would any group be shifted? I am thinking of migrations of IE speakers from Yamnaya to Europe, who mixed with the locals and other populations that may had arrived to Europe after them many times over in the last 4,000 years. The result is modern-day European populations , which people are comparing to Bronze age populations trying to make some sense.

Volat
02-25-2015, 03:47 AM
Once we accumulate enough data from different regions of Europe of different periods of time, then it'd be easier to draw meaningful conclusions.

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 03:55 AM
Not sure if I understand your question. Why would any group be shifted?

Let me put it this way: why are most of the late Neolithic/Bronze Age Germans more eastern than present-day Lithuanians, Belorussians, Ukrainians and even some Russians?

We can see in the data that none of these Germans, apart maybe from some of the Corded Ware people, were unmixed descendents of Indo-Europeans from east of Ukraine.

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 03:58 AM
Once we accumulate enough data from different regions of Europe of different periods of time, then it'd be easier to draw meaningful conclusions.

Yes, I know, and my hunch is that one of the conclusions that will be drawn is that Eastern Europe was at some point after the Bronze Age populated from the west, and I'm not talking about recent German immigration there.

Volat
02-25-2015, 04:17 AM
Let me put it this way: why are most of the late Neolithic/Bronze Age Germans more eastern than present-day Lithuanians, Belorussians, Ukrainians and even some Russians?

We can see in the data that none of these Germans, apart maybe from some of the Corded Ware people, were unmixed descendents of Indo-Europeans from east of Ukraine.

You are comparing a handful bronze age samples to modern day populations. People did not live in isolation during the last 4,000 years. There were numerous migrations to central Europe in the last 4,000 years.

Volat
02-25-2015, 04:29 AM
Yes, I know, and my hunch is that one of the conclusions that will be drawn is that Eastern Europe was at some point after the Bronze Age populated from the west, and I'm not talking about recent German immigration there.

Wishful thinking. Eastern Europe was a hostile region for sedentary people. I cannot think of any archaeological culture expanding eastward. Westward migration continued throughout Iron Age and medieval times. Bulgarians, Hungarians, Avars and Slavs expanding westward with the expansion of Prague archaeological culture. It was suggested in Rebala et al that Slavs homeland was middle Dniepr based on Y-STR analysis of Slavic populations : http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Rebala_2007.pdf

Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

Generalissimo
02-25-2015, 09:54 AM
Wishful thinking. Eastern Europe was a hostile region for sedentary people. I cannot think of any archaeological culture expanding eastward. Westward migration continued throughout Iron Age and medieval times. Bulgarians, Hungarians, Avars and Slavs expanding westward with the expansion of Prague archaeological culture. It was suggested in Rebala et al that Slavs homeland was middle Dniepr based on Y-STR analysis of Slavic populations : http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Rebala_2007.pdf

Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

Y-STR study from 2007?

Take a very careful look at the PCA from Haak et al. and keep in mind that Poles weren't sampled. They would cluster just west of Belorussians.

Jean M
02-25-2015, 11:19 AM
I think we will never know but we can speculate. So could you point me to a source indicating that they were a blend of locals and people from the Asian steppe?

The Cimmerians are later than Timber Grave. Archaeologists associate them with the Chernogorovka (c. 900 BC) and Novocherkask (c. 800 BC) cultures. About the 11th century BC a long arid period began on the steppes of Europe and Kazakhstan. The Black and Caspian seas shrank. Zones of vegetation shifted. The population of the steppe faced ecological crisis. Economies reliant on a mixture of agriculture and cattle-breeding collapsed and a fully nomadic life took their place. Mobile herders could avoid over-grazing any area, moving on periodically to greener pastures. A culture sprang up on the European steppe which lasted long enough to be known to ancient writers as Cimmerian. Its origins were mixed. Influences from the Asian steppe blended with those from the North Caucasus and the remnants of the dying cultures of the western steppe.

Source: Bouzek, J. 2001. Cimmerians and Early Scythians: the transition from geometric to early orientalising style in the North Pontic area, In Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic archaeology: recent discoveries and studies, Colloquia Pontica 6, 33-44.

I had assumed that Cimmerians were the descendants of Timber Grave until I read up on them, so you are not the only one.

newtoboard
02-26-2015, 12:05 AM
The Cimmerians are later than Timber Grave. Archaeologists associate them with the Chernogorovka (c. 900 BC) and Novocherkask (c. 800 BC) cultures. About the 11th century BC a long arid period began on the steppes of Europe and Kazakhstan. The Black and Caspian seas shrank. Zones of vegetation shifted. The population of the steppe faced ecological crisis. Economies reliant on a mixture of agriculture and cattle-breeding collapsed and a fully nomadic life took their place. Mobile herders could avoid over-grazing any area, moving on periodically to greener pastures. A culture sprang up on the European steppe which lasted long enough to be known to ancient writers as Cimmerian. Its origins were mixed. Influences from the Asian steppe blended with those from the North Caucasus and the remnants of the dying cultures of the western steppe.

Source: Bouzek, J. 2001. Cimmerians and Early Scythians: the transition from geometric to early orientalising style in the North Pontic area, In Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic archaeology: recent discoveries and studies, Colloquia Pontica 6, 33-44.

I had assumed that Cimmerians were the descendants of Timber Grave until I read up on them, so you are not the only one.

So in this scenario Timber Grave represents the locals? Who then mixed with Asian steppe and North Caucasian populations to give rise to Cimmerians? Does that suggest the language of Timber Grave is lost?

DMXX
02-26-2015, 12:34 AM
Quite possible the influence from the Asiatic steppe came via back-migrating Iranian speakers (Herodotus' favoured theory for the Scythians). I take it the Timber Grave locals were the very last remnant of the IE linguistic community that arose on the steppes. Perhaps the language spoken by the Cimmerians was itself a hybrid of some unclassified IE language with Iranic; note the three personal names listed on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cimmerians#Language) (Teushpaa, Dugdammei, Sandaksatru) seem to be connected with Iranic but the interpretations don't appear straightforward.

According to Marek J. Olbrycht's The Cimmerian problem re-examined: the evidence of the Classical sources (http://www.academia.edu/1509846/The_Cimmerian_Problem_Re-Examined_the_Evidence_of_the_Classical_Sources), although an Iranian component is "probable", Cimmerian king names bear a connection with the Luwian language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language) (IE > Anatolian branch). All sorts of interpretation for this. The document does mention the Cimmerians held control of the Bosphorous and had their own city, so it's quite possible that cultural connections were established across the Black Sea. I note from Wikipedia that Luwian supposedly went extinct around 600 B.C., making the language somewhat contemporaneous with the attested Cimmerians.

Speculation can be fun sometimes.

newtoboard
03-01-2015, 04:16 PM
The Cimmerians are later than Timber Grave. Archaeologists associate them with the Chernogorovka (c. 900 BC) and Novocherkask (c. 800 BC) cultures. About the 11th century BC a long arid period began on the steppes of Europe and Kazakhstan. The Black and Caspian seas shrank. Zones of vegetation shifted. The population of the steppe faced ecological crisis. Economies reliant on a mixture of agriculture and cattle-breeding collapsed and a fully nomadic life took their place. Mobile herders could avoid over-grazing any area, moving on periodically to greener pastures. A culture sprang up on the European steppe which lasted long enough to be known to ancient writers as Cimmerian. Its origins were mixed. Influences from the Asian steppe blended with those from the North Caucasus and the remnants of the dying cultures of the western steppe.

Source: Bouzek, J. 2001. Cimmerians and Early Scythians: the transition from geometric to early orientalising style in the North Pontic area, In Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), North Pontic archaeology: recent discoveries and studies, Colloquia Pontica 6, 33-44.

I had assumed that Cimmerians were the descendants of Timber Grave until I read up on them, so you are not the only one.

I couldn't really find much on those cultures. Do you know of anything that discusses their development?

So I guess Timber Grave would be Indo-Iranian (it developed out of the same Poltavka+ Abashevo influences Andronovo did) or something related while Cimmerian due to Asian steppe influences is actually closer to Indo-Iranian than Timber Grave.

And Cimmerians carried a wide mixture of steppe clades? Anybody have any thoughts on this? Z282* , Z93* (xZ94) and Z2103 come to mind.

T101
03-07-2015, 11:31 AM
The Halberstadt Z280 ( Halberstadt_LBA 10099) had two red hair variants (rs1805007 and rs1805009) and according to Hirisplex was most likely a redhead.

Jean M
03-07-2015, 01:19 PM
So I guess Timber Grave would be Indo-Iranian (it developed out of the same Poltavka+ Abashevo influences Andronovo did) or something related while Cimmerian due to Asian steppe influences is actually closer to Indo-Iranian than Timber Grave.

Why would Timber Grave be Indo-Iranian simply because it developed from the same core as Andronovo? All the Indo-European languages had a common source on the European steppe. That source was PIE. As groups broke far enough away from the homeland, so they could no longer communicate on a daily basis with the PIE core, they began to develop differently linguistically from PIE to the point where linguists recognise a daughter language. It is widely accepted that Proto-Indo-Iranian developed within Andronovo, where it absorbed vocabulary from the BMAC language.

Then comes the break away of the group which developed Indic. That left people on the Asian steppe speaking an ancestor to what would become the Eastern Iranian languages. Yes? So when people from the Asian steppe returned to the home of their ancestors on the European steppe, they would bring a form of Iranian with them.

newtoboard
03-07-2015, 06:00 PM
Why would Timber Grave be Indo-Iranian simply because it developed from the same core as Andronovo? All the Indo-European languages had a common source on the European steppe. That source was PIE. As groups broke far enough away from the homeland, so they could no longer communicate on a daily basis with the PIE core, they began to develop differently linguistically from PIE to the point where linguists recognise a daughter language. It is widely accepted that Proto-Indo-Iranian developed within Andronovo, where it absorbed vocabulary from the BMAC language.

Then comes the break away of the group which developed Indic. That left people on the Asian steppe speaking an ancestor to what would become the Eastern Iranian languages. Yes? So when people from the Asian steppe returned to the home of their ancestors on the European steppe, they would bring a form of Iranian with them.

That is debatable. I believe Timber Grave is Iranian because I find a 2500 BC split of Indo-Iranian as more likely than a 1800 BC split. All IE languages may have had a common source but not all developed out of the same cultures around 2000 BC like Andronovo and Timber Grave did. Under the 2500 BC split Indo-Iranian would have been differentiated for over 500 years by the timer Timber Grave formed.

T101
03-09-2015, 10:40 AM
Karelia Russia R1a-M459 (10061) K12b

•80.67% North_European
•12.06% Siberian
•6.05% Gedrosia
•1.21% South_Asian
•0.00% Atlantic_Med
•0.00% Caucasus
•0.00% East_African
•0.00% East_Asian
•0.00% Northwest_African
•0.00% Southeast_Asian
•0.00% Southwest_Asian
•0.00% Sub_Saharan


Corded Ware Germany R1a-Z282 (10104) K12b

•50.54% North_European
•21.94% Gedrosia
•20.47% Atlantic_Med
•6.82% Caucasus
•0.22% South_Asian
•0.02% Southwest_Asian
•0.00% East_African
•0.00% East_Asian
•0.00% Northwest_African
•0.00% Siberian
•0.00% Southeast_Asian
•0.00% Sub_Saharan


Urnfield Germany R1a-Z280 (10099) K12b

•42.57% North_European
•36.67% Atlantic_Med
•12.29% Gedrosia
•7.08% Caucasus
•1.38% Siberian
•0.01% South_Asian
•0.00% East_African
•0.00% East_Asian
•0.00% Northwest_African
•0.00% Southeast_Asian
•0.00% Southwest_Asian
•0.00% Sub_Saharan

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 02:00 AM
the Proto-Slavs (M458) are in Komarov on the middle Dnieper

Such a map from Underhill 2009 suggests that M458 could be on the Vistula:

http://s10.postimg.org/ongvq5yl5/M458.png

Of course those 2009 age estimates & expansion time estimates are way off:

"Formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4400 ybp" - http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M458/

However, I've heard that YFull estimates might be around 15% too young.

Generalissimo
08-09-2015, 02:42 AM
Wishful thinking. Eastern Europe was a hostile region for sedentary people.

Hehe, I was right.

The Sintashta genomes show a migration from the west to far Eastern Europe. And this wasn't just a single occurrence, I can see this in the data I have.


Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

There's a clear division between eastern Germans and western Poles? Are you sure about that, because the data I have seen clearly says otherwise.

Why do you argue with me about this? Do you honestly believe you're better informed?

Coldmountains
08-09-2015, 07:14 AM
There was obviously a western shift across all of northern Europe since the Bronze Age, including Eastern Europe.

So how could the Slavs have come from Eastern Europe to Central Europe after the Bronze Age and shifted the genetic structure there to the west?

I think that IE tribes lived for a long period side by side with non-IE tribes and not mixed much with them. It took some time for mixing and creating the modern European genpool. Most of the IE samples from LN/BA Europe belong to the elite of IE newcomers (except in the Pontic-Caspian steppe were there were just IEs) and we have to assume that there lived still many people around them lacking ANE or being very poor in it but after some time they got assimilated and IE people in Ukraine, Belarus, Germany and Poland got much more western shifted. Many get a wrong impression from Corded Ware and other expanding IE cultures when they think all in Germany, Poland or elsewhere were genetically identical to this ancient IE samples . So I don't see that this western shift among eastern Europeans is automatically proving a western migration. Neolithic Farmers already entered even Belarus prior to Corded Ware (correct me if I am wrong) and many parts of Ukraine were full of them. Neolithic Farmers had certainly a bigger population than steppe folks. So this mostly explains in my opinion why there is still so much "western" admixture in EE despite of being so close located to PIE steppe/forest-steppe cultures. But of course I would not exclude some migrations from the west (East Germanics migrated from the west to EE and Celts also to the most western parts of EE, others surely also). Proto-Slavs were in my opinion people descending from southern Balto-Slavic people living on the Ukrainian-Belarussian border region (Kiev culture < Milograd culture) and expanding from here to the north, south, east and west. This seem to be the most accepted theory among scholars today but there are many other theories and I agree there are still some holes in it even when I think it is the best theory so far

Coldmountains
08-09-2015, 08:03 AM
Such a map from Underhill 2009 suggests that M458 could be on the Vistula:

http://s10.postimg.org/ongvq5yl5/M458.png

Of course those 2009 age estimates & expansion time estimates are way off:

"Formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4400 ybp" - http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M458/

However, I've heard that YFull estimates might be around 15% too young.
We all know that Underhill can not be taken seriously and that his ideas and maps are in most cases just good for the laughs (R1a from Iran,...). I would ignore his stuff even if he is maybe right here (except of the age estimates)

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 10:25 AM
Eastern Europe was a hostile region for sedentary people.

The Eurasian steppe was a hostile region for sedentary people. The forest zone above the steppe wasn't.

This map shows the reconstructed forest coverage in Ukraine in the 1st millennium AD:

http://cs619727.vk.me/v619727846/11a0/bnbeoM43QYo.jpg

For comparison modern situation (dark green - forests; light green - potential forests):

http://www.lesovod.org.ua/sites/default/files/images/lesist.jpg

Volat
08-09-2015, 01:15 PM
Hehe, I was right.

The Sintashta genomes show a migration from the west to far Eastern Europe. And this wasn't just a single occurrence, I can see this in the data I have.



There's a clear division between eastern Germans and western Poles? Are you sure about that, because the data I have seen clearly says otherwise.

Why do you argue with me about this? Do you honestly believe you're better informed?

I am certainly more objective. East Germans are distinct from Poles at genome-wide level even with a known Slavic admixture among east Germans. There is also a paper on the division between Germans and Poles at Y-DNA. Western Poles are repatriates from Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania and central Poland settled on the territories acquired after WWII.

There is a clear genetic division between Germans and Slavs. There is a genetic continuum between Germans and other north-western Europeans.

leonardo
08-09-2015, 02:04 PM
I am certainly more objective. East Germans are distinct from Poles at genome-wide level even with a known Slavic admixture among east Germans. There is also a paper on the division between Germans and Poles at Y-DNA. Western Poles are repatriates from Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania and central Poland settled on the territories acquired after WWII.

There is a clear genetic division between Germans and Slavs. There is a genetic continuum between Germans and other north-western Europeans.

Regarding the y-dna disparity between Germans and Poles, are you referring to this?: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n4/full/ejhg2012190a.html.
Autosomally, there are significant differences between East Germans and Poles. From a y-dna perspective, we know there are quite a few people of German ancestry who have R-M458 and its subclades. The data from Semargl and the R1a project at FTDNA indicate this. Of course most of these individuals who have German surnames were likely Germanized during the ages.

Volat
08-09-2015, 02:17 PM
Regarding the y-dna disparity between Germans and Poles, are you referring to this?: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v21/n4/full/ejhg2012190a.html.
Autosomally, there are significant differences between East Germans and Poles. From a y-dna perspective, we know there are quite a few people of German ancestry who have R-M458 and its subclades. The data from Semargl and the R1a project at FTDNA indicate this. Of course most of these individuals who have German surnames were likely Germanized during the ages.

Mostly around Rostok area. This population is known to have a relatively recent Slavic admixture. The argument was about ancient eastward or westward migrations. There were many westward migrations of Huns, Avars, Slavs, Hungarians, Bulgars and others. I am not aware of any significant migration in eastern direction. There is also a genetic continuity between Slavs, while there is a division between Germans and Slavs, and Germans are on the same continuum with other north-western Europeans.

Volat
08-09-2015, 02:25 PM
We all know that Underhill can not be taken seriously and that his ideas and maps are in most cases just good for the laughs (R1a from Iran,...). I would ignore his stuff even if he is maybe right here (except of the age estimates)

I am not saying that Underhill et al. conclusion is right. But if we criticise conclusion of Underhill et al about origins of R1a, then we need to criticise the conclusions of other studies in which similar methodologies are used in finding the geographic origins of haplogroups.

That's what Underhill et al. wrote:

Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a.

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 04:52 PM
Regarding the y-dna disparity between Germans and Poles, are you referring to this?

Rebala 2012. Few things need to be remembered about that paper:

1) Rebala's sample included only pre-war inhabitants of Mecklenburg (now up to 40% of its inhabitants are post-WW2 arrivals from the east);
2) Rebala compared pre-war Mecklenburgians to Kashubians: they aren't neighbours, but people living 400-500 kilometers from each other;
3) In modern samples (Kayser 2005; Immel 2005; Roding 2007) there is much more R1a in Mecklenburg than in Rebala's pre-war sample.

Rebala claimed he had to use Mecklenburgians because German-speaking populations neighbouring Kashubia no longer exist. However, they can be reconstructed with use of their paternal descendants.

Family Tree DNA has maps with samples of German-speakers born in these areas, and their Y-DNA:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/germany/default.aspx?section=ymap

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/pommern?iframe=ymap

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ostpreussen_east_prussia/default.aspx?section=ymap

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/PosenzandzWestzPrussiazProvinceszGermany?iframe=ym ap

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish?iframe=ymap

It seems that the majority of them had R1a, but I'm not sure how representative are these samples.


Mostly around Rostok area. This population is known to have a relatively recent Slavic admixture.

That area was inhabited by Slavic tribes following the Migration Period in the Early Middle Ages, then it became German-speaking as the result of Northern Crusades & German settlement (they assimilated Slavs), after WW2 Germans from former German areas in the east came there, and they had even more of Slavic admixture (they could even be mostly Slavic). So in that area there was a pre-Slavic substrate, then Slavic immigration, then German immigration, then immigration of Germans with even more of Slavic admixture. That said, despite post-war immigration, % of R1a seems to correlate well with frequencies of Medieval Slavic toponyms:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4974-Ethnic-patterns-of-toponyms-and-DNA-do-they-correlate

And the issue is even more complex, because in the Bronze Age the area of East Germany was most likely majority-R1a as well (only in the Iron Age as the result of Celtic and Germanic expansions it could become R1b-majority, then following Slavic expansion it could once again become R1a-majority, and so on):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5053-Over-50-ancient-R1a-samples-in-the-context-of-archaeological-cultures&p=101102&viewfull=1#post101102

As for percent of R1a in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern:

- Greifswald (modern sample) - 19,2% R1a and low % of Slavic toponyms (only 11,88% in the area)
- Rostock (modern sample) - 32,4% R1a and high percent of Slavic toponyms (including Roztok itself)
- Mecklenburg (Rebala's sample of just pre-war families) - 13,7% R1a (in a sample of 131 males)

Does anybody know where exactly in Mecklenburg was Rebala's sample from?

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 05:03 PM
Corded Ware Germany R1a-Z282 (10104) K12b

Urnfield Germany R1a-Z280 (10099) K12b

Corded sample (ESP11) is more similar to Poles & Hungarians, while Urnfield one (HAL36) to Germans.

I think that "Atlantic_Med" component is the most informative one here:

ESP11 (sample from Esperstedt, dated 2473-2348 BC) - 20,47% "Atlantic_Med"
Sample of 18 modern Poles (from Dienekes Pontikos) - 20,9% "Atlantic_Med"

HAL36 (sample from Halberstadt, dated 1113-1021 BC) - 36,67% "Atlantic_Med"
Sample of 18 modern Germans (from Dienekes Pontikos) - 33,0% "Atlantic_Med"

This doesn't seem like a random difference, especially that both samples are from the very same area, since Halberstadt and Esperstedt are two towns located close to each other in Central Germany.

Where did that additional "Atlantic_Med" come from over that one thousand years?

Was that increase in "Atlantic_Med" the result of Celtic expansion ???

HAL36 didn't speak a Germanic language, he lived too early for that. But he was similar to modern Germans. He could be a Celtic-speaker, implying that modern Germans are perhaps largely Celtic in ancestry.

In another thread Jean M has suggested, that HAL36 could be a stranger - some Baltic-speaking amber trader (thus explaining his R1a-Z280), who came from far away, and died near Halberstadt while trading there. But his autosomal DNA doesn't seem to resemble modern Balts. He is actually more similar to Poles than to Balts, but still more to Germans. Unlike Esperstedt CW sample, who is slightly more similar to Poles than to Germans and HAL36, even though he lived in the same area, but over a thousand years earlier.

Of course we are talking about samples from present-day Central Germany, not Poland. It's surprising that a CW individual from Central Germany was autosomally similar to modern Poles, isn't it? It is also surprising that already HAL36 was similar to modern Germans, even though he wasn't Germanic.

I wonder what would be autosomal results for RISE431 and other samples from actual Poland.

=====================

HAL36 sample is the one dated 1113-1021; ESP11 is the one dated 2473-2348:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5053-Over-50-ancient-R1a-samples-in-the-context-of-archaeological-cultures&p=101102&viewfull=1#post101102


Approximate dating of R1a (and suspected R1a) samples from Europe.

Sample from Tanais kurgan is at least 3000 years old (at least 1000 BC).

All dates in BC, except for Medieval Usedom sample (n.e. = AD):

Map + dates (http://s4.postimg.org/lfkhruvn1/Datowanie_R1a.png)

http://s4.postimg.org/lfkhruvn1/Datowanie_R1a.png

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 06:01 PM
Western Poles are repatriates from Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania and central Poland

Not all of them - for example Poles from Greater Poland, Royal Prussia and Upper Silesia are locals.

They also participated in westward movement after WW2 as well.


There is a clear genetic division between Germans and Slavs.

Rebala 2012 showed a division in terms of Y-DNA between Mecklenburgians and Kashubians, populations separated by 400-500 kilometers of land. He did not use Y-DNA samples from Germans with ancestry from Pomerania, Lower Silesia or East Prussia. Such samples are available at Family Tree DNA (at least five projects: German Language Area (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/germany/default.aspx?section=ymap); Polish Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish?iframe=ymap); Pommern (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/pommern?iframe=ymap); East Prussia (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ostpreussen_east_prussia/default.aspx?section=ymap); Posen & West Prussia (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/PosenzandzWestzPrussiazProvinceszGermany?iframe=ym ap)). I've checked Y-DNA samples from these 5 projects, and I've found out, that Germans who lived before 1945 in former German areas in the east, were mostly (>50%) R1a. But I'm not sure if samples are representative.

Czechs, Moravians Slovaks, Slovenes and Croats are Slavic nations. The division between these Slavic nations and Austrians-Germans is not so clear. If you look just at R1a frequencies, then there is a clear division along the Sudetes-Carpathians mountain range, with Southern Poles, Polish Silesians and Sorbs having high R1a frequencies, while Slovaks, Czechs and Moravians having much lower R1a frequencies. In terms of Y-DNA division between Poles and Czecho-Slovaks is about as clear as between Poles and Germans. Lusatian Sorbs cluster with Poles in this case, as well as Polish groups such as Kashubians, Silesians.

If Family Tree DNA samples are representative, then Eastern Germans (those to the east of the Oder-Neisse line) were similar to Poles in terms of Y-DNA - being mostly of R1a haplogroup.

IBD sharing seems to confirm that they were more similar to Poles than to other Germans - check:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4982-How-accurate-is-this-M458-map&p=100263&viewfull=1#post100263


Europe-Wide Patterns of Relatedness

Individuals usually share the highest number of IBD blocks with others from the same population, with some exceptions. For example, individuals in the United Kingdom share more IBD blocks on average, and hence more close genetic ancestors, with individuals from Ireland than with other individuals from the United Kingdom (1.26 versus 1.09 blocks at least 1 cM per pair, Mann-Whitney p<10−10), and Germans share similarly more with Polish than with other Germans (1.24 versus 1.05, p = 5.7×10−6), a pattern which could be due to recent asymmetric migration from a smaller population into a larger population. (...)

What does it tell us? - that not all Germans are part-Bavarian, but most or all are part-Polish ???

And:

"(...) could be due to recent assymetric migration from a smaller population into a larger population."

What "mysterious" migration could that be?

Most likely movement of Eastern Germans to the west in 1945 and later.

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 06:26 PM
I am not aware of any significant migration in eastern direction.

There were such migrations, but in describing them we need to operate with names of archaeological cultures, rather than tribes, because they took place before historical times (the Late Bronze Age, the pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman-era Iron Age). Most likely at first Celtic and then Germanic tribes were involved in those migrations. Those were certain archaeological cultures, expanding in eastern direction.

Then during the Middle Ages there were German eastward migrations into Slavic & Baltic lands.

parastais
08-09-2015, 07:05 PM
I dont think y-dna is the best way to compare closeness of populations.
Do PCA plots show clear gap bw Slavs and Germans?

vettor
08-09-2015, 07:07 PM
Not all of them - for example Poles from Greater Poland, Royal Prussia and Upper Silesia are locals.

They also participated in westward movement after WW2 as well.



Rebala 2012 showed a division in terms of Y-DNA between Mecklenburgians and Kashubians, populations separated by 400-500 kilometers of land. He did not use Y-DNA samples from Germans with ancestry from Pomerania, Lower Silesia or East Prussia. Such samples are available at Family Tree DNA (at least five projects: German Language Area (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/germany/default.aspx?section=ymap); Polish Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/polish?iframe=ymap); Pommern (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/pommern?iframe=ymap); East Prussia (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ostpreussen_east_prussia/default.aspx?section=ymap); Posen & West Prussia (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/PosenzandzWestzPrussiazProvinceszGermany?iframe=ym ap)). I've checked Y-DNA samples from these 5 projects, and I've found out, that Germans who lived before 1945 in former German areas in the east, were mostly (>50%) R1a. But I'm not sure if samples are representative.

Czechs, Moravians Slovaks, Slovenes and Croats are Slavic nations. The division between these Slavic nations and Austrians-Germans is not so clear. If you look just at R1a frequencies, then there is a clear division along the Sudetes-Carpathians mountain range, with Southern Poles, Polish Silesians and Sorbs having high R1a frequencies, while Slovaks, Czechs and Moravians having much lower R1a frequencies. In terms of Y-DNA division between Poles and Czecho-Slovaks is about as clear as between Poles and Germans. Lusatian Sorbs cluster with Poles in this case, as well as Polish groups such as Kashubians, Silesians.

If Family Tree DNA samples are representative, then Eastern Germans (those to the east of the Oder-Neisse line) were similar to Poles in terms of Y-DNA - being mostly of R1a haplogroup.

IBD sharing seems to confirm that they were more similar to Poles than to other Germans - check:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4982-How-accurate-is-this-M458-map&p=100263&viewfull=1#post100263



What does it tell us? - that not all Germans are part-Bavarian, but most or all are part-Polish ???

And:

"(...) could be due to recent assymetric migration from a smaller population into a larger population."

What "mysterious" migration could that be?

Most likely movement of Eastern Germans to the west in 1945 and later.

Bavarians where not germans in the ancient times...........they became germans after the fall of the Roman empire.

Bavarians are from Boii people .....gallic tribe who settled in Bohemia, northern italy ( bologna area ) in slovenia and around modern-Germany south of the Danube river. Some have said they originated in Alsace ( region on the border of modern germany and france )

So, from being a Gallic tribe they are most likely to be also celtic.

Proper germans came only from modern north Germany

parasar
08-09-2015, 07:14 PM
I am not saying that Underhill et al. conclusion is right. But if we criticise conclusion of Underhill et al about origins of R1a, then we need to criticise the conclusions of other studies in which similar methodologies are used in finding the geographic origins of haplogroups.

That's what Underhill et al. wrote:

Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a.

We could put it this way:
"Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a" with the caveat that present distributions have not proven to be reliable indicators for the past. It should also be noted that the age of the basal M420 line [2571 years] is lower than that of Z645 [4900 years] indicating the possibility of a more recent shared mutation among the M420 samples.

Volat
08-09-2015, 08:31 PM
We could put it this way:
"Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a" with the caveat that present distributions have not proven to be reliable indicators for the past.

In the absence of ancient DNA, the finding of geographic origin of other haplogroups and mutations is also based on haplotype diversity and basal lineages found in modern populations. If we find samples of ancient DNA with high prevalence of basal lineages and haplogroup diversities, then there is no reason to assume that those people did not migrate to the region from elsewhere ie distributions in ancient DNA have not been proven to be reliable indicators for more distant past. Also, the estimates of many mutations seem change every 3-4 years.

Volat
08-09-2015, 08:34 PM
The best way is to search for and test ancient DNA rather than relying on modern DNA. Otherwise, we may get results that don't make sense.

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 08:52 PM
Vettor,

I mentioned Bavarians as an example, we could use any other German group, like Saxons, Thuringians, Swabians, etc. In general that shows, that modern Germans are not homogeneous, but mostly connected by language and culture. As for Bavaria - it is the 2nd most populous region of Germany.

Volat
08-09-2015, 08:55 PM
There were such migrations, but in describing them we need to operate with names of archaeological cultures, rather than tribes, because they took place before historical times (the Late Bronze Age, the pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman-era Iron Age). Most likely at first Celtic and then Germanic tribes were involved in those migrations. Those were certain archaeological cultures, expanding in eastern direction.

Then during the Middle Ages there were German eastward migrations into Slavic & Baltic lands.

What were those archaeological cultures? There was Gothic migration in middle ages, but I was talking about significant migrations. Goths left territories of southern Ukraine anyway.

George
08-09-2015, 09:17 PM
What were those archaeological cultures? There was Gothic migration in middle ages, but I was talking about significant migrations. Goths left territories of southern Ukraine anyway.

There was also the earlier "Bastarnian" migration (Pomeranian+Yastorf combo). The result was there for centuries (basically two subsequent cultures: Poeneshti-Lukashovka and Zarubynetska). However, except for two out of the three Zarubinian components (Upper Dnipro and Middle Dnipro, perhaps Strabo's "Sidones") the rest migrated out. One would have to guess what was incorporated into the local gene pool. My guess would be "very little".

Tomenable
08-09-2015, 09:26 PM
What were those archaeological cultures?

E.g. Tumulus culture, Hallstatt culture, La Tène culture, Jastorf culture, Nordic Iron Age cultures. We can observe that those cultures extended their influence in eastern direction (including south-eastern and north-eastern, depending on culture), including also the area of present-day East Germany and Poland. Of course there is always a question about to what extent those were migrations and to what extent cultural exchange without large-scale migrations. In some cases it looks like violent expansion, though.


There was Gothic migration in middle ages

In the Iron Age, actually.

It is often considered that Goths originally lived in Scandinavia, from which they invaded Pomerania after year 50 AD, and that the emergence of Wielbark culture was the sign of those changes.


There was also the earlier "Bastarnian" migration (Pomeranian+Yastorf combo)

Jastorf is considered Germanic.

But Pomeranian culture was most likely not yet Germanic. IIRC, Pomeranian culture emerged when one branch of Lusatian culture replaced (perhaps quite violently through conquests) other branches of Lusatian, but I don't think that Lusatian branch ancestral to Pomeranian was Germanic. Lusatian culture was probably a bit multi-ethnic (with Celtic influences in its western part), but Germanics weren't part of that.

Later it seems that Iron Age Jastorf culture probably invaded Pomeranian culture, leading to Oksywie culture. Later that Oksywie culture was influenced from Scandinavia, leading to Wielbark culture. Oksywie could already be Germanic, but Goths as we know them could emerge no earlier than in Wielbark.

Of course we should realize that all of this are speculations based on archaeology.

There is no history describing that territory at that time.

Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC) did not describe North-Central and North-Eastern Europe - his knowledge extended only as far north as present-day Central Ukraine, but not farther to the north. The oldest written sources describing present-day Poland are from the 1st century BC, IIRC.

I can't wait for some ancient Y-DNA from the Iron Age.

Currently we have only Bronze Age Y-DNA and, it could be different later in the Iron Age.

leonardo
08-10-2015, 12:07 AM
I dont think y-dna is the best way to compare closeness of populations.
Do PCA plots show clear gap bw Slavs and Germans?

True, but it would be impossible with all the post WW2 migration to get an historical sample. Besides, the proximity would only apply to east Germans and west Slavs. Even then, one wonders how quickly and thoroughly the two groups grew apart once the Slavs in east Germany were Germanized.

George
08-10-2015, 12:54 AM
True, but it would be impossible with all the post WW2 migration to get an historical sample. Besides, the proximity would only apply to east Germans and west Slavs. Even then, one wonders how quickly and thoroughly the two groups grew apart once the Slavs in east Germany were Germanized.

Here's an interesting article relating to this somewhat: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n9/full/ejhg201165a.html

Volat
08-10-2015, 01:24 AM
I dont think y-dna is the best way to compare closeness of populations.
Do PCA plots show clear gap bw Slavs and Germans?

Not sure what samples were used in K15 run. But here is a PCA with east German population : http://s28.postimg.org/vb0nfpgil/ERS389796_K15_pca12.png

parastais
08-10-2015, 05:41 AM
Not sure what samples were used in K15 run. But here is a PCA with east German population : http://s28.postimg.org/vb0nfpgil/ERS389796_K15_pca12.png
Thanks!
OK, those colored squares are made rather stupid - why should Austrian (German) be put in dark blue? To enlarge that triangle?
Also French is not German. Serbian should be added to Slavs. Hungarians put independent.
Finno-ugric folk deserve their own box or two - one for Western/Baltic Finns, other for Eastern/Volga Finns.
Other than weak visualisation with colors this PCA plot indeed shows there are features based on which there is a clear gap bw two populations - that would be whatever was used for y axis here.
If we take out Serbs, Hungars, Finns and French, German box contracts and moves away to top right corner.
In this plot West Slavs are clearly closer to East Slavs (Ukrainian, Belorussian, Smolensk Russian) with Balts, Volga and Baltic Finns being closest friends.

Volat
08-10-2015, 06:02 AM
Thanks!
OK, those colored squares are made rather stupid - why should Austrian (German) be put in dark blue? To enlarge that triangle?
Also French is not German. Serbian should be added to Slavs. Hungarians put independent.
Finno-ugric folk deserve their own box or two - one for Western/Baltic Finns, other for Eastern/Volga Finns.
Other than weak visualisation with colors this PCA plot indeed shows there are features based on which there is a clear gap bw two populations - that would be whatever was used for y axis here.
If we take out Serbs, Hungars, Finns and French, German box contracts and moves away to top right corner.
In this plot West Slavs are clearly closer to East Slavs (Ukrainian, Belorussian, Smolensk Russian) with Balts, Volga and Baltic Finns being closest friends.

It looks as if someone shaded 5 regions approximately covering north-west, south-west, south-east , east/north-east and volga-ural. Not sure how you worked Balts being close to Volga peoples and Baltic Finns on this plot. They seem to be closest to Russian_Kargopol, Belarusians, Polish_Estonia. These is just visual interpretation of genetic proximity between populations for a specific admixture. It's the best I could find to show the position of east Germans on genetic map of Europe.

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 07:04 AM
East Germans are distinct from Poles at genome-wide level even with a known Slavic admixture among east Germans. There is also a paper on the division between Germans and Poles at Y-DNA.

But please try and understand what I'm trying to explain to you.

I'm talking about really high resolution stuff here, not frequencies of paternal markers or even Admixture tests.

There was a study done recently using genome-wide haplotypes from hundreds, if not thousands of samples from the border regions of Germany. Eastern Germans clustered with Poles, while northern Germans clustered with Danes. It was presented at an SMBE conference and should be published soon.

http://s28.postimg.org/umcgpezjh/Razib_Tweet.png

But the same can be shown with much simpler methods as long as there are enough samples.


http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/scatter1.png

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/a-1-million-genotype-project/


Western Poles are repatriates from Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania and central Poland settled on the territories acquired after WWII.

I wasn't talking about those western Poles. I was talking about Poles from Wielkopolska, Slask, Kujawy and Pomorze. In other words, the pre-WWII western Poles.




There is a clear genetic division between Germans and Slavs.

Complete nonsense and very easy to debunk.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQSEdnb1pld1VzblU/view?usp=sharing

And before you complain about that not being from a scientific paper; it's exactly the same as the PCA based on high confidence (transversion) sites fom Haak et al.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 07:16 AM
Eastern Germans clustered with Poles

Central or East-Central Germans clustered with Poles, you mean - right?

Eastern Germans were not tested (most of them actually live in West Germany today - only a smaller part in former GDR). People from present-day East Germany are more like East-Central, even though they also live in lands which used to be Slavic in the Early Middle Ages (map):

http://s12.postimg.org/ixxa9vu3x/Germanized.png

http://s22.postimg.org/mtfqsgzj5/Slavic_lands_850.png

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 07:19 AM
Here's an interesting article relating to this somewhat: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n9/full/ejhg201165a.html

Here is a quote from that study.


One caution regarding our results is that the geographical origins of our reference populations are crudely characterized only by country and thus may not be random samples. If many of the Germans in the POPRES data are western German samples, this may inflate the apparent differences we observe between Germans and Sorbs. The LPZ Germans contained two individuals from Eastern Germany who do appear closer to the Sorbs, suggesting that population structure within countries is a valid concern. Certainly, a tighter and denser sampling of German, Polish and Czech individuals from regions surrounding the Sorbian territories would be ideal for confirming or refuting the results found in this study.

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 07:22 AM
Central or East-Central Germans clustered with Poles, you mean - right?

That's correct. The German samples were from present-day eastern Germany, and yet they showed strong affinity to Poles.

I'd imagine that a sample of Germans from former eastern Germany would basically cluster in Poland.

parastais
08-10-2015, 07:27 AM
It looks as if someone shaded 5 regions approximately covering north-west, south-west, south-east , east/north-east and volga-ural. Not sure how you worked Balts being close to Volga peoples and Baltic Finns on this plot. They seem to be closest to Russian_Kargopol, Belarusians, Polish_Estonia. These is just visual interpretation of genetic proximity between populations for a specific admixture. It's the best I could find to show the position of east Germans on genetic map of Europe.
About Balts you misread me, I mentioned them as next closest folk to West Slavs after East Slavs go Balts, Baltic Finns, Volga Finns.
As to Balts, represented here by Lith only, according to PCA they are about same distance from Belarus, Estonia, Erzya and somewhat closer to mysterious Kargopol Russians. I read there were some suspiciously Baltic toponyms up there around Kargopol.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 07:53 AM
During the 800s, western boundary of areas with majority Slavic population was as follows:

Starting from the north-west, westernmost ethnically Slavic areas included: the Fehrman island, Wagrien region (Wagria) in what is today Holstein - including settlement Wendtorf in Kreis Plön (54°25′N 10°0′E) - then the outskirts of Hamburg, Lauenburg region, Lüneburger Heide, Wolfsburg region, Magdeburg region. South of Magdeburg the boundary of ethnic Slavic territory can be drawn as a meridional line extending up to Erfurt and the eastern part of the Thüringer Wald. From the Thüringer Wald the boundary was a line extending in south-western direction up to the River Main and the outskirts of Bamberg. In parts of Thuringia located to the west of the Saale River, the following area was ethnically Slavic during the 9th century: lands to the east of the line extending from the southern outskirts of Magdeburg, through the area of Erfurt, and up to the Thüringer Wald and the Main River near Bamberg. From Bamberg the 9th century Slavic-Germanic ethnic boundary sharply turned towards Austrian Linz, and then once again turned meridionally, extending up to the Alpine city of Liezen at the River Enns. In the Alps groups of Slavs migrated through mountain valleys up to East Tirol and the Upper Drava River. Slavs settled in north-western and south-eastern parts of East Tyrol, and in Italy they reached up to Julian Alps north-west of Udine and also settled in what is now the Provincia di Gorizia of Italy up to the coast of the Marano lagoon. The city of Matrei in Osttirol (47°0′N 12°32′E) was called Windisch Matrei as late as 1335. Entire Baltic coast from Wendtorf to Lipa (Liep, Kahlberg, Krynica Morska) was predominantly Slavic, including the islands of Fehmarn, Rügen, Usedom and Wolin. Although Lipa (now Krynica Morska) was Slavic, the opposite southern bank of the Vistula Lagoon - area near Elbląg (Elbing) - was Baltic (Old Prussian).

When it comes to Slavic-Finnic ethnic borderland - in the north-east, the northernmost (but not the easternmost) Slavic tribe in the 800s, the Ilmen Slovenes, extended close to 59°0′N 35°0′E. Farther north than Ilmen Slovenes, close to 60°0′N, just to the south of Lakes Ladoga and Onega, lived at that time Finnic-speaking tribes. When it comes to Slavic expansion in the Balkans - in Greece, some groups of Slavic settlers reached as far south as the gates of the Greek fortress of Monemvasia (36°41′N 23°3′E).

parastais
08-10-2015, 09:04 AM
Wagria near Schwentine river. That is like the most Baltic sounding Slavs ever :)

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 09:26 AM
The German name of this river is Alte Schwentine (Polish: Święciana),

It's Slavic: from Proto-Slavic *svętъ, from Proto-Balto-Slavic *śwentas, from PIE *ḱwen- ‎(“holy”).

Compare:

Lower Sorbian: swěty
Drevano-Polabian: sięte
Polish: święty
Czech: svatý
Slovak: svätý
etc., etc.

In year 798 at the river Schwentine a battle between Slavic Obodrites led by duke Dražko (Latin spelling: Drasco; name comes from Proto-Slavic dorgu, meaning "dear" or "precious") and Nordalbingians (Northern Saxons) took place. At that time Charlemagne - who was allied with Obodrites against Saxons - was near Minden, raiding Ostphalia. Obodrites won the battle and 3 - 4 thousand Saxons perished.

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 09:45 AM
About Balts you misread me, I mentioned them as next closest folk to West Slavs after East Slavs go Balts, Baltic Finns, Volga Finns.
As to Balts, represented here by Lith only, according to PCA they are about same distance from Belarus, Estonia, Erzya and somewhat closer to mysterious Kargopol Russians. I read there were some suspiciously Baltic toponyms up there around Kargopol.

You can't work out genetic distances based on PCA or Admixture results. You need to use raw data, like here. Balts are in one of these...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNTVZOE9fRTVtbFE/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQRjVKek51T1d4Y3M/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQemRFX2dYR2U3S0U/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNkFBdTlwS2Fsb0U/view?usp=sharing

Volat, I'd like to see your interpretation of these tables, if you would be so kind.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 09:53 AM
Wagria was inhabited by Wagrians (Wagri, Wagiri) - a constituent tribe of the Obodrite confederacy.

===============================

What's interesting is that a few of West Slavic tribes seemed to have names of Germanic rather than Slavic origin, and some other tribes had names of dualistic nature.

For example there was a tribe Stoderani (Stodoranie) a.k.a. Heveldi (Hevelli / Hehfeldi / Haefeldan / Heveldun), which apparently had a dual Slavic-Germanic name.

According to Thietmar of Merseburg, their name was Stoderani (which is clearly a name of Slavic origin), but they were alternatively known as Hevelli:

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrons/thietmar.htm#IV|

"(...) Inperator autem a Romania discedens nostras regiones invisit et accepta Sclavorum rebellione Stoderaniam, quae Hevellun dicitur, armato petens milite, incendio et magna depredacione vastavit et victor Parthenopolim rediit (...)"

According to Helmold of Bosau (author of "Chronica Slavorum"), the "Heveldi" part of their dual name originated from Ancient Heruli (Heruli vel Heveldi):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmold

"(...) Sunt et alii Slavorum populi, qui inter Odoram et Albiam degunt longoque sinu ad austrum portenduntur, sicut Heruli vel Heveldi, qui sunt iuxta Habolam fluvium et Doxam, Leubuzi et Wilini, Stoderani cum multis aliis. (...)"

parastais
08-10-2015, 10:20 AM
The German name of this river is Alte Schwentine (Polish: Święciana),

It's Slavic: from Proto-Slavic *svętъ, from Proto-Balto-Slavic *śwentas, from PIE *ḱwen- ‎(“holy”).

Compare:

Lower Sorbian: swěty
Drevano-Polabian: sięte
Polish: święty
Czech: svatý
Slovak: svätý
etc., etc.
.
Dont rush. It sounds more Baltic than Slavic. With sh sound in front and -ine sound in back. Somewhat Curonian sound :)

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 10:29 AM
With sh sound in front and -ine sound in back

This is only a Germanized version of this name, not original name.

Assuming that you are right, how would you explain it being Baltic?

parastais
08-10-2015, 11:00 AM
This is only a Germanized version of this name, not original name.

Assuming that you are right, how would you explain it being Baltic?
This is very long and in Russian:
http://slavyanskaya-kultura.ru/slavic/history/na-kakom-jazyke-govorili-na-yuge-baltiki-do-slavjan.html

In short apparently it comes from Balto-Slavic dialects in that area, that got replaced with Slavic later.
(Text also mentions works dealing with toponyms West of Vistula that have their closest matches in Baltics, for example Rutzau - Rucava, or Baltic etimology).

Either:
Balto-Slavic X languages -> (served as substrate to) East Germanics -> Slavic
Or
Balto-Slavic X languages (wrongly considered East Germanic) -> Slavic
Or
Something else :)

Balto-Slavic X languages - most likely closely sounding to apparently Curonian or Selonian.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 11:09 AM
In short apparently it comes from Balto-Slavic dialects in that area, that got replaced with Slavic later

Balto-Slavic couldn't be "replaced" by Slavic, because Slavic also evolved from Balto-Slavic.

When you look at Proto-Slavic language or even archaic Slavic from the 6th - 7th centuries (which is so-called Late Common Slavic, IIRC), then it was more similar to Baltic than modern Slavic languages are. That's because Slavic-speakers expanded over vast areas, where their languages got differentiated, while Baltic-speaking territory and number of Baltic-speakers have been small and isolated during the last 1200 years compared to respectively Slavic-speaking territory and number of Slavic-speakers. Which is why Baltic languages preserved more archaic features while Slavic languages have been evolving faster.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 11:22 AM
I'm by no means an expert in linguistics, but one Romanian guy (he is also not an expert in linguistics) told me that early Slavic names from the Balkans sound more Baltic than Slavic, in his opinion.

These are names such as: Ardagast, Musokios, Peiragast, Swarunas, Dauritas, Boz, Dabragezas, Kalagast, Chilbudius, Usigard, Mezamir, Idarizos, Chatzon, Waltunc, Pribina, Kocel, Daurentios, Walluk.

Assuming he was right, it would mean that we have South Balts in the Balkans! :biggrin1: BTW, name "Balts" to describe speakers of Lithuanian, Latvian, Prussian, etc., was invented in the 19th century.

But in reality most of these names are very clearly archaic Slavic ones (for example Ardagast later transformed into Radogost, as there was a general ard -> rad / arda -> rada sound shift), Usigard was Usigrod and Kalagast was Całogost (there took place an a -> o sound shift, it was the same in gard -> gord; in Polish and Lusatian there is grod, in most other Slavic languages there is grad, in Russian there is gorod, while Drevano-Polabian preserved the archaic form gard). Mezamir was Miedzamir (miedza + mir). Etc., etc.

Ardagast/Radagast has a very clear Slavic etymology. Iranian etymology would also fit. And maybe Baltic would fit too. But we know that South Slavs are Slavs, not Balts or Iranians. In East Germany there was a Slavic town & religious center Radgosc (other names: Radegost, Riedigost, Redigast, Radigast, Radogoszcz, Rethra):

http://sms.zrc-sazu.si/pdf/02/sms_02_slupecki_zaroff.pdf

Thietmar of Merseburg wrote:

"There is, in the land of the Redari, a fortified town triangular in shape and with three gates leading to the inside, called Radgosc, surrounded from all sides by a great forest untouched by the natives and worshipped as sacred. Two of the gates are always opened for the people who enter. The third one, from the eastern side, is the smallest one and opens to a small pathway that leads to a nearby fearsome-looking lake. It has a single temple, built masterfully from wood and resting on foundations made of horns of wild animals. Its inner walls are adorned with the images of Pagan Slavic gods and goddesses – which are, as one can notice by looking at them closely – sculptured wonderfully, from wood, while inside the chamber there are statues of gods, made by human hand, with helmets and armours – each with his own name engraved. The first one is called Svarozic, and he is the subject of a particular worship among the Pagans. There are also many banners stored in there, which they never take, except for war expeditions, and then they are carried by foot warriors. For protection of all of this, the natives have appointed special priests."

Svarozic was the son of Svarog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svarog

About the Redari: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutici


The Lutici (known by various spelling variants) were a federation of West Slavic Polabian tribes, who between the 10th and 12th centuries lived in what is now northeastern Germany. Four tribes made up the core of the federation: the Redarians (Redari, Redarii), Circipanians (Circipani), Kessinians (Kessini, Kycini, Chizzini) and Tollensians (Tholenzi). At least in part, the Lutici were a continuation of the Veleti. In contrast to the former and the neighboring peoples, the Lutici were not led by a Christian monarch or duke, rather power was asserted through consensus formed in central assemblies of the social elites, and the Lutici worshipped nature and several deities. The political and religious center was Radgosc (also referred to by several other names, e.g. Riedegost

Territory of Slavic Lutici (Lutizen); and Obodritenreich = Slavic Obodrite confederacy:

http://www.feudalismus.de/magister.htm

Map shows some of important Slavic Burgen (fortified towns) in the region:

http://www.feudalismus.de/funde.jpg

parastais
08-10-2015, 11:54 AM
Of course Russian has replaced Ukrainian and Belorussian over large territories. Even if they all come from same proto-Slavic.
My point is that Slavic had replaced previous Balto-Slavic dialects that I call "Balto Slavic X", even if they all had roots in Proto-BS.
It did not develop locally in East Germany or in Balkans.

I think first wave (Balticish sounding) spread very early and then other languages plus second wave Slavic replaced it almost everywhere.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 12:06 PM
In North-Eastern Germany, Slavic rather replaced Germanic, not Balto-Slavic.

Some kind of Balto-Slavic could be spoken there, but early on, in the Bronze Age. Later, in the Iron Age, Germanic expanded there, and in the Early Middle Ages - Slavic. So if this river really has a Baltic-sounding name rather than Slavic, then perhaps it dates back to the Bronze Age or Early Iron Age?

parastais
08-10-2015, 12:37 PM
In North-Eastern Germany, Slavic rather replaced Germanic, not Balto-Slavic.

Some kind of Balto-Slavic could be spoken there, but early on, in the Bronze Age. Later, in the Iron Age, Germanic expanded there, and in the Early Middle Ages - Slavic. So if this river really has a Baltic-sounding name rather than Slavic, then perhaps it dates back to the Bronze Age or Early Iron Age?
I agree.
Most likely this is about NE Germany:


Balto-Slavic X languages -> (served as substrate to) East Germanic -> Slavic

George
08-10-2015, 01:18 PM
Here is a quote from that study.

I don't think there is a problem in recognizing that "East Germans" may frequently cluster with West Slavs for the obvious historical reasons.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 01:34 PM
I don't think there is a problem in recognizing that "East Germans" may frequently cluster with West Slavs for the obvious historical reasons.

But according to Karlheinz Deschner, "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentum" (English: "Criminal History of Christianity"), Pagan Wends (West Slavs) were decimated by German crusaders and large part of them were expelled from their homes by German missionaries and colonists, fleeing to the east. Check also "The Northern Crusades" by Eric Christiansen, a good book to start with when it comes to Wends.

Volat
08-10-2015, 01:35 PM
But please try and understand what I'm trying to explain to you.

I'm talking about really high resolution stuff here, not frequencies of paternal markers or even Admixture tests.

There was a study done recently using genome-wide haplotypes from hundreds, if not thousands of samples from the border regions of Germany. Eastern Germans clustered with Poles, while northern Germans clustered with Danes. It was presented at an SMBE conference and should be published soon.

http://s28.postimg.org/umcgpezjh/Razib_Tweet.png

But the same can be shown with much simpler methods as long as there are enough samples.



http://www.unz.com/gnxp/a-1-million-genotype-project/



I wasn't talking about those western Poles. I was talking about Poles from Wielkopolska, Slask, Kujawy and Pomorze. In other words, the pre-WWII western Poles.




Complete nonsense and very easy to debunk.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQSEdnb1pld1VzblU/view?usp=sharing

And before you complain about that not being from a scientific paper; it's exactly the same as the PCA based on high confidence (transversion) sites fom Haak et al.








Yes, you were talking about western Poles. You needed to be more specific about the populations among western Poles. We need to wait for the paper to be released to see what authors did and which samples for east Germany and west Poland were used in the analysis. East Germans are known to have a relatively recent Slavic admixture, while we were discussing ancient migrations. It has been known for a long time about the elevated frequency of R1a1* among certain eastern German groups who assimilated Slavs in relatively recent times anyway.

What's with the PCA plot? Are western Slavs Czechs on the plot? If they were Poles, were they representative of Polish population? What data were used in the PCA? It must be fractions of admixture components, as most of your knowledge about human genomics revolves around admixture software. You may have learned to produce PCA plots using raw data too. I am asking this because I know how easy it is to produce visual illusions on the plots using PCA analysis.

It has been noted on many occasions that you are not objective. Until the paper is published , there is no evidence on genetic continuity between western Poles and east Germans.

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 01:37 PM
I don't think there is a problem in recognizing that "East Germans" may frequently cluster with West Slavs for the obvious historical reasons.

I didn't say that, and that's not what the quote implies.

What I said was there there's a genetic continuum across North Central Europe, which is exceedingly easy to pick with enough high density data from the right places. Weak data and/or from the wrong places will suggest there are some gaps.

.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 01:44 PM
East Germans are known to have a relatively recent Slavic admixture

By "relatively recent" what do you mean? I'm not sure which admixture do you mean.

Volat
08-10-2015, 01:47 PM
Here is a quote from that study.

Here is another quote from the study

We constructed three data set merges:POPRES/LPZ (30,587 SNPs), POPRES/HGDP (30,587 SNPs) and POPRES/LPZ/HGDP (8745 SNPS)... (where 27 is the median sample size across LPZ, POPRES and HGDP data sets),

Other subjects from LPZ were not similar to Sorbs.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 01:51 PM
It has been known for a long time about the elevated frequency of R1a1* among certain eastern German groups

Elevated frequencies of R1a due to recent (19th-21st centuries) immigrations from the east are also in West Germany. In 17th-18th centuries R1a frequencies in West Germany were likely similar to these in France and in the Benelux. IMHO, there was no more than a few % of R1a there before recent migrations.

One exception is R1a-Z284, of course. But today only ca. 1% of Germans have Z284.

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 02:00 PM
Yes, you were talking about western Poles. You needed to be more specific about the populations among western Poles. We need to wait for the paper to be released to see what authors did and which samples for east Germany and west Poland were used in the analysis. East Germans are known to have a relatively recent Slavic admixture, while we were discussing ancient migrations. It has been known for a long time about the elevated frequency of R1a1* among certain eastern German groups who assimilated Slavs in relatively recent times anyway.

Can you read basic plots and tables or not? These are from actual papers that have been published. Do you understand what that means?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQVTZqRjlzNlFxdGM/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQemRFX2dYR2U3S0U/view?usp=sharing


What's with the PCA plot? Western Slavs are Czechs on the plot? If they were Poles, were they representative of Polish population? What data were used in the PCA? It must be fractions of admixture components, as most of your knowledge about human genomics revolves around admixture software. You may have learned to produce PCA plots using raw data too. I am asking this because I know how easy it is to produce visual illusions on the plots using PCA analysis.

It's a copy of a plot that appeared in Haak et al.

You said that there was a gap between Germans and Slavs. The plot shows that there isn't. So instead of admitting you're wrong you accuse me of fudging data?

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 02:25 PM
In year 1950, already 16,6% of inhabitants of West Germany were people who, as of 01.09.1939, had lived in areas later lost by Germany in 1945. By year 1961 - due to internal migrations from East Germany to West Germany - percent of such people in West Germany, increased to 21,5% of the total population. So obviously that migration aloned had to cause a significant increase in frequency of R1a in West Germany (add to this also Polish immigration to Ruhrgebiet during the 19th century, as well as so-called "Ostflucht" during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and other migrations in the 19th-21st centuries too):

http://s11.postimg.org/5kxi31kyb/West_Germany.png
http://s11.postimg.org/5kxi31kyb/West_Germany.png

http://s16.postimg.org/njbt8y26d/Definition.png
http://s16.postimg.org/njbt8y26d/Definition.png

Source:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=ud0Ixsj0yUMC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=Vertriebene+und+Fluchtlinge+in+den+Bundesländer n+1961&source=bl&ots=Ip2g5-aHBc&sig=Tc21QT0wP80L-yYqAH2BHsJemY4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBmoVChMIjKuf6tmexwIVgVRyCh180AD-#v=onepage&q&f=false

So about 1/5 of inhabitants of present-day West Germany are actually Eastern Germans.

Therefore we can't claim that Slavic admixture is only in present-day East Germany.

George
08-10-2015, 02:30 PM
By "relatively recent" what do you mean? I'm not sure which admixture do you mean.

Unless I'm wrong I think he means the absorption of many Westernmost Slavs during the German "drang nach Osten" of the 10th-13th cs.

Volat
08-10-2015, 02:32 PM
Can you read basic plots and tables or not? These are from actual papers that have been published. Do you understand what that means?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQVTZqRjlzNlFxdGM/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQemRFX2dYR2U3S0U/view?usp=sharing


You did not present these tables earlier. You are presenting them now. The pca plot is a lower resolution providing little information . The table of fst Indices shows that Poles are closer to Russian from Kursk (0.000) than to German (0.001). You cannot determine the relationship between the populations using the table of pari-wise indices. You need to construct something as a mds plot

Here is another table from a published study in which large sample sizes were used:

Sample size of 5,847 individuals including Slovaks (145), Czechs (374), Russians(560) and Poles(620) : http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n12/fig_tab/ejhg2008210t1.html#figure-title





It's a copy of a plot that appeared in Haak et al.

You said that there was a gap between Germans and Slavs. The plot shows that there isn't. So instead of admitting you're wrong you accuse me of fudging data?


There is no information about the samples from the plot on the west Slavs. There are many studies showing a gap between western Slavs and Germans except for the Germans who assimilated Slavs in east Germany in recent times. This is often not highlighted in many studies as the purpose of the studies is not the genetic affinity between Germans and Slavs.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 02:33 PM
^ And a few centuries ago, frequency of R1a in West Germany was likely not higher than 2% - 4%.


the absorption of many Westernmost Slavs during the German "drang nach Osten" of the 10th-13th cs.

In the 10th-13th cs. Germans expanded militarily from the Elbe line, to the Oder-Neisse line.

Westernmost Slavs (such as Obodrites and Veleti) - who refused to accept Christianity - were to a large extent exterminated or expelled to the east, as the result of the Northern (Wendish) Crusades.

In the 13th century, as Germans established - with fire and sword - their border at the Oder-Neisse, peaceful migrations of German settlers farther to the east, into Polish & Pomeranian duchies, started.

Therefore, those Slavs who lived to the east of the Oder-Neisse line (i.e. to the east of the current Polish-German border) - in Lower Silesia, Pomerania and Masuria - were mostly absorbed.

That assimilation took place after the 13th century (between the 13th and the 20th centuries).

Most of Slavic admixture in modern Germans is probably from Polish tribes, those living in Polish state(s) ruled by the Piast dynasty, to the east of the Oder-Neisse. Not from Veleti and Obodrites, who were for the most part exterminated or expelled (though remnants survived until the 16th-18th centuries*).

*Areas where Polabian-speakers still lived until the 1500s-1600s (Polabian doesn't include Sorbian):

(map courtesy of Adam Sengebusch):

http://s29.postimg.org/9w7fjq5on/Polabians_small.png

The last of Polabian dialects - Drevano-Polabian, spoken in the region of Drawehn - got extinct in the 1800s.

Sorbian survives until nowadays, but soon this language will also get extinct (Lower Sorbian is already practically extinct, only old people understand it - Upper Sorbian will probably last for few more decades).

Volat
08-10-2015, 02:44 PM
By "relatively recent" what do you mean? I'm not sure which admixture do you mean.

In the context of discussing ancient migrations since Bronze age relatively recent would mean last 500-700 years.

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 02:49 PM
You need to construct something as a mds plot.

No I don't. The Fst distances are obviously very small between all Northern Europeans, and some Germanic groups are closer to some Slavs than to other Germanic groups. Germans are closer to Poles than to Norwegians.

This means that, at the very least, you have to significantly tone down your claims made in this thread.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNTVZOE9fRTVtbFE/view?usp=sharing


Here is another table from a published study in which large sample sizes were used:

Sample size of 5,847 individuals including Slovaks (145), Czechs (374), Russians(560) and Poles(620) : http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n12/fig_tab/ejhg2008210t1.html#figure-title

And the MDS plot based on the table http://postimg.org/image/v5et8lfi5/full/

Totally useless. Are you trying to hide something?

Maybe the fact that Germans from Dresden overlap with Slavs, including Poles?


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/gAS0JUOyYhkDABYRYQQjpyTS9qndSADRGvLqpiSuR1M=w600-h363-no


There is no information about the samples from the plot on the west Slavs. There are many studies showing a gap between western Slavs and Germans except for the Germans who assimilated Slavs in east Germany in recent times. This is often not highlighted in many studies as the purpose of the studies is not the genetic affinity between Germans and Slavs.

There aren't any real gaps in North Central Europe when enough data and/or samples are used. It's logical and normal that there aren't any gaps. Why would there be gaps in such a densely populated and highly mobile area of the world?

What you're trying to argue here is not logical, normal or even sane.

George
08-10-2015, 02:55 PM
"Westernmost Slavs (such as Obodrites and Veleti) - who refused to accept Christianity - were to a large extent exterminated or expelled to the east, as the result of the Northern (Wendish) Crusades."

Most stayed put , accepted Christianity, and were eventually Germanized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obotrites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutici

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 03:01 PM
relatively recent would mean last 500-700 years

Slavs started migrating into East Germany probably around year 550 AD, so ~1500 years ago.

In 595 - 610 we have first info about a war between Slavic tribes and Bavarians.

In 624 - 661 there existed a Slavic federation which fought against Avars, Franks and Thuringians. From year 632 we have the first mention of Sorbs, who were at that time ruled by duke Dervan and joined the Slavic federation (with smuggler/merchant Samo elected king by tribal councils).

In year 780 the Frankish Empire, after destroying the Southern Saxons in battles, established contact with the Slavic confederation of the Obotrites, somewhere at the Middle Elbe river.

=======================

Edit:


Most stayed put, accepted Christianity, and were eventually Germanized.

Casualties were huge. And there were persecutions (including discrimination before the law) after the conquest. For example, surviving Wagrians were either expelled to the east, or settled in a reservation in north-eastern Wagria (citation: "Die Slawen erhielten im Nordosten Wagriens eine als Reservat überlassene Region"), where they were subsequently forcibly Christianized. But later German colonists came and started expelling them also from that Reservat (quote: "Die Kolonisten bauten häufig bereits besiedelte Landstriche weiter aus, indem sie die slawische Bevölkerung vertrieben und deren Siedelplätze übernahmen").

Source:

http://www.feudalismus.de/magister.htm


(...) Anfangs kam es im slawischen Wagrien zu einer weitgehenden Trennung von Immigranten und einheimischer Bevölkerung durch die Zuweisung von Siedelgebieten. Die Slawen erhielten im Nordosten Wagriens eine als Reservat überlassene Region. Doch auch die Slawen, die in den an die Kolonisten verteilten Gebiete verblieben waren, siedelten für sich. Die Kolonisten bauten häufig bereits besiedelte Landstriche weiter aus, indem sie die slawische Bevölkerung vertrieben und deren Siedelplätze übernahmen. (...)

Of course it depended on region and on tribe. Treatment was different in each case, there was no general rule. Wagria was among areas which were hit particularly hard, though, and Slavic language didn't survive there for a long time. Some areas also received more influx of German settlers, other regions less.

Certain areas - for example the islands of Rügen and Usedom - were assimilated culturally, and population likely remained in vast majority Slavic in terms of ancestry, despite adoption of German language. Influx of German immigrants to those two islands was rather small. But other areas - such as the region of Wagria - were Germanized through wholesale replacement of Slavs by immigrants. Finally, there were of course also such areas where Slavs stayed, but also many immigrants came, so both groups were intermixed. Eventually the ruling culture in such mixed areas prevailed, and Slavs adopted German language.

Volat
08-10-2015, 03:03 PM
No I don't. The Fst distances are obviously very small between all Northern Europeans, and some Germanic groups are closer to some Slavs than to other Germanic groups. Germans are closer to Poles than to Norwegians.

This means that, at the very least, you have to significantly tone down your claims made in this thread.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQNTVZOE9fRTVtbFE/view?usp=sharing


Do yourself a favour and read what pair-wise index (Fst) measures. Until you understand what the Fst measures well, you will be drawing wrong conclusions. You cannot establish the relationship or some sort of continuity between many populations using the table of pair-wise indices alone. Pair-wise index is pair-wise working for two populations at a time, while MDS will show you the overall relation between the populations with a minimal loss of information. You can also construct a phylogenetic work to see a topological relation.




Totally useless. Are you trying to hide something?

Maybe the fact that Germans from Dresden overlap with Slavs, including Poles?

It's more useful than your low resolution charts. The study on Lusatian Sorbs posted above has also shown there is a gap between Slavs and Germans. Two samples from Drezden out 30 that showed is not an evidence, as there were many other Drezeden samples (25-30) that did not show the similarity to the same extent.





There aren't any real gaps in North Central Europe when enough data and/or samples are used. It's logical and normal that there aren't any gaps. Why would there be gaps in such a densely populated and highly mobile area of the world?

What you're trying to argue here is not logical, normal or even sane.


Speculations, aggressiveness and selected PCA charts at lower resolutions with no information about the samples used in the study will not add any credibility to your arguments. There is a clear gap between Slavs and Germans except for eastern Germans , who are known to have Slavic admixture. Put it another way, there is much more genetic continuity between Germans and other north-western European populations than between Germans and Slavs.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 03:45 PM
This gap, if exists, is between R1a-populations and R1b-populations, rather than Slavs and Germans. And I'm quite sure that it dates back to Proto-Indo-European migrations (Corded Ware and Bell Beaker). If you like physical anthropology then prof. Janusz Piontek of Poznań University analysed bones and showed an anthropological gap between North Germanics (Scandinavians), West Germanics, and archaeological cultures presumed to be East Germanic (Wielbark & Przeworsk), implying that all three groups were not very closely related to each other, even if all spoke languages from the Germanic linguistic family. Moreover, Piontek's research shows no anthropological differences between Slavs and Wielbark + Przeworsk:

Translated from: http://archeowiesci.pl/2008/11/12/od-kiedy-slowianie-zyja-nad-wisla-i-odra/


Prof. Janusz Piontek made a demographical simulation, taking into account levels of immigration and assimilation. Thereafter he researched osteological material - examining ancient bones. On this basis he estimated what was the dynamics of demographic developments during the period of Roman influences, and during the early Middle Ages. He compared data concerning Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures and that concerning the early Middle Ages. Results of his research were in disagreement with the popular theory of depopulation and then re-population (...) Piontek's results are consistent with results of research by dr Robert Dąbrowski, who collected rich craniological material from the period of Roman influences and from the early Middle Ages. He used the method of craniological distances of Mahalanobis, as a method taking into account individual skulls (...) It turned out, that skulls of people representing Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhov cultures were very similar to early Medieval skulls of Slavic populations. (...) According to prof. Piontek and his team, the theory according to which there took place a morphological discontinuity within populations living in what is now Poland in times between the period of Roman influence and the early Middle Ages, is impossible to sustain. Similarities were extraordinarily high.

- We anthropologists don't claim, that we are explaining political, historical, and ethno-cultural transformations. - said prof. Piontek - We only indicate, that the popular allochthonistic hypothesis, which assumes depopulation of the Odra and Vistula basins and then a renewed colonization of those areas by a distinct immigrant population, is not correct.

Because some of Polish anthropologists and even archaeologists question the possibility of researching genetic similarities between human populations based on craniological and odontological features (comparing skulls, bones and teeth), prof. Piontek presented examples from recent global literature which debunk their assertions. He cited several specific examples from literature on the subject, concerning analyses of ethnogenesis based on nonmetrical features - performed by scientists from Japan. Also commonly accepted are studies on teeth, in order to prove or disprove morphological continuity of population in time - for example research by prof. Joel irish concerning the continuity/discontinuity of settlement in Egypt. Piontek proved that standards he used in his studies on ethnogenesis of Slavs are in agreement with standards accepted today in the scientific world. (...)

- Lack of intergroup differences between populations from times of Roman influences and later West Slavic populations, in terms of craniological and odontological features, testifies to the similar genetic structure of both populations - prof. Piontek finished his lecture.
So let's wait for more ancient DNA samples and you will see an Ancient gap between R1b, R1a and I1 populations (autosomal results will correlate with majority-haplogroup distributions).

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 04:09 PM
Germans are closer to Poles than to Norwegians.

^ But Norwegians are not part of the North-Western continuum mentioned by Volat. This continuum can be attributed largely to Celts (as recent data shows, the English are mostly Celtic; Germans are also largely Celtic - the only "truly Germanic" groups are Swedes, Norwegians, plus most likely also most of Danes).

There is a clear difference between Scandinavians (North Germanics) and Germans (West Germanics). According to prof. Piontek, Medieval Scandinavian skulls were unlike Medieval German skulls (PCA below):

Compare where do Swedish Medieval skulls (Szwecja W-S) plot and where do German Medieval skulls (Niemcy Środkowe; Reckahn - Germanie) plot - and then k. wielbarska = skulls from Wielbark culture:

Słowianie = Medieval Slavs

http://s14.postimg.org/a182iyvoh/Wielbark_Slav.png

George
08-10-2015, 04:18 PM
"We anthropologists don't claim, that we are explaining political, historical, and ethno-cultural transformations. - said prof. Piontek - We only indicate, that the popular allochthonistic hypothesis, which assumes depopulation of the Odra and Vistula basins and then a renewed colonization of those areas by a distinct immigrant population, is not correct."

This is a rather tricky assertion. It all depends on what he means by "distinct" immigrant population. There is little doubt that much depopulation did in fact occur in Poland (and Ukraine for that matter) in the second third of the 5th century. There is also little doubt that Wielbark, Przeworsk, and Chernyakhov were predominantly "Germanic" cultures, pace the fanatics... But if the incoming Slavic population was both craniologically (and genetically, if and when we get the relevant data) "similar" to that which inhabited these areas before depopulation, then Piontek's argument becomes somewhat meaningless in terms of "autochtonist purism".:angel:

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 04:21 PM
It all depends on what he means by "distinct" immigrant population.

Anthropologically distinct, of course (see the craniological data above).


There is little doubt that much depopulation did in fact occur in Poland

Depopulation without much subsequent immigration = still continuity.

For discontinuity, you need a "combo" of depopulation + mass immigration.

If there is even - let's say - 90% depopulation, but no immigration large enough to change the structure follows, then population will gradually recover to previous level without any kind of discontinuity. What we observe is evidence of population loss, but there is actually no evidence of any rapid re-population.

Instead of a rapid re-population, we observe a very slow gradual recovery of population density.

Some people thus suggest, that immigration was like a dripping crane, not a flood. :D


But if the incoming Slavic population was both craniologically (and genetically, if and when we get the relevant data) "similar" to that which inhabited these areas before depopulation, then Piontek's argument becomes somewhat meaningless in terms of "autochtonist purism"

That's why I wrote:

"Presumed East Germanics were anthropologically similar to Slavs, not to Germans".

Germans = West Germanics.

And North Germanics (Scandinavians) were also different, from both West and East Germanics.


if and when we get the relevant data

So far there is Y-DNA from the Bronze Age, and it's like an ocean of R1a from the Elbe to the Don. Who would have expected so much of R1a, when it was thought that it came to Central Europe much later.

But it would be good to have more high-resolution data (subclades) and data from the Iron Age. Maybe in the Iron Age we will see loads of R1a and I2 replaced by loads of R1b and I1, who knows! :P

parastais
08-10-2015, 04:44 PM
I got George's point.
If East Germanics looked like A.
And Scandinavians like B.
And folk of Slavic homeland like A.

Then fact that post-depopulation/ migration folk looked A, does not mean there was no depopulation/ migration.
Simply EG A was replaced by Slavic A.

However if Slavic homeland looked C, but after migration it is still A, then we have a case.

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 05:31 PM
Simply EG A was replaced by Slavic A.

EG A emigrated, and SL A immigrated - right ???

So show us where did EG A end up (i.e. their traces today, where did they settle). According to Patrick Geary, East Germanic migrations did not leave any genetic imprint, implying low numbers of migrants:

"Rethinking Barbarian Invasions through Genomic History": https://video.ias.edu/node/5304

https://video.ias.edu/topology/2013/1002-PatrickGeary

Also this from "The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry Across Europe":

"(...) we find that France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than Turkey and Cyprus) (...) These regions were, however, moved into by Germanic tribes (e.g., the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals) (...)"

If they were allegedly moved into by entire tribes, where is IBD sharing? Where genetic imprint?

=================================


There is also little doubt that Wielbark, Przeworsk, and Chernyakhov were predominantly "Germanic" cultures, pace the fanatics...

Michael Kulikowski has doubts whether Wielbark culture can be associated with Goths or not. Is he one of fanatics? Let's quote several excerpts from Michael Kulikowski's book "Rome’s Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric" (Cambridge University Press, 2006):

Page 51:

"Jordanes, of course, tells us all sorts of stories about the Goths, placing their origins some 2,030 years before the time of his writing, and linking them to Biblical, Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern history in a bizarre melange of material from different sources. Most of these stories have held little interest for scholars since the Renaissance – no one has tried to prove the historicity of Philip of Macedon’s marriage to Medopa, the supposed daughter of a supposed Gothic king named Gudila. On the contrary, there is just one story in Jordanes that scholars have clung to for centuries – the narrative of Gothic migration out of Scandinavia, ‘as if out of a womb of nations’."

Pages 54 - 55:

"Why should Jordanes’ migration story be more credible than his story that the Egyptian king Vesosis made war upon the Gothic king Tanausis, who defeated him and chased him all the way back to the Nile? Along with many other changes in our understanding of ancient historical texts, the past two decades have witnessed a realization that we need to take each of them as a whole, reading it in context and in its entirety. We cannot simply pick and choose among the evidence offered by a text on the grounds of its seeming plausible or ‘historical’. We must, on the contrary, demonstrate why, in the whole context in which it appears, a particular piece of evidence is authentic. (...) Because of all this, we are not justified in taking Jordanes’ Getica as the narrative foundation for our own Gothic histories."

Page 64 - regarding previous attempts to link various archaeological cultures with the Gothic migration:

"For one thing, the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture is extremely diverse. As we shall see in the next chapter, the artefacts, construction techniques, and burial practices found within the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zone have parallels with earlier cultural traditions within the zone itself, with Roman provincial culture, with the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures to the north and west, and with the steppe cultures of the east. The Wielbark elements in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture are no more numerous than other elements, so there is no archaeological reason to privilege them over others. Even if Wielbark artefacts were dominant in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zone, they would not necessarily signify the same thing in both places: artefacts that are emblematic of one thing in one place may change meaning radically if transposed to another. More importantly still, the closeness of the artefactual connections between the two cultures is not as great as is usually asserted. Indeed, their chief point of intersection is not particular artefacts, but the fact that weapon burials are absent from the Wielbark and rare in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zones. In purely logical terms, a negative characteristic is less convincing proof of similarity than a positive one, and the fact that weapon burials are commonest where archaeological investigation has been most intensive suggests that our evidentiary base is anything but representative. Given this, why should the Wielbark–Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov connection seem so self-evident to so many scholars? One answer is an old methodology that seeks to explain changes in material culture by reference to migration. The other is Jordanes."

Page 66:

"In 1970, Rolf Hachmann disproved the Scandinavian connection on archaeological grounds, thereby making necessary new theories of ethnogenesis such as we have looked at earlier. But the question has remained the same for the Baltic–Black Sea sequence: can one prove or disprove Jordanes? If we did not have Jordanes, that connection would not seem self-evident. Taken on purely archaeological grounds, without reference to our one piece of textual evidence, there is no reason to interpret the Wielbark and the Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov cultures as close cousins."

Kulikowski refers to the book by Rolf Hachmann, “Die Goten und Skandinavien” (Berlin, 1970).

There is rather no archeological evidence that Wielbark and Przeworsk archaeological cultures ever migrated from Poland somewhere else. They collapsed in the late 5th century but there is no evidence of distant migrations of those cultures - I mean, there is evidence that they influenced other archaeological cultures, but no evidence that they entirely replaced them.

Page 67:

"What, then, are we to make of all this? How are we to interpret the origins of the Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture and the Gothic hegemony with which it coincides chronologically? Is there such a thing as Gothic history before the third century? The answer, at least in my view, is that there is no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time. That is clearly demonstrated by contemporary literary evidence, and indeed all the evidence of the fourth and fifth centuries – everything except the sixth-century Jordanes."

According to English wikipedia article about Wielbark culture:


In the first half of the 3rd century AD, the Wielbark culture left settlements by the Baltic Sea, except for the areas adjacent to the Vistula, and expanded into the area which later (by 1000 AD) became Masovia and Lesser Poland on the eastern side of the Vistula reaching into Ukraine, where they formed the Chernyakhov culture.

In the first half of the 3rd century AD, the Wielbark culture started to expand from the Baltic Sea to Masovia and Lesser Poland. But the first securely attested Gothic raid into the Roman Empire took place in 238 AD, when the Goths attacked Histria on the Black Sea coast and sacked it. So the Goths must have arrived at the Black Sea coast much earlier than to Masovia and Lesser Poland.

Who was then expanding in Poland from Baltic Sea to Masovia and Lesser Poland, if Goths were already at the Roman border? Did Goths migrate in several ways? But that would imply, that while some Goths were already attacking Rome, others were still far behind, in Poland.

In 410 Alaric and Goths sacked Rome after decades of living in Italy as Roman Empire's inhabitants and fighting for Rome as its soldiers. But in 410 Wielbark culture still existed in Poland. It started to disappear after 450. Who was living in Poland when Alaric and Goths sacked Rome? Could the Goths be in two different places separated by thousands of kilometers at the same time?

And if they could be and were in two different places at the same time, then what is the reason to think that they ever entirely left one of those places?

In Old English poem Widsith, we find the following excerpt about Goths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widsith

"Wulfhere sohte ic ond Wyrmhere; ful oft þær wig ne alæg,
þonne Hræda here heardum sweordum
ymb Wistlawudu wergan sceoldon
ealdne eþelstol ætlan leodum."

In English:

"I visited Wulfhere and Wyrmhere; there battle often raged
when the Gothic army in the Vistula woods,
with their sharp swords had to defend
their ancestral seat against Attila's people."

This seems to be in agreement with continued existence of the Wielbark culture around year 450.

Attila's people were of course various tribes subordinated to Attila the Hun. Including the Huns themselves (but Attila's Empire was pretty multi-ethnic as he subordinated many Germanic and other tribes).

Not much is known about Hunnic language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language#Corpus


(...) there are only three words (other than proper names) that are widely accepted by scholars as part of European Hunnic:[5]

medos: a beverage akin to mead
kamos: a barley drink
strava: a funeral feast

All three of these words are considered to have originated in non-Turkic languages, likely satemised Indo-European languages,[9] such as those from the Iranian, Slavic and/or Thraco-Dacian families.

(...)

==============================

From Guy Halsall's book "Barbarian Migration and the Roman West", Cambridge University Press 2007:

Page 132:

"The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. It has been argued that it evolves directly from the Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula and that the spread from Wielbark to Cernjachov is archaeological proof of the Goths’ migration from the shores of the Baltic. This notion should not be entirely rejected but it needs considerable modification. The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes’ Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration. The Wielbark culture begins earlier than the Cernjachov but its later phases cover the same period as the latter. There is thus no chronological development from one to the other. Furthermore, although the Wielbark culture does spread up the Vistula during its history, its geographical overlap with the Cernjachov culture is minimal. These facts make it improbable that the Cernjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark. Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark analogues. Migration from the Wielbark territories is also proposed from the supposedly distinctive mix of cremation and inhumation. However, burial customs are rarely static and more than one area of barbaricum employed, at various times, a mixture of rites. The fourth century, in particular, saw widespread change in such practices. This evidence will not support the idea of a substantial migration."

Guy Halsall supports what Michael Kulikowski wrote in his "Rome’s Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric", 2006. According to Halsall, there is no archeological evidence of any substantial migration of Wielbark culture in southern direction (into Ukraine) and he says, that it is improbable that the Cernjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark culture. We know that Wielbark culture still existed in Poland in 410 A.D. when Goths sacked Rome and there is no evidence that it migrated anywhere.

Guy Halsall writes on page 134:

"There were two principal Gothic groups before 376 AD, although Peter Heather argues convincingly that this oversimplifies the situation. We know most about the western confederacy, the Tervingi, inhabiting the lands north of the lower Danube. Beyond them, on the steppes, lay the Greuthungi, although whether the Greuthungi comprised all the non-Tervingian Goths is debatable."

In the beginning of the 3rd century Goths were present along the Black Sea shore and raided the Roman Empire from that area:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg/780px-Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg

Tomenable
08-10-2015, 06:16 PM
How many descriptions of mass migrations by entire times from Ancient times do we know? I recall the 1st century BC migration of the Helvetii & allied tribes - described in "The Gallic Wars", by Caesar:


Chapter 2
Among the Helvetii, Orgetorix was by far the most distinguished and
wealthy. He, when Marcus Messala and Marcus Piso were consuls, incited
by lust of sovereignty, formed a conspiracy among the nobility, and
persuaded the people to go forth from their territories with all their
possessions, [saying] that it would be very easy, since they excelled
all in valor, to acquire the supremacy of the whole of Gaul. To this
he the more easily persuaded them, because the Helvetii, are confined
on every side by the nature of their situation; on one side by the
Rhine, a very broad and deep river, which separates the Helvetian
territory from the Germans; on a second side by the Jura, a very high
mountain, which is [situated] between the Sequani and the Helvetii;
on a third by the Lake of Geneva, and by the river Rhone, which separates
our Province from the Helvetii. From these circumstances it resulted,
that they could range less widely, and could less easily make war
upon their neighbors; for which reason men fond of war [as they were]
were affected with great regret. They thought, that considering the
extent of their population, and their renown for warfare and bravery,
they had but narrow limits, although they extended in length 240,
and in breadth 180 [Roman] miles.
Chapter 3
Induced by these considerations, and influenced by the authority of
Orgetorix, they determined to provide such things as were necessary
for their expedition ‐ to buy up as great a number as possible of
beasts of burden and wagons ‐ to make their sowings as large as possible,
so that on their march plenty of corn might be in store ‐ and to establish
peace and friendship with the neighboring states. They reckoned that
a term of two years would be sufficient for them to execute their
designs; they fix by decree their departure for the third year. Orgetorix
is chosen to complete these arrangements. He took upon himself the
office of embassador to the states: on this journey he persuades Casticus,
the son of Catamantaledes (one of the Sequani, whose father had possessed
the sovereignty among the people for many years, and had been styled
ʺfriendʺ by the senate of the Roman people), to seize upon the sovereignty
in his own state, which his father had held before him, and he likewise
persuades Dumnorix, an Aeduan, the brother of Divitiacus, who at that
time possessed the chief authority in the state, and was exceedingly
beloved by the people, to attempt the same, and gives him his daughter
in marriage. He proves to them that to accomplish their attempts was
a thing very easy to be done, because he himself would obtain the
government of his own state; that there was no doubt that the Helvetii
were the most powerful of the whole of Gaul; he assures them that
he will, with his own forces and his own army, acquire the sovereignty
for them. Incited by this speech, they give a pledge and oath to one
another, and hope that, when they have seized the sovereignty, they
will, by means of the three most powerful and valiant nations, be
enabled to obtain possession of the whole of Gaul.
Chapter 4
When this scheme was disclosed to the Helvetii by informers, they,
according to their custom, compelled Orgetorix to plead his cause
in chains; it was the law that the penalty of being burned by fire
should await him if condemned. On the day appointed for the pleading
of his cause, Orgetorix drew together from all quarters to the court,
all his vassals to the number of ten thousand persons; and led together
to the same place all his dependents and debtor‐bondsmen, of whom
he had a great number; by means of those he rescued himself from [the
necessity of] pleading his cause. While the state, incensed at this
act, was endeavoring to assert its right by arms, and the magistrates
were mustering a large body of men from the country, Orgetorix died;
and there is not wanting a suspicion, as the Helvetii think, of his
having committed suicide.
Chapter 5
After his death, the Helvetii nevertheless attempt to do that which
they had resolved on, namely, to go forth from their territories.
When they thought that they were at length prepared for this undertaking,
they set fire to all their towns, in number about twelve ‐ to their
villages about four hundred ‐ and to the private dwellings that remained;
they burn up all the corn, except what they intend to carry with them;
that after destroying the hope of a return home, they might be the
more ready for undergoing all dangers. They order every one to carry
forth from home for himself provisions for three months, ready ground.
They persuade the Rauraci, and the Tulingi, and the Latobrigi, their
neighbors, to adopt the same plan, and after burning down their towns
and villages, to set out with them: and they admit to their party
and unite to themselves as confederates the Boii, who had dwelt on
the other side of the Rhine, and had crossed over into the Norican
territory, and assaulted Noreia.
Chapter 6
There were in all two routes, by which they could go forth from their
country one through the Sequani narrow and difficult, between Mount
Jura and the river Rhone (by which scarcely one wagon at a time could
be led; there was, moreover, a very high mountain overhanging, so
that a very few might easily intercept them; the other, through our
Province, much easier and freer from obstacles, because the Rhone
flows between the boundaries of the Helvetii and those of the Allobroges,
who had lately been subdued, and is in some places crossed by a ford.
The furthest town of the Allobroges, and the nearest to the territories
of the Helvetii, is Geneva. From this town a bridge extends to the
Helvetii. They thought that they should either persuade the Allobroges,
because they did not seem as yet well‐affected toward the Roman people,
or compel them by force to allow them to pass through their territories.
Having provided every thing for the expedition, they appoint a day,
on which they should all meet on the bank of the Rhone. This day was
the fifth before the kalends of April [i.e. the 28th of March], in
the consulship of Lucius Piso and Aulus Gabinius [B.C. 58.]
(...)
Chapter 29
In the camp of the Helvetii, lists were found, drawn up in Greek characters,
and were brought to Caesar, in which an estimate had been drawn up,
name by name, of the number which had gone forth from their country
of those who were able to bear arms; and likewise the boys, the old
men, and the women, separately. Of all which items the total was:
Of the Helvetii [lit. of the heads of the Helvetii] 263,000
Of the Tulingi . . . . . . . . . . . 36,000
Of the Latobrigi . . . . . . . . 14,000
Of the Rauraci . . . . . . . . . 23,000
Of the Boii . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,000
The sum of all amounted to . . . 368,000.
Out of these, such as could bear arms, [amounted] to about 92,000.

One Roman mile = 1,481 km. So 240 miles = 355,44 km and 180 miles = 266,58 km.

parastais
08-10-2015, 06:19 PM
I remember you shared yourself a chart/ study showing depopulation of Poland.

Have no idea where they go (if it is 6th century thing they might have simply gone to their East Germanic heaven due to 536).

Just pointed that logic was not correct. Similar skulls pre/after does not mandate same skulls. Now if he found differences bw say skulls from believed Slavic homeland (lets mark them A2) and locals (A1) and proved that even after migration they are still original A1 not A2. Then that is different story.

vettor
08-10-2015, 07:10 PM
EG A emigrated, and SL A immigrated - right ???

So show us where did EG A end up (i.e. their traces today, where did they settle). According to Patrick Geary, East Germanic migrations did not leave any genetic imprint, implying low numbers of migrants:

"Rethinking Barbarian Invasions through Genomic History": https://video.ias.edu/node/5304

https://video.ias.edu/topology/2013/1002-PatrickGeary

Also this from "The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry Across Europe":

"(...) we find that France and the Italian and Iberian peninsulas have the lowest rates of genetic common ancestry in the last 1,500 years (other than Turkey and Cyprus) (...) These regions were, however, moved into by Germanic tribes (e.g., the Goths, Ostrogoths, and Vandals) (...)"

If they were allegedly moved into by entire tribes, where is IBD sharing? Where genetic imprint?

=================================



Michael Kulikowski has doubts whether Wielbark culture can be associated with Goths or not. Is he one of fanatics? Let's quote several excerpts from Michael Kulikowski's book "Rome’s Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric" (Cambridge University Press, 2006):

Page 51:

"Jordanes, of course, tells us all sorts of stories about the Goths, placing their origins some 2,030 years before the time of his writing, and linking them to Biblical, Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern history in a bizarre melange of material from different sources. Most of these stories have held little interest for scholars since the Renaissance – no one has tried to prove the historicity of Philip of Macedon’s marriage to Medopa, the supposed daughter of a supposed Gothic king named Gudila. On the contrary, there is just one story in Jordanes that scholars have clung to for centuries – the narrative of Gothic migration out of Scandinavia, ‘as if out of a womb of nations’."

Pages 54 - 55:

"Why should Jordanes’ migration story be more credible than his story that the Egyptian king Vesosis made war upon the Gothic king Tanausis, who defeated him and chased him all the way back to the Nile? Along with many other changes in our understanding of ancient historical texts, the past two decades have witnessed a realization that we need to take each of them as a whole, reading it in context and in its entirety. We cannot simply pick and choose among the evidence offered by a text on the grounds of its seeming plausible or ‘historical’. We must, on the contrary, demonstrate why, in the whole context in which it appears, a particular piece of evidence is authentic. (...) Because of all this, we are not justified in taking Jordanes’ Getica as the narrative foundation for our own Gothic histories."

Page 64 - regarding previous attempts to link various archaeological cultures with the Gothic migration:

"For one thing, the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture is extremely diverse. As we shall see in the next chapter, the artefacts, construction techniques, and burial practices found within the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zone have parallels with earlier cultural traditions within the zone itself, with Roman provincial culture, with the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures to the north and west, and with the steppe cultures of the east. The Wielbark elements in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture are no more numerous than other elements, so there is no archaeological reason to privilege them over others. Even if Wielbark artefacts were dominant in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zone, they would not necessarily signify the same thing in both places: artefacts that are emblematic of one thing in one place may change meaning radically if transposed to another. More importantly still, the closeness of the artefactual connections between the two cultures is not as great as is usually asserted. Indeed, their chief point of intersection is not particular artefacts, but the fact that weapon burials are absent from the Wielbark and rare in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zones. In purely logical terms, a negative characteristic is less convincing proof of similarity than a positive one, and the fact that weapon burials are commonest where archaeological investigation has been most intensive suggests that our evidentiary base is anything but representative. Given this, why should the Wielbark–Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov connection seem so self-evident to so many scholars? One answer is an old methodology that seeks to explain changes in material culture by reference to migration. The other is Jordanes."

Page 66:

"In 1970, Rolf Hachmann disproved the Scandinavian connection on archaeological grounds, thereby making necessary new theories of ethnogenesis such as we have looked at earlier. But the question has remained the same for the Baltic–Black Sea sequence: can one prove or disprove Jordanes? If we did not have Jordanes, that connection would not seem self-evident. Taken on purely archaeological grounds, without reference to our one piece of textual evidence, there is no reason to interpret the Wielbark and the Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov cultures as close cousins."

Kulikowski refers to the book by Rolf Hachmann, “Die Goten und Skandinavien” (Berlin, 1970).

There is rather no archeological evidence that Wielbark and Przeworsk archaeological cultures ever migrated from Poland somewhere else. They collapsed in the late 5th century but there is no evidence of distant migrations of those cultures - I mean, there is evidence that they influenced other archaeological cultures, but no evidence that they entirely replaced them.

Page 67:

"What, then, are we to make of all this? How are we to interpret the origins of the Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture and the Gothic hegemony with which it coincides chronologically? Is there such a thing as Gothic history before the third century? The answer, at least in my view, is that there is no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time. That is clearly demonstrated by contemporary literary evidence, and indeed all the evidence of the fourth and fifth centuries – everything except the sixth-century Jordanes."

According to English wikipedia article about Wielbark culture:



In the first half of the 3rd century AD, the Wielbark culture started to expand from the Baltic Sea to Masovia and Lesser Poland. But the first securely attested Gothic raid into the Roman Empire took place in 238 AD, when the Goths attacked Histria on the Black Sea coast and sacked it. So the Goths must have arrived at the Black Sea coast much earlier than to Masovia and Lesser Poland.

Who was then expanding in Poland from Baltic Sea to Masovia and Lesser Poland, if Goths were already at the Roman border? Did Goths migrate in several ways? But that would imply, that while some Goths were already attacking Rome, others were still far behind, in Poland.

In 410 Alaric and Goths sacked Rome after decades of living in Italy as Roman Empire's inhabitants and fighting for Rome as its soldiers. But in 410 Wielbark culture still existed in Poland. It started to disappear after 450. Who was living in Poland when Alaric and Goths sacked Rome? Could the Goths be in two different places separated by thousands of kilometers at the same time?

And if they could be and were in two different places at the same time, then what is the reason to think that they ever entirely left one of those places?

In Old English poem Widsith, we find the following excerpt about Goths:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widsith

"Wulfhere sohte ic ond Wyrmhere; ful oft þær wig ne alæg,
þonne Hræda here heardum sweordum
ymb Wistlawudu wergan sceoldon
ealdne eþelstol ætlan leodum."

In English:

"I visited Wulfhere and Wyrmhere; there battle often raged
when the Gothic army in the Vistula woods,
with their sharp swords had to defend
their ancestral seat against Attila's people."

This seems to be in agreement with continued existence of the Wielbark culture around year 450.

Attila's people were of course various tribes subordinated to Attila the Hun. Including the Huns themselves (but Attila's Empire was pretty multi-ethnic as he subordinated many Germanic and other tribes).

Not much is known about Hunnic language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language#Corpus



==============================

From Guy Halsall's book "Barbarian Migration and the Roman West", Cambridge University Press 2007:

Page 132:

"The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. It has been argued that it evolves directly from the Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula and that the spread from Wielbark to Cernjachov is archaeological proof of the Goths’ migration from the shores of the Baltic. This notion should not be entirely rejected but it needs considerable modification. The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes’ Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration. The Wielbark culture begins earlier than the Cernjachov but its later phases cover the same period as the latter. There is thus no chronological development from one to the other. Furthermore, although the Wielbark culture does spread up the Vistula during its history, its geographical overlap with the Cernjachov culture is minimal. These facts make it improbable that the Cernjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark. Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark analogues. Migration from the Wielbark territories is also proposed from the supposedly distinctive mix of cremation and inhumation. However, burial customs are rarely static and more than one area of barbaricum employed, at various times, a mixture of rites. The fourth century, in particular, saw widespread change in such practices. This evidence will not support the idea of a substantial migration."

Guy Halsall supports what Michael Kulikowski wrote in his "Rome’s Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric", 2006. According to Halsall, there is no archeological evidence of any substantial migration of Wielbark culture in southern direction (into Ukraine) and he says, that it is improbable that the Cernjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark culture. We know that Wielbark culture still existed in Poland in 410 A.D. when Goths sacked Rome and there is no evidence that it migrated anywhere.

Guy Halsall writes on page 134:

"There were two principal Gothic groups before 376 AD, although Peter Heather argues convincingly that this oversimplifies the situation. We know most about the western confederacy, the Tervingi, inhabiting the lands north of the lower Danube. Beyond them, on the steppes, lay the Greuthungi, although whether the Greuthungi comprised all the non-Tervingian Goths is debatable."

In the beginning of the 3rd century Goths were present along the Black Sea shore and raided the Roman Empire from that area:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg/780px-Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg

I think you are wasting your time in finding what was goths genetically, because the Gottones where associated with living on the east side of the vistual river away from the coast in BC times. The Gottones lived south of the "old baltic- prussians " the Galidians ...............who where still there at the year 1200AD


The Goths where also accepted into the roman empire to fill the void ( illyrian genocide by the romans ) into illyrcium lands shortly after the Great-Illyrian revolt of 9AD , so the gothic genetic ancestry was already being established in Roman society centuries prior to any gothic/barbarian invasion of 400AD

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 10:10 PM
There is a clear gap between Slavs and Germans except for eastern Germans , who are known to have Slavic admixture. Put it another way, there is much more genetic continuity between Germans and other north-western European populations than between Germans and Slavs.

So now you're claiming that there's no east-west structure within Slavic populations and the only reason there's no real gap is because some Germans have Slavic admixture?



Can you confirm this? Do you really believe there's no significant east-west structure within Slavic populations?

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 10:14 PM
There is also little doubt that Wielbark, Przeworsk, and Chernyakhov were predominantly "Germanic" cultures, pace the fanatics.

There's plenty of doubt and no hard evidence as yet.


But if the incoming Slavic population was both craniologically (and genetically, if and when we get the relevant data) "similar" to that which inhabited these areas before depopulation, then Piontek's argument becomes somewhat meaningless in terms of "autochtonist purism".

Sounds like you're setting up an excuse for when the ancient DNA rolls in. :biggrin1:

Volat
08-10-2015, 10:37 PM
So now you're claiming that there's no east-west structure within Slavic populations and the only reason there's no real gap is because some Germans have Slavic admixture?



Can you confirm this? Do you really believe there's no significant east-west structure within Slavic populations?

I am claiming what I have been claiming. There is gap between Slavic and Germanic populations as pointed to you by several members in this topic already. Genetic continuity is how one defines it. All Europe is on genetic continuum. As well as the middle east or the world for that matter.

Generalissimo
08-10-2015, 10:54 PM
There is gap between Slavic and Germanic populations as pointed to you by several members in this topic already.

This is not a democracy. Being wrong together doesn't mean you're not wrong.


Genetic continuity is how one defines it. All Europe is on genetic continuum. As well as the middle east or the world for that matter.

You were obviously exaggerating the differences within North Central Europe in most of your posts here.

Why? See below for the answer.


Having seen you being quite irrational and chaotic with random low resolutions PCA plots and pair-wise indices tables without understanding what the pair-wise index measures, you still need much to learn.

I've posted comparisons based on hundreds of thousands of genome-wide markers. This is not low resolution by any definition.

You're the one posting low resolution results, like Rebala's 7 STR study.

That makes you a hypocrite.




I just asked you a question which you dodged. So I'll try again: do yo believe there's no significant east-west structure within Slavic populations?

Volat
08-10-2015, 11:09 PM
This is not a democracy. Being wrong together doesn't mean you're not wrong.

You are wrong in this instance.




You were obviously exaggerating the differences within North Central Europe in most of your posts here.

Why? See below for the answer.


I have no intention to exaggerate.



I've posted comparisons based on hundreds of thousands of genome-wide markers. This is not low resolution by any definition.

You're the one posting low resolution results, like Rebala's 7 STR study.

That makes you a hypocrite.


Then you don't know basic theory behind methodology used in principal component analysis either. Those charts were at lower resolution. The more data are used in the analysis, the more accuracy is lost on the plot. If you use some methods in data analysis make sure you have a basic understanding of them or you maybe drawing wrong conclusions






I just asked you a question which you dodged. So I'll try again: do yo believe there's no significant east-west structure within Slavic populations?

Generalissimo
08-11-2015, 02:06 AM
I've answered all your questions, so did the other. And you are still complaining.

Answer these questions.

You claimed that there's a genetic barrier between Slavic and German populations, but continuity between all Slavic populations. Correct?

Here is a high resolution genetic barrier analysis. Please look at it closely and answer the following questions:

EUROPEAN GENETIC BARRIER ANALYSIS (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg)

- why are there no barriers between Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles?

- why is there a barrier between Poland and Bulgaria?

- doesn't this obviously contradict your claims?

Volat
08-11-2015, 02:06 AM
Volat,

No sneaking away, you hear? We need to sort this out. Let's make this as direct as possible.

You claimed that there's a genetic barrier between Slavic and German populations, but continuity between all Slavic populations. Correct?

Here is a high resolution genetic barrier analysis. Please look at it closely and answer the following questions:

EUROPEAN GENETIC BARRIER ANALYSIS (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg)

- why are there no barriers between Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles?

- why is there a barrier between Poland and Bulgaria?

- doesn't this obviously contradict your claims?

No dodging these questions. Thanks in advance.


Nice strawman. But I did not write anything about all Slavic populations

Gravetto-Danubian
08-11-2015, 02:09 AM
There's plenty of doubt and no hard evidence as yet.



Sounds like you're setting up an excuse for when the ancient DNA rolls in. :biggrin1:

I think General is right here. Just because it "is generally assumed" that the Przeworsk
Culture was "Germanic", it doesn't make it correct. perousing through all evidence, one finds a single germanic inscription from the Visla region, and not a single germanic hydronym. Yes, there was probably some population turnover in the beginning of the Middle ages, but this does not a priori mean that the preceding populations spoke, let alone thought themselves, "Germani".

Generalissimo
08-11-2015, 02:11 AM
Nice strawman. But I did not write anything about all Slavic populations

Quit playing games.

This is what you said.


Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

Link (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3820-R1a-from-Haak-et-al-2015&p=71249&viewfull=1#post71249)

So now answer these questions:

- why are there no barriers between Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles?

- why is there a barrier between Poland and Bulgaria?

- doesn't this obviously contradict your claims?

Volat
08-11-2015, 03:07 AM
Quit playing games.

This is what you said.



Link (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3820-R1a-from-Haak-et-al-2015&p=71249&viewfull=1#post71249)

So now answer these questions:

- why are there no barriers between Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles?

- why is there a barrier between Poland and Bulgaria?

- doesn't this obviously contradict your claims?

I am not playing games with you. I am pointing to your strawman when you suggested that I mentioned all Slavs making reference to the Buglarians, when we were talking about west Slavs, mostly about the Poles and Lusatian Sorbs and the Germans.

Generalissimo
08-11-2015, 03:20 AM
I am not playing games with you. I am pointing to your strawman when you suggested that I mentioned all Slavs making reference to the Buglarians, when we were talking about west Slavs, mostly about the Poles and Lusatian Sorbs and the Germans.

This is what you said:

Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

So now answer these questions:

- why are there no barriers between Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles?

- why is there a barrier between Poland and Bulgaria?

- doesn't this obviously contradict your claims?

Stop squirming and just answer the questions. It'll only take a few seconds.

Volat
08-11-2015, 03:27 AM
This is what you said:

Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

So now answer these questions:

- why are there no barriers between Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles?

- why is there a barrier between Poland and Bulgaria?

- doesn't this obviously contradict your claims?

Stop squirming and just answer the questions. It'll only take a few seconds.


That's what I wrote in the context of discussing Germans and western Slavs , mostly Poles and Lusatian Sorbs. You brought up a strawman suggesting I was referring to all Slavs pointing to the genetic boundary between Bulgarians.

George
08-11-2015, 03:27 AM
I think General is right here. Just because it "is generally assumed" that the Przeworsk
Culture was "Germanic", it doesn't make it correct. perousing through all evidence, one finds a single germanic inscription from the Visla region, and not a single germanic hydronym. Yes, there was probably some population turnover in the beginning of the Middle ages, but this does not a priori mean that the preceding populations spoke, let alone thought themselves, "Germani".

OK, Let's assume that Pliny and Tacitus (and their multiple predecessors and successors, as well as all their sources), and prestigious contemporary professional archaeologists were/are wrong and their massive studies (esp. Mahomedov's on the Chernyakhiv culture) is irrelevant crapola. Who then were these people falsely designated as a part of the Germanic world at that time?

Generalissimo
08-11-2015, 03:28 AM
I did not make a false claim. I made a correct claim, while you have been desperate searching for the PCA at low resolutions.

You made a false claim, which I proved to be false with HIGH RESOLUTION results, including this barrier analysis.

BARRIER ANALYSIS (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg)

This analysis matches the PCA and genetic distances tables I posted. So my data is solid.


There is a genetic gaps between Germans and the Slavs as per evidence using genome-wide data.

False.

BARRIER ANALYSIS (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg)


There is more genetic continuity between Germans and north-western European populations than between Germans and Slavs.

This wasn't your initial claim. This is what it was, and it was false.


Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

Volat
08-11-2015, 03:41 AM
You made a false claim, which I proved to be false with HIGH RESOLUTION results, including this barrier analysis.

BARRIER ANALYSIS (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg)


There were no high resolution results on your PCA plots. I explained it to you already. The tables of fst indices were not even useful in determining genetic continuity and genetic patterns between the populations. The barrier analysis is not a proof eiether, as we were not discussing the Bulgarians.



This wasn't your initial claim. This is what is was, and it was false.

Both claims are correct.

Generalissimo
08-11-2015, 03:50 AM
There were no high resolution results on your PCA plots. I explained it to you already.

Your explanation was false.

PCA based on 100,000 + SNPs are commonly regarded in population genetics as a powerful and high resolution method to analyze genetic diversity.

Your personal opinion on what is high resolution means nothing to me.


The tables of fst indices were not even useful in determining genetic continuity and genetic patterns between the populations.

The barrier analysis is based on one of the tables I posted, so my interpretation of the table data was correct. You were wrong.


The barrier analysis is not a proof either, as we were not discussing the Bulgarians.

You said there was continuity between Slavs, and Bulgarians are Slavs.

But OK, you want to squirm out of that now. Fair enough.

The problem is that the barrier analysis also includes Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles, and shows no barriers between them. How are you going to squirm out of that?


Both claims are correct.

This claim is false.


Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

Why can't you just admit that this is not correct, move on, and try to be more precise and less goofy next time?

Gravetto-Danubian
08-11-2015, 03:51 AM
OK, Let's assume that Pliny and Tacitus (and their multiple predecessors and successors, as well as all their sources), and prestigious contemporary professional archaeologists were/are wrong and their massive studies (esp. Mahomedov's on the Chernyakhiv culture) is irrelevant crapola. Who then were these people falsely designated as a part of the Germanic world at that time?

Well, perhaps you haven't read any like Michael kulikowsky, Floring Curta or Walter Goffart.. Magademov is a great archaeologist. No one knows the materials better than him. But he is not an ethnologist, and he views his task to add to the corpus of finds, and not add to a greater understanding of identity and ethnicity.

Whatever the case , the fact remains that to the Romans - like Tactitus- "Germania" was above all a geographic entity, not an ethno-lingusitic one. Quite simpy, it was defined by natural barriers - the Rhine, the vistula and the "great northern Ocean". Although he talks of "customs" such as shields and fighting on foot, or what have you, this is nothing but lip service- an oration. The reality is, neither set foot outside of the Roman Empire, and had no idea where Przeworsk land even was, let alone the intricacies of its people's genetic make up, or verbal system.

The corollary is: within "Germania" there could have been- and probably were- non Germanic tribes. Also, outside Germania there were Germanic speaking Goths. But they were never called Germani, but always either Goths, Scythians or even Getae.

Generalissimo
08-11-2015, 04:18 AM
Nice strawman.

Volat,

This high resolution barrier analysis includes Czechs, Germans, Austrians and Poles, and shows no barriers between them.

BARRIER ANALYSIS (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg)

Doesn't this contradict your claim that:


Today, there is a continuum between Slavs and a clear division between Slavs and Germans.

Stop squirming and just answer the question.

Volat
08-11-2015, 04:53 AM
Your explanation was false.

PCA based on 100,000 + SNPs are commonly regarded in population genetics as a powerful and high resolution method to analyze genetic diversity.

Your personal opinion on what is high resolution means nothing to me.


That's right. You don't understand the theory behind principal component analysis. The more data or SNPs in this case are used in PCA (particularly those data that are not relevant to the question), the more information is lost through the transformation of multivariate data (many SNPs) onto two principal components for visual exploration on a 2D plane. The resulting plot will be at lower resolution. And those were the plots you posted earlier with ots of samples cluttered in one place. If you want to obtain a higher resolution, then select the populations of interests and generate the plot.



The barrier analysis is based on one of the tables I posted, so my interpretation of the table data was correct. You were wrong.

The barrier analysis shows there no genetic barrier between Czech and Germans. It does not prove anything about the absence of gap between Slavs and Germans By this I meant there is more genetic continuity between Germans and north-western populations than between Germans and Slavs.




You said there was continuity between Slavs, and Bulgarians are Slavs.

But OK, you want to squirm out of that now. Fair enough.

The problem is that the barrier analysis also includes Germans and Czechs and Austrians and Poles, and shows no barriers between them. How are you going to squirm out of that?


Pay attention to the charts you post and learn the basics about different statistical methods to which you are referring to prove a point.



This claim is false.



Why can't you just admit that this is not correct, move on, and try to be more precise and less goofy next time?

My claims are correct. It is desperate times for you. :)

Volat
08-11-2015, 04:58 AM
Volat,

This high resolution barrier analysis includes Czechs, Germans, Austrians and Poles, and shows no barriers between them.

BARRIER ANALYSIS (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg)

Doesn't this contradict your claim that:



Stop squirming and just answer the question.

The barrier analysis does not show the extent of genetic continuity between the populations for which there are no barriers. It is not a proof that my claim is false.

Generalissimo
08-11-2015, 05:22 AM
Pay attention to the charts you post and learn the basics about different statistical methods to which you are referring to prove a point.

My point is that there are no genetic barriers in Central Europe between German and Slavic populations when using high resolution sampling, data and methods.

I have proved my point.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6020/5981431346_51af31ea0c_b.jpg


It is desperate times for you.

Don't worry about me. You should worry about that new study that's coming. And many other studies in the future showing genetic structure in Europe using high resolution sampling, data and methods.

It seems you don't like the idea of Western Slavs not being distinct from their Central European neighbors. I have no idea why that would be important?

George
08-11-2015, 12:38 PM
Well, perhaps you haven't read any like Michael kulikowsky, Floring Curta or Walter Goffart.. Magademov is a great archaeologist. No one knows the materials better than him. But he is not an ethnologist, and he views his task to add to the corpus of finds, and not add to a greater understanding of identity and ethnicity.

Whatever the case , the fact remains that to the Romans - like Tactitus- "Germania" was above all a geographic entity, not an ethno-lingusitic one. Quite simpy, it was defined by natural barriers - the Rhine, the vistula and the "great northern Ocean". Although he talks of "customs" such as shields and fighting on foot, or what have you, this is nothing but lip service- an oration. The reality is, neither set foot outside of the Roman Empire, and had no idea where Przeworsk land even was, let alone the intricacies of its people's genetic make up, or verbal system.

The corollary is: within "Germania" there could have been- and probably were- non Germanic tribes. Also, outside Germania there were Germanic speaking Goths. But they were never called Germani, but always either Goths, Scythians or even Getae.

"Magademov" indeed. I'll leave you with your "Florings" and "Tactituses" and ad hominems.

Tomenable
08-11-2015, 05:22 PM
George,


Who then were these people falsely designated as a part of the Germanic world at that time?

Roman term "Germania" wasn't really ethno-linguistic, but first of all geographical.

According to the Romans, the land of "Germania" bordered to the east with "Dacia" (Agrippa), with "Sarmatia" (Posidonius, Pomponius Mela), with "European Sarmatia" (Ptolemy), and with "Scythia" (Jordanes). Usually the border between "Germania" and "Sarmatia" was the Vistula River. Does it mean, that in Poland to the east of Vistula lived ethnic Sarmatians, who spoke Iranian? Not really. And Roman "Germania" was also inhabited by various ethnic groups, not just by speakers of what we call Germanic languages. Also remember, that according to the Romans, "Germania" didn't include Scandinavia (apart from Denmark). Scandinavia in Roman sources was a separate geographical province, not part of the Germanic world, or "Germania".

Vettor,


the Gottones where associated with living on the east side of the vistual river away from the coast in BC times.

1) Goths were mentioned on both sides of the Vistula, also on the west side of it. On the east side they could initially live up to the western edge of Wysoczyzna Elbląska (Elbinger Höhe). To the east of them, was the Dollkeim-Kovrovo archaeological culture, associated with West Balts (Prussians).

2) What sources written in BC times (or based on sources written in BC times) mention any Goths? I'm aware of sources on Goths (and presumed Goths, like Strabo's "Butones") written in AD times.


The Gottones lived south of the "old baltic- prussians "

Not only south of them, but also west of them.


The Goths where also accepted into the roman empire to fill the void ( illyrian genocide by the romans ) into illyrcium lands shortly after the Great-Illyrian revolt of 9AD , so the gothic genetic ancestry was already being established in Roman society centuries prior to any gothic/barbarian invasion of 400AD

Sources please - Goths in the Roman Empire in 9 AD? This sounds like your own invention.

Also sources for the "Illyrian Genocide", please. There was violent conquest, but genocide ???

Albanian language is a dialect of Illyrian, so it seems that the genocide wasn't very successful.

George
08-11-2015, 05:31 PM
The Roman term "Germania" was not really ethno-linguistic, but first of all geographical.

According to the Romans, the land of "Germania" bordered to the east with "Dacia" (Agrippa), with "Sarmatia" (Posidonius, Pomponius Mela), with "European Sarmatia" (Ptolemy), and with "Scythia" (Jordanes). Usually the border between "Germania" and "Sarmatia" was the Vistula River. Does it mean, that in Poland to the east of Vistula lived ethnic Sarmatians, who spoke Iranian ??? Not really.

**** What is your take on Tacitus' "zone of mutual fear" east of the Vistula? He saw it as important a boundary as the mountains between Germanics and Dacians...

And Roman "Germania" was also inhabited by various ethnic groups, not just by speakers of what we call Germanic languages.

I'm open to suggestions. Of course Tacitus mentions a few non-Germanic speaking tribes in his "Suebia". Who else would you have in mind? All the peoples he mentions along the Vistula amber route sound Germanic to me except some at the far south and northeast...

Tomenable
08-11-2015, 05:45 PM
Of course Tacitus mentions a few non-Germanic speaking tribes in his "Suebia".

Tacitus rather doesn't write much about languages. Can you quote relevant excerpts ???


All the peoples he mentions along the Vistula amber route sound Germanic to me

You mean their names, as recorded by the Romans, sound Germanic, right ???

Well, "Rus" also sounds Germanic, but the vast majority of the population spoke Slavic and Finnic. "France" sounds Germanic to me, but people are of Non-Germanic stock, and speak a Latin-derived language.

"Bulgaria" sounds Turkic to me, but the population of Bulgarian realm spoke Slavic and Greek.

The "Welsh" is a name of Germanic origin (meaning "Foreigners"), denoting Celtic people.

"Aestii" from Tacitus, though denoting Balts, was a Non-Baltic name (meaning "Easterners").

parastais
08-11-2015, 06:19 PM
Aestii could actually mean many things.

Read recently good finno-ugric linguist's work where he mentioned all the versions. He highlighted "the burners" from Baltic root as the most popular version among academical linguists and proposed his own from other Baltic root meaning smthg like "fish skin like" which is kind of equalent to German etimology of..of course.. Finns... :)

I like the burner version best, since it finally gives semantically (not sure though if academically) acceptable version for Curonians as kurt/kurināt means to set fire.

George
08-11-2015, 06:24 PM
Tacitus rather doesn't write much about languages. Can you quote relevant excerpts ???



You mean their names, as recorded by the Romans, sound Germanic, right ???

Well, "Rus" also sounds Germanic, but the vast majority of the population spoke Slavic and Finnic. "France" sounds Germanic to me, but people are of Non-Germanic stock, and speak a Latin-derived language.

"Bulgaria" sounds Turkic to me, but the population of Bulgarian realm spoke Slavic and Greek.

The "Welsh" is a name of Germanic origin (meaning "Foreigners"), denoting Celtic people.

"Aestii" from Tacitus, though denoting Balts, was a Non-Baltic name (meaning "Easterners").

OK I'll give you the references shortly. Which I suspect you probably already know. or will remember. Just in passing: (1) Rus' is not necessarily Germanic though I agree that in the 10th c. that was the primary "sounding". They assimilated most quickly of all instances you cite. (2) The Old Bulgars of Danubian Bulgaria were still somewhat Bulgar-speaking ("Turkic" if you like) at the beginning of the 10th century. It took about 300 years to thoroughly assimilate them. (3) The Germanic expression "Welsh" (variants) also referred to Romance speakers (for Slavs) as a borrowing from the Germanic term. (4) I agree about the "Aestii". One thing I haven't quite made up my mind about is whether among them there were still Celtic-speakers (as a small intermediary commercial group). Tacitus' reference to their language is interesting. He had it from travellers of course.

P.S. Besides "sounding" Germanic there is the additional point that Tacitus does not suggest these near-Vistula basin peoples were non-Suebian, and not Germanic in speech. Which he does in other cases.

vettor
08-11-2015, 06:37 PM
George,



Roman term "Germania" wasn't really ethno-linguistic, but first of all geographical.

According to the Romans, the land of "Germania" bordered to the east with "Dacia" (Agrippa), with "Sarmatia" (Posidonius, Pomponius Mela), with "European Sarmatia" (Ptolemy), and with "Scythia" (Jordanes). Usually the border between "Germania" and "Sarmatia" was the Vistula River. Does it mean, that in Poland to the east of Vistula lived ethnic Sarmatians, who spoke Iranian? Not really. And Roman "Germania" was also inhabited by various ethnic groups, not just by speakers of what we call Germanic languages. Also remember, that according to the Romans, "Germania" didn't include Scandinavia (apart from Denmark). Scandinavia in Roman sources was a separate geographical province, not part of the Germanic world, or "Germania".

Vettor,



1) Goths were mentioned on both sides of the Vistula, also on the west side of it. On the east side they could initially live up to the western edge of Wysoczyzna Elbląska (Elbinger Höhe). To the east of them, was the Dollkeim-Kovrovo archaeological culture, associated with West Balts (Prussians).

2) What sources written in BC times (or based on sources written in BC times) mention any Goths? I'm aware of sources on Goths (and presumed Goths, like Strabo's "Butones") written in AD times.



Not only south of them, but also west of them.



Sources please - Goths in the Roman Empire in 9 AD? This sounds like your own invention.

Also sources for the "Illyrian Genocide", please. There was violent conquest, but genocide ???

Albanian language is a dialect of Illyrian, so it seems that the genocide wasn't very successful.

Roman historian Cassius Dio works is the source for both

Tomenable
08-11-2015, 06:59 PM
Vettor,

But Cassius Dio lived in 2nd - 3rd centuries AD, not in BC times.

George,


OK I'll give you the references shortly. Which I suspect you probably already know. or will remember. Just in passing: (1) Rus' is not necessarily Germanic though I agree that in the 10th c. that was the primary "sounding". They assimilated most quickly of all instances you cite. (2) The Old Bulgars of Danubian Bulgaria were still somewhat Bulgar-speaking ("Turkic" if you like) at the beginning of the 10th century. It took about 300 years to thoroughly assimilate them.

Bulgars, Rus', Franks, etc. were never close to being the majority of population in their realms, even though their realms were named after them. So why should we think that Goths were the majority of population in their realm. The so called "population replacement" could be just the collapse of Gothic power structures in "Gothia". Why should "Gothia" in Poland be more Gothic, than later "Gothia" in Iberia and "Gothia" in Italy?

And the archaeology of early Kievan Rus shows rather clear connections with Scandinavia.


P.S. Besides "sounding" Germanic there is the additional point that Tacitus does not suggest these near-Vistula basin peoples were non-Suebian, and not Germanic in speech. Which he does in other cases.

Neither does he write that they spoke Germanic. Besides, the conquerors could speak some language, but the conquered could speak other languages, and they could be the majority of population.

Negative evidence is not as strong as positive evidence would be.

vettor
08-11-2015, 07:10 PM
Vettor,

But Cassius Dio lived in 2nd - 3rd centuries AD, not in BC times.

George,



Bulgars, Rus', Franks, etc. were never close to being the majority of population in their realms, even though their realms were named after them. So why should we think that Goths were the majority of population in their realm. The so called "population replacement" could be just the collapse of Gothic power structures in "Gothia". Why should "Gothia" in Poland be more Gothic, than later "Gothia" in Iberia and "Gothia" in Italy?

And the archaeology of early Kievan Rus shows rather clear connections with Scandinavia.

but the illyrian revolt was in AD times and not BC times ., what are you saying?.............note Illyrium people and lands at the point in time was from Pannonia ( modern hungaria ) only as far as modern montenegro , its capital was sirmium in modern serbia IIRC, after the 4 to 5 year long revolt, Illyrium was split apart into 2 sections, Pannonia and Dalmatia ( illyrian identity bascially ceased )..........the Pannonian north took the brunt of the "genocide" even though the main instigators (a illyrian tribe ) where from modern Bosnia

George
08-11-2015, 08:44 PM
OK I'll give you the references shortly. Which I suspect you probably already know. or will remember. Just in passing: (1) Rus' is not necessarily Germanic though I agree that in the 10th c. that was the primary "sounding". They assimilated most quickly of all instances you cite. (2) The Old Bulgars of Danubian Bulgaria were still somewhat Bulgar-speaking ("Turkic" if you like) at the beginning of the 10th century. It took about 300 years to thoroughly assimilate them. (3) The Germanic expression "Welsh" (variants) also referred to Romance speakers (for Slavs) as a borrowing from the Germanic term. (4) I agree about the "Aestii". One thing I haven't quite made up my mind about is whether among them there were still Celtic-speakers (as a small intermediary commercial group). Tacitus' reference to their language is interesting. He had it from travellers of course.

P.S. Besides "sounding" Germanic there is the additional point that Tacitus does not suggest these near-Vistula basin peoples were non-Suebian, and not Germanic in speech. Which he does in other cases.

Might as well add this here. I forgot about the Franks earlier. I believe their final assimilation into Romance "francophony" was not completed until the early 10th c. under the later Carolingians. I remember reading an interesting article once about early mediaeval "French" and how similar it was, structurally (word and esp. verb order) to the speech it replaced.=== Now re Tacitus: For him "Germani", while different in some ways (he lists some differing customs), do share a common speech. In per. 43 of GERMANIA, he has some interesting observations about some tribes east of the Marcomanni and Quadi (Suebian Germanics). The Marsigni and Buri use the Suebian "sermo" but the Cotini don't: they speak the lingua Gallica, and the neighbouring Osi speak the lingua Pannonica. He concludes that they consequently "are not Germanic" "non esse Germanos". Can't be much clearer. Then he continues with his description of Suebia and lists the many tribal units along the Vistula area, and finally reaches the Goths and beyond. All Suebi. All Germani. He obviously does not need to constantly repeat "they speak Germanic". Only by the time he reaches the Aestii does he note that their speech is rather akin to "Brittonic" (I expect he meant Britain). So Tacitus was able to distinguish (at least in theory) between two types of Celtic languages... And a bit later (par. 46) he squarely asserts that the Bastarnae count as Germanics "by speech", unlike the Venedae (never mind the Sarmatians of course).=== Your later notion that there were "secret people" on these "Germanic"territories (unknown to archaeology or extant documentation) who spoke languages other than Germanic and who later massively re-emerged is just a meaningless petitio principii. Actually you might have a better case (though not a very strong one I'm afraid) to argue for bilingualism among some of these Tacitus Germanic "tribes" with the secondary language suppressed for centuries. Like some Slavs of Pomerania. Or the Lusatians in the early stages of the Yastorf drang in the 4th c. BC. But I prefer Ockham's razor here.

lgmayka
08-11-2015, 10:12 PM
Who then were these people falsely designated as a part of the Germanic world at that time?
In his book The Early Slavs, P. M. Barford writes on p. 46:
---
It is possible that a certain degree of depopulation could lead to social and economic collapse which in turn disrupts social organization, and limits the production and acquisition of objects such as craftsman-made pottery, fine metalwork and the use of (for example) typical Germanic halls. The disappearance of these traits need not mean the disappearance of the original population from this area, simply that the material culture had changed and was no longer being used to express 'German-ness.' It is equally possible that a Germanic elite left the area, and that, for one reason or another, the population left behind preferred not to use cultural markers of Germanic type. Perhaps we are seeing an expression of a changed world outlook on the collapse of the old social order, in which the Germanic-style zone with its extensive use of prestige goods and competitiveness was replaced by a styleless and more egalitarian material culture.
---

Barford's implication, I think, is that "the population left behind" was Balto-Slavic.

BigY haplotrees are already in the process of answering some of these questions for us. Eventually, ancient DNA may close the debate entirely.

George
08-11-2015, 10:35 PM
In his book The Early Slavs, P. M. Barford writes on p. 46:
---
It is possible that a certain degree of depopulation could lead to social and economic collapse which in turn disrupts social organization, and limits the production and acquisition of objects such as craftsman-made pottery, fine metalwork and the use of (for example) typical Germanic halls. The disappearance of these traits need not mean the disappearance of the original population from this area, simply that the material culture had changed and was no longer being used to express 'German-ness.' It is equally possible that a Germanic elite left the area, and that, for one reason or another, the population left behind preferred not to use cultural markers of Germanic type. Perhaps we are seeing an expression of a changed world outlook on the collapse of the old social order, in which the Germanic-style zone with its extensive use of prestige goods and competitiveness was replaced by a styleless and more egalitarian material culture.

Barford's implication, I think, is that "the population left behind" was Balto-Slavic.

BigY haplotrees are already in the process of answering some of these questions for us. Eventually, ancient DNA may close the debate entirely.

I think the problem is not so much just the disappearance of "Germanic" markers, as the disappearance of ANY markers (so far anyway) until at least the end of the 5th century, at which point the "Slavic" markers start to appear and spread (still leaving a lot of "empty"areas during the 512 Herulian "return home"). I agree that some people were doubtless left, and were assimilated into the new cultures. Of course it will be interesting to see what ancient DNA can contribute to the puzzle.

Tomenable
08-11-2015, 11:33 PM
A similar "disappearance of any markers" also took place in England. The post-Roman and pre-Anglo-Saxon period in English archaeology is often referred to as "Invisible Britons", or as "a black hole, post-crash gap", because there are almost no archaeological findings from that period - see for example this link:

https://www.academia.edu/468166/Invisible_Britons_Gallo-Romans_and_Russians_Perspectives_on_culture_change ._In_N._Higham_ed._._Britons_in_Anglo-Saxon_England._Publications_of_the_Manchester_Cent re_for_Anglo-Saxon_Studies_7_._Woodbridge_Boydell_2007._57-67

http://s30.postimg.org/pzsp33wch/Invisible_Britons.png

This is usually explained by impoverishment of the population, rather than by total depopulation. I haven't seen people arguing that entire Briton population emigrated, and Anglo-Saxons settled empty land.

Impoverished population left a small amount of archaeological traces, because they did not possess much.

Especially, they didn't have durable items, such which are capable of standing the test of time.

=============================

Despite that "invisibility", Britons surely survived - because modern English are still mostly Celtic:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4943-Iron-Age-and-Anglo-Saxon-genomes-from-East-England-reveal-British-migration-history

Gravetto-Danubian
08-11-2015, 11:36 PM
I think the problem is not so much just the disappearance of "Germanic" markers, as the disappearance of ANY markers (so far anyway) until at least the end of the 5th century, at which point the "Slavic" markers start to appear and spread (still leaving a lot of "empty"areas during the 512 Herulian "return home"). I agree that some people were doubtless left, and were assimilated into the new cultures. Of course it will be interesting to see what ancient DNA can contribute to the puzzle.

Again, you're incorrect.
There are markers which persist into the 5th and 6th century, although indeed much much less than earlier..These are especially prominent around Pomerania, which show contacts with the a baltic and scandinavia. In central poland, the material cultures changes, with contacts with Hunnic regions and Chernyakov culture apparent into 5th century. In southwestern Poland , clear evidence of continued settlement continue into 6th century, with analogies to Thuringia.

Moreover, you are further wrong about the earliest "slavic "presence- which is not from the 5th century, but rather closer to 600AD, on the basis of dendrochronology and datable metal artefacts.

Let me guess your response- who am I to argue against the great Godlowski ? Someone who has a clue about recent developments, unlike some people here, as it seems .

Tomenable
08-11-2015, 11:59 PM
Estimates of population density in Wielkopolska (Greater Poland) in the 600s and around year 1000:

(Poznan & Gniezno = first capitals of Poland; they had not yet existed in the 600s):

http://s10.postimg.org/ozflrcagp/Period_One.png

In year 1000 Wielkopolska was already the heart of the Polish state (ruled by the Piast dynasty):

http://s8.postimg.org/quw3na1t1/Period_Two.png

Data comes from:

S. Kurnatowski, "Studia osadnicze nad strukturą zasiedlenia i gospodarką", [in:] "Ziemie polskie w X wieku i ich znaczenie w kształtowaniu się nowej mapy Europy", ed. H. Samsonowicz, Cracow 2000, pp. 339-340.

The 600s was already after the Slavic expansion into Poland (they started coming after 500 AD).

We need to remember that population was recovering also thanks to natural increase, of course.

Even if before 500 population density was just 1 person per 1 km2 (it's my guesstimate and speculation, because I don't have data for that period), then it is still ~300,000 people in the area of Poland.

==========================

Edit:

Alternative estimates for population density in year 1000 (not much different ones):

http://s4.postimg.org/scty1e18d/Poznan_Gniezno_area.png

George
08-12-2015, 01:05 AM
A similar "disappearance of any markers" also took place in England. The post-Roman and pre-Anglo-Saxon period in English archaeology is often referred to as "Invisible Britons", or as "a black hole, post-crash gap", because there are almost no archaeological findings from that period - see for example this link:

https://www.academia.edu/468166/Invisible_Britons_Gallo-Romans_and_Russians_Perspectives_on_culture_change ._In_N._Higham_ed._._Britons_in_Anglo-Saxon_England._Publications_of_the_Manchester_Cent re_for_Anglo-Saxon_Studies_7_._Woodbridge_Boydell_2007._57-67

http://s30.postimg.org/pzsp33wch/Invisible_Britons.png

This is usually explained by impoverishment of the population, rather than by total depopulation. I haven't seen people arguing that entire Briton population emigrated, and Anglo-Saxons settled empty land.

Impoverished population left a small amount of archaeological traces, because they did not possess much.

Especially, they didn't have durable items, such which are capable of standing the test of time.

=============================

Despite that "invisibility", Britons surely survived - because modern English are still mostly Celtic:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4943-Iron-Age-and-Anglo-Saxon-genomes-from-East-England-reveal-British-migration-history

That is interesting. Are you (or your source) only talking about the areas where the previously existing "Roman" material culture was replaced after the "crash" by Anglo-Saxon culture? Was there a different kind of continuity in the Celtic areas of the island? And in those areas how does 3 compare to 1? Is there evidence that some parts of the new culture of Celtica was identity-linked to what preceded it?=== As for Poland and Ukraine it is clear enough that very large swaths of territory were almost wholly depopulated in the period posterior to ca. 430 (in that both Przeworsk and Chernyakhiv almost completely if not completely disappeared). But some areas certainly continued to be thinly inhabited. For instance the Penkovka culture of the "Antes" picked up and assimilated a small number of surviving "Chernyakhovians" (the calculation is today that about 15% or so of its pottery is of Ch. type). And doubtless there must have been pockets of survivors in Poland too, besides the Vidivarii. But the culture of the Slavs was a "forest culture" (this is now irrefutable), showing little similarity to or continuity with the previous Latenized and Romanized cultures, and basically linked to the Kyivan culture of the period 200-450 CE. The people remaining in situ in the depopulated areas adopted it and became Slavonized by the same process that subsequently occurred south of the Danube. Can "ancient DNA" disprove this scenario? I seriously doubt it, but of course we'll see.

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 01:34 AM
George,


That is interesting. Are you (or your source) only talking about the areas where the previously existing "Roman" material culture was replaced after the "crash" by Anglo-Saxon culture? Was there a different kind of continuity in the Celtic areas of the island?

Yes, it refers to Romano-Briton areas, those which had been most Romanized.

Not to "purely" Celtic areas with little or no Roman influences.


And doubtless there must have been pockets of survivors in Poland too

During the construction of A2 highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_autostrada_(Poland)) in Poland since year 2001, many new findings from the "Migration Period" were found in Wielkopolska. A discussion about this - in Polish language - is here:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=40964&view=findpost&p=373598


(still leaving a lot of "empty" areas during the 512 Herulian "return home").

According to Procopius (excerpt below) the Heruli, after being defeated by the Lombards (ca. 505 - 508), migrated in 512 AD from their homeland at the Middle Danube river (area A in the map below) to the land of the Warni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warini) at the Warnow river (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnow) (area B in the map below). Area C in the map below is the place called Anthaib by the author of "Historia Langobardorum" - Paul the Deacon. The region called "Anthaib" was - according to Paul the Deacon - one of regions passed by the Lombards during their southward migration.

The name of Anthaib is sometimes connected with the Slavic-speaking Antes (Antae):

http://s18.postimg.org/e3xzn71xl/Europa3.png

Excerpt in question from Procopius: http://s2.postimg.org/wx2vn7ozd/Heruli.png

http://s2.postimg.org/wx2vn7ozd/Heruli.png

Some historians suggest that the "a large tract of barren country" in that excerpt, was Poland.

But this defies logic, as the Heruli most likely didn't even cross Poland on their way - see below:

http://s17.postimg.org/e0lbq1osf/Heruli_2.png

http://s17.postimg.org/e0lbq1osf/Heruli_2.png

Ockham's razor suggests, that the Heruli migrated from "A" to "B" along the shortest possible route.

It requires a lot of "mental gymnastics" to "force" the Heruli to migrate across Poland in 512 AD...

Even if they crossed any region of present-day Poland, then most certainly it was Silesia.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 02:09 AM
George,



Yes, it refers to Romano-Briton areas, those which had been most Romanized.

Not to "purely" Celtic areas with little or no Roman influences.



During the construction of A2 highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_autostrada_(Poland)) in Poland since year 2001, many new findings from the "Migration Period" were found in Wielkopolska. A discussion about this - in Polish language - is here:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=40964&view=findpost&p=373598



According to Procopius (excerpt below) the Heruli, after being defeated by the Lombards (ca. 505 - 508), migrated in 512 AD from their homeland at the Middle Danube river (area A in the map below) to the land of the Warni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warini) at the Warnow river (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnow) (area B in the map below). Area C in the map below is the place called Anthaib by author of "Historia Langobardorum" - Paul the Deacon. The region called "Anthaib" was - according to Paul the Deacon - one of regions passed by the Langobards during their migration south.

The name of Anthaib is sometimes connected with the Slavic-speaking Antes (Antae):

http://s18.postimg.org/e3xzn71xl/Europa3.png

Excerpt in question from Procopius: http://s2.postimg.org/wx2vn7ozd/Heruli.png

http://s2.postimg.org/wx2vn7ozd/Heruli.png

Some historians suggest that the "a large tract of barren country" in that excerpt, was Poland.

But this defies logic, as the Heruli most likely didn't even cross Poland on their way - see below:

http://s17.postimg.org/e0lbq1osf/Heruli_2.png

http://s17.postimg.org/e0lbq1osf/Heruli_2.png

Ockham's razor suggests, that the Heruli migrated from "A" to "B" along the shortest possible route.

It requires a lot of "mental gymnastics" to "force" the Heruli to migrate across Poland in 512 AD...

Even if they crossed any region of present-day Poland, then most certainly it was Silesia.

Geez you guys are funny.

First of all, the Herulian migration is a story. The idea of a track through empty land is simply false. There is ample evidence for settlement in 6th century Bohemia, through which your little maps depicts, as well as Mecklemburh-Vorpommen, albeit reduced.

Moreover, there is evidence of post-roman material culture South of the Thames, with artefacts such as the Quoit Brooch style, which shows clear references back to a "Roman past".

Perhaps a little more reading of recent, relevant literature and a little less philosophising on outdated references is what is called for . .

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 02:17 AM
The idea of a track through empty land is simply false.

Let's see what Procopius wrote about Thule.

He wrote that Thule was mostly empty, and yet it still housed 13 very numerous nations:

"[In Thule] the land is for the most part empty, but in the inhabited country thirteen very numerous nations are settled". - mostly barren, BUT a dozen or so huge populations live there... right. :)

So "a track of empty country" in description of Heruli travel, also should be treated with a grain of salt. It wasn't necessarily a huge empty area, it could be a track of land up to few dozen kilometers long.

George
08-12-2015, 02:23 AM
George,



Yes, it refers to Romano-Briton areas, those which had been most Romanized.

Not to "purely" Celtic areas with little or no Roman influences.



During the construction of A2 highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2_autostrada_(Poland)) in Poland since year 2001, many new findings from the "Migration Period" were found in Wielkopolska. A discussion about this - in Polish language - is here:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=40964&view=findpost&p=373598



According to Procopius (excerpt below) the Heruli, after being defeated by the Lombards (ca. 505 - 508), migrated in 512 AD from their homeland at the Middle Danube river (area A in the map below) to the land of the Warni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warini) at the Warnow river (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnow) (area B in the map below). Area C in the map below is the place called Anthaib by the author of "Historia Langobardorum" - Paul the Deacon. The region called "Anthaib" was - according to Paul the Deacon - one of regions passed by the Lombards during their southward migration.

The name of Anthaib is sometimes connected with the Slavic-speaking Antes (Antae):

http://s18.postimg.org/e3xzn71xl/Europa3.png

Excerpt in question from Procopius: http://s2.postimg.org/wx2vn7ozd/Heruli.png

http://s2.postimg.org/wx2vn7ozd/Heruli.png

Some historians suggest that the "a large tract of barren country" in that excerpt, was Poland.

But this defies logic, as the Heruli most likely didn't even cross Poland on their way - see below:

http://s17.postimg.org/e0lbq1osf/Heruli_2.png

http://s17.postimg.org/e0lbq1osf/Heruli_2.png

Ockham's razor suggests, that the Heruli migrated from "A" to "B" along the shortest possible route.

It requires a lot of "mental gymnastics" to "force" the Heruli to migrate across Poland in 512 AD...

Even if they crossed any region of present-day Poland, then most certainly it was Silesia.

Procopius wrote soon after the event, Paul the Deacon nearly three centuries later. Whatever Anthaib meant to him, the fact is that in 512 the Antes may not even have reached the Dnister. And Procopius does not mention them only the Sclaveni (he distinguished the two very well). Now in 512 the Sclaveni were coming to the Carpathians, so to go "through them" you had to skirt these mountains and then continue on northwestward, certainly through Poland. P.S. The road you suggest would take them through the Gepidae and avoid the Sclaveni altogether.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 02:24 AM
Let's see what Procopius wrote about Thule.

He wrote that Thule was mostly empty (or barren), and yet it still housed 13 very numerous nations:

"[In Thule] the land is for the most part empty, but in the inhabited country thirteen very numerous nations are settled".

So "a track of empty country" in description of Heruli travel, also should be treated with a grain of salt.

Nope
Until you learn that ancient historians do not provide accurate information, and learn about source criticism and understand the motives of such narratives, you will continue to make comical statements. I'm not saying we must altogether discard everything they wrote, but they were not true ethnographers, nor archaeologists. Their writing was always within the context of roman Politics and war policy. As such , it is not actually reflective of the truth in barbaricum, but rather such writers used heresay, secondary / tertiary accounts and recycled topoi , such as migrations to / from the north to account for the origins of said royal lineages- in this case the Heruli.

Accept this or not, but the archaeology has already proven Procopius, and misguided modern scholars who accept his "testimony" at face value, incorrect.

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 02:29 AM
Now in 512 the Sclaveni were coming to the Carpathians

They were already well-established along the Carpathians.

Jordanes wrote (V: 30-37), especially (V: 34-35) - describing the situation around year 500 AD:

"(34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart."

Marek Dulnicz, "The Lombard Headman Called Ildigis and the Slavs" (in English), identifies those geographical locations as follows:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Dulinicz%2C+Marek

http://s23.postimg.org/ilmk9f6q3/Slavs_500_AD.png

1) Noviodunum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noviodunum_%28castra%29

2) lake Mursianus:

"Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; (...) the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa (present-day Osijek)."

3) Danaster = Dniester river

4) Danaper = Dnieper river

5) "Alps" = Carpathians

Source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko-Bia%C5%82a

And "the curve of the sea of Pontus " was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

[B]Therefore:

http://s14.postimg.org/7u6vch8j5/Slavs_500_AD_c.png

Northern limits of their ranges, however, are uncertain. Western limits are also not precise.

And there was also the 3rd Slavic-speaking ethnos / branch - the Venedi.


you had to skirt these mountains and then continue on northwestward, certainly through Poland.

It would be like "going from Europe to Africa through Siberia" !!! Makes no sense.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 02:34 AM
They were already well-established along the Carpathians.

Jordanes wrote (V: 30-37), especially (V: 34-35) - describing the situation around year 500 AD:

"(34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart."

Marek Dulnicz, "The Lombard Headman Called Ildigis and the Slavs" (in English), identifies those geographical locations as follows:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Dulinicz%2C+Marek

http://s23.postimg.org/ilmk9f6q3/Slavs_500_AD.png

1) Noviodunum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noviodunum_%28castra%29

2) lake Mursianus:

"Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; (...) the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa (present-day Osijek)."

3) Danaster = Dniester river

4) Danaper = Dnieper river

5) "Alps" = Carpathians

Source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko-Bia%C5%82a

And "the curve of the sea of Pontus " was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

[B]Therefore:

http://s14.postimg.org/7u6vch8j5/Slavs_500_AD_c.png

Northern limits of their ranges, however, are uncertain. And there was also the 3rd Slavic-speaking ethnos - the Venedi.


delete

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 02:54 AM
Gravetto-Danubian:


The reality is, neither [Pliny nor Tacitus] set foot outside of the Roman Empire

Tacitus and Pliny didn't set foot outside of the Empire, but the Roman fleet did enter the Baltic Sea in 5 AD (see: Res Gestae Divi Augustii and Naturalis Historia, II.167, IV.95-96), before 9 AD the Romans conquered areas up to the Elbe River, and they also subjected to their overlordship the Marcomanni realm in Bohemia, in which there was presence of Roman merchants and diplomats (Tacitus, Annales II.62 - "lixae ac negotiatores"), and who (the Marcomanni under Marbod) had contact with people living further north (see Tacitus, Annales II.62-63, Paterculus II.109 and Strabo's Geography VII.1-3), including those at the Baltic Sea coast. According to Tacitus (II.61), a Marcomanni exile - Catualda - fled to the Goths, where he recruited a unit (comitatus), with help of which he later overthrew Marbod. Both Catualda and Marbod were later captured by the Romans, and were held in captivity in Ravenna and Gallia Narbonensis, where they were undoubtedly interrogated, so they could tell something about "Barbaricum" north of the Sudetes and Carpathians - especially Catualda could, because he was there personally. Then, during the last years of the reign of Nero, there was an expedition of a Roma eques towards the Baltic Sea, organized in order to collect loads of amber (see Pliny the Elder, XXXVII.45). That expedition visited market places (commercia) and the coasts (litora), bringing back to Italy huge amounts of amber. That expedition was organized by certain Claudius Iulianus. It went from Carnuntum on the Danube (in Noricum) and travelled around 600 Roman miles (almost 900 km), reaching the Baltic Sea.

So as you can see the Romans did have access to some first-hand accounts from that area.

George
08-12-2015, 02:55 AM
They were already well-established along the Carpathians.

Jordanes wrote (V: 30-37), especially (V: 34-35) - describing the situation around year 500 AD:

"(34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart."

Marek Dulnicz, "The Lombard Headman Called Ildigis and the Slavs" (in English), identifies those geographical locations as follows:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Dulinicz%2C+Marek

http://s23.postimg.org/ilmk9f6q3/Slavs_500_AD.png

1) Noviodunum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noviodunum_%28castra%29

2) lake Mursianus:

"Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; (...) the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa (present-day Osijek)."

3) Danaster = Dniester river

4) Danaper = Dnieper river

5) "Alps" = Carpathians

Source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko-Bia%C5%82a

And "the curve of the sea of Pontus " was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

[B]Therefore:

http://s14.postimg.org/7u6vch8j5/Slavs_500_AD_c.png

Northern limits of their ranges, however, are uncertain. Western limits are also not precise.

And there was also the 3rd Slavic-speaking ethnos / branch - the Venedi.



It would be like "going from Europe to Africa through Siberia" !!! Makes no sense.

Unless they wanted to avoid the Gepidae. So, according to Procopius' source, east along the Danube then northwest with the Carpathians on the left side of the trek. "Through all the nations of the Sclaveni". Then across the Vistula and on to the empty lands and then the Varni eventually near the sea.

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 03:01 AM
George,

From the Varni they went to Denmark.

Ignore the Gepidae in that map, I'm not sure if they are marked where they really were at that time.


He obviously does not need to constantly repeat "they speak Germanic". Only by the time he reaches the Aestii does he note that their speech is rather akin to "Brittonic" (I expect he meant Britain).

Yes Brittonic / Brythonic means the language of Celts from what is now England and Wales.

The Aestii didn't speak Brythonic. Their language just sounded similar to Brythonic to some Roman traveller (maybe someone from that amber expedition organized by Claudius Iulianus, see above).

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 03:14 AM
Well, perhaps you [George] haven't read any enlightened, western scholarship like Michael Kulikowsky, Floring Curta or Walter Goffart. Magademov is a great archaeologist. No one knows the materials better than him. But he is not an ethnologist, and he views his task to add to the corpus of finds, and not add to a greater understanding of identity and ethnicity. Indeed , here, Russian scholarship lags behind by about 40 years.

Well it sounds a bit patronising.

You know, not everyone agrees with Curta and the like (Curta's hypotheses are especially weak in explaining linguistic changes, that's his weakest spot). It's also not really true that they are "40 years ahead of someone". They just have their own school of thought, not necessarily better than other schools, including Russians. Old doesn't mean obsolete ("Old, but not obsolete" - Arnold S. :)).

Oh, and by the way, this "enlightened western scholarship" is not a monolith, but is also divided. For example circles associated with the Oxford University, including scholars such as Peter Heather, rather stick to (slightly modified) "traditional" narrations of the Migration Period - unlike Florin Curta. So let's not denigrate people just for having different interpretations, IMO let's judge each individual theory separately, without labeling and dividing into "enlightened" and "not enlightened" categories...


The corollary is: within "Germania" there could have been- and probably were- non Germanic tribes. Also, outside Germania there were Germanic speaking Goths. But they were never called Germani, but always either Goths, Scythians or even Getae.

And here I agree.

"Germani" was at the beginning just one tribe, later this name "spread" into other similar tribes.

This took place with name "Slavs" too, because we could as well be talking about "Antic languages". After all, the Antes spoke the same language as the Sclaveni. So why did the name "Sclaveni" prevail? Because it did, and why is England called England (after the Angles), and not Saxonia (after the Saxons) or Jutland?

Wessex (West Saxons) was the most powerful realm, so maybe England should be Saxonia.

No, seriously - why did the ethnonym "Anglia / England" prevail? :confused: Is there an explanation?

George
08-12-2015, 03:32 AM
George,

From the Varni they went to Denmark.

Ignore the Gepidae in that map, I'm not sure if they are marked where they really were at that time.



Yes Brittonic / Brythonic means the language of Celts from what is now England and Wales.

The Aestii didn't speak Brythonic. Their language just sounded similar to Brythonic to some Roman traveller (maybe someone from that amber expedition organized by Claudius Iulianus, see above).

I think the Gepidae were then in Transylvania and parts of the Hungarian plain. So the map has them OK--- Yes the notion that some traveller misunderstood and mislabeled the Aestii language is most likely. I didn't want to rule out entirely that some minor Celtic group had survived there. Just a peripheral thought, nothing to insist on.

vettor
08-12-2015, 05:53 AM
They were already well-established along the Carpathians.

Jordanes wrote (V: 30-37), especially (V: 34-35) - describing the situation around year 500 AD:

"(34) Within these rivers lies Dacia, encircled by the lofty Alps as by a crown. Near their left ridge, which inclines toward the north, and beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. Though their names are now dispersed amid various clans and places, yet they are chiefly called Sclaveni and Antes. (35) The abode of the Sclaveni extends from the city of Noviodunum and the lake called Mursianus to the Danaster, and northward as far as the Vistula. (...) The Antes (...) dwelling above the curve of the sea of Pontus, spread from the Danaster to the Danaper, rivers that are many days' journey apart."

Marek Dulnicz, "The Lombard Headman Called Ildigis and the Slavs" (in English), identifies those geographical locations as follows:

http://opac.regesta-imperii.de/lang_en/autoren.php?name=Dulinicz%2C+Marek

http://s23.postimg.org/ilmk9f6q3/Slavs_500_AD.png

1) Noviodunum - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noviodunum_%28castra%29

2) lake Mursianus:

"Lake Mursianus was in fact, according to the majority of researchers, the vast marshes at the juncture of the Drava and the Danube; (...) the lake or marshes in question might have extended as far as to the juncture of the Tisza and the Danube. The lake’s name was derived from the town of Mursa (present-day Osijek)."

3) Danaster = Dniester river

4) Danaper = Dnieper river

5) "Alps" = Carpathians

Source of the Vistula is located close to the present-day Bielsko-Biała: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko-Bia%C5%82a

And "the curve of the sea of Pontus " was the coastline (which forms a nice curve) in the region of present-day Odessa.

[B]Therefore:

http://s14.postimg.org/7u6vch8j5/Slavs_500_AD_c.png

Northern limits of their ranges, however, are uncertain. Western limits are also not precise.

And there was also the 3rd Slavic-speaking ethnos / branch - the Venedi.



It would be like "going from Europe to Africa through Siberia" !!! Makes no sense.

LOL, Jordanes, the born Goth, who lies about history, a pretend bard who never wrote anything but stole works from others and changed them to glorify the Goths.

the line ...........beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. ................should read Veleti dwell. You know very well the Veleti migrated to mecklenburg Germany and became the Wends . Finally to be destroyed in the Wendish crusades of the 12th centuryAD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleti
The Veleti where the only people that lived "at the source of the Vistula" ......................your desperately fabricating stories

Volat
08-12-2015, 06:07 AM
LOL, Jordanes, the born Goth, who lies about history, a pretend bard who never wrote anything but stole works from others and changed them to glorify the Goths.

the line ...........beginning at the source of the Vistula, the populous race of the Venethi dwell, occupying a great expanse of land. ................should read Veleti dwell. You know very well the Veleti migrated to mecklenburg Germany and became the Wends . Finally to be destroyed in the Wendish crusades of the 12th centuryAD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veleti
The Veleti where the only people that lived "at the source of the Vistula" ......................your desperately fabricating stories


Germans called all Slavs "Wends" like Slavs called all Germans "Niemtsi". If not all then many related tribes. If those Slavs in Vistula were Veleti rather than Venedi, then there need be an explanation of possible linguistic transformation in Germanic language:

Veleti > Wenden (Wends) rather than Venedi > Wenden (Wends)

If I am not mistaken Jordanes was not the only one who mentioned Venedi

Volat
08-12-2015, 06:19 AM
In addition, Ptolemy (90AD-168AD) refers to the Baltic Sea as the "Venedic" Bay.

vettor
08-12-2015, 07:25 AM
In addition, Ptolemy (90AD-168AD) refers to the Baltic Sea as the "Venedic" Bay.

Ptolemy was correct, they ( venedi )lived on the baltic sea and only on the coast, ...........as he described ,you can see the venedic montes ( mountains ) from the sea as they are in old prussia near elbrig . They where an insignificant coastal tribe that got annexed by their western neighbours the Gothones. The remnants of the venedi became the vidivanii and later on ( circa 10th century )some state they formed into the warmians ( in the same area as the venedi started ) , old baltic-prussians.

Jordanes referred to this annexation of venedi on the coast by the goths and glorified the size of the venedi to enhance the reputation of the goths and their "great" conquests of peoples as they headed for the black sea ( euxine sea )

Volat
08-12-2015, 07:44 AM
Ptolemy was correct, they ( venedi )lived on the baltic sea and only on the coast, ...........as he described ,you can see the venedic montes ( mountains ) from the sea as they are in old prussia near elbrig . They where an insignificant coastal tribe that got annexed by their western neighbours the Gothones. The remnants of the venedi became the vidivanii and later on ( circa 10th century )some state they formed into the warmians ( in the same area as the venedi started ) , old baltic-prussians.

Jordanes referred to this annexation of venedi on the coast by the goths and glorified the size of the venedi to enhance the reputation of the goths and their "great" conquests of peoples as they headed for the black sea ( euxine sea )

Ptolemy of Alexandria named Baltic Sea as 'Venedic' Bay after people who lived on the Baltic coast? Let's assume Ptolemy was right, but Joradanes was wrong. Another question. Tacitus (98AD) amentioned Venedi, Aestii and Fenni. Aestii were people on the Baltic coast (modern day Kaliningrad and Lithuania) according to several authors. Who did Tacitus describe as Venedi in his book Germania if Aestii were settled on the Baltic coast?

Tomenable
08-12-2015, 09:41 AM
Vettor,

There are lots of "Venedi" or very similar ethnonyms scattered throughout Ancient Europe, including also Gaul and the Adriatic coast.

You cannnot simply pick one out of many "Venedi", and then claim that no other "Venedi" existed, when we have plenty of them.

Maybe later I will post a compilation of all known "Venedi".

But - in general - various authors described "Venedi" in different locations, implying that they described many different tribes.

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 11:09 AM
Gravetto-Danubian:



Tacitus and Pliny didn't set foot outside of the Empire, but the Roman fleet did enter the Baltic Sea in 5 AD (see: Res Gestae Divi Augustii and Naturalis Historia, II.167, IV.95-96), before 9 AD the Romans conquered areas up to the Elbe River, and they also subjected to their overlordship the Marcomanni realm in Bohemia, in which there was presence of Roman merchants and diplomats (Tacitus, Annales II.62 - "lixae ac negotiatores"), and who (the Marcomanni under Marbod) had contact with people living further north (see Tacitus, Annales II.62-63, Paterculus II.109 and Strabo's Geography VII.1-3), including those at the Baltic Sea coast. According to Tacitus (II.61), a Marcomanni exile - Catualda - fled to the Goths, where he recruited a unit (comitatus), with help of which he later overthrew Marbod. Both Catualda and Marbod were later captured by the Romans, and were held in captivity in Ravenna and Gallia Narbonensis, where they were undoubtedly interrogated, so they could tell something about "Barbaricum" north of the Sudetes and Carpathians - especially Catualda could, because he was there personally. Then, during the last years of the reign of Nero, there was an expedition of a Roma eques towards the Baltic Sea, organized in order to collect loads of amber (see Pliny the Elder, XXXVII.45). That expedition visited market places (commercia) and the coasts (litora), bringing back to Italy huge amounts of amber. That expedition was organized by certain Claudius Iulianus. It went from Carnuntum on the Danube (in Noricum) and travelled around 600 Roman miles (almost 900 km), reaching the Baltic Sea.

So as you can see the Romans did have access to some first-hand accounts from that area.


Dear Tomenable

Thank you ! Although not knowing, you have merely illustrated my point.

No one denies the odd roman venture into deep barbaricum. But these were not done by Ptolemy, Tacitus or Jordanes themselves.
So my point stands correct: the above "historians" received garbled information second and third hand, and did not witness anything themselves. you tell me - how reliable would I take your point of view of claiming that your an eye witness when you actually never saw anything, but heard tales of Chinese whispers ?

Furthermore, how reliable is ethnographic information from soldiers and traders ? I can tell you - not very much at all. Look at the Spanish and English arrivals to America. half a world away, and totally the wrong 'race' - they actually thought these people were "Indians".

Now, consider back two thousand years ago- with even less world knowledge and science. You're telling me the odd handful of Roman soldiers could distinguish the minute differences between a Balt, a German, a Slav and a Vened ? ?
Please, have some common sense.

So I iterate to you what I posted a few posts ago - "Germania" was a geographic entity, and not a strictly defined ethno-linguistic one. Tacitus talking of shields and bare-footedness is a hodge-podge malady of literary inventions.

but ultimately, it doesn't matter too much to me if you , George and Volat believe me. What matters is this is the fact accepted by anyone with an actual understanding of how Greco-Roman ethnography worked. I illustrate this to you not to prove any particular point of view, but out of a intention to improve their own personal understanding of history. But when you are accustomed to a particular doctrine, it can be difficult to see the light of the enlightened. One needs to read things themselves to take on new perspectives.

For now, I suggest you try

* "None of them were Germans" by Walter Goffart.

* The barbarians in late antiquity and how they were accommodated in the West . W Goffart. Book chapter in debating the middle Ages. Discusses dbious etymologyical connections which place the Burgundians' "origins" in Polish territory.

* Rome Gothic Wars - by M Kulikowsky. Especially the chapter on the dubious Wielbark-Chernyakov - "Goths" association.

These are all understandable enough, and are a good start for learners.

alan
08-12-2015, 11:49 AM
Well it sounds a bit patronising.

You know, not everyone agrees with Curta and the like (Curta's hypotheses are especially weak in explaining linguistic changes, that's his weakest spot). It's also not really true that they are "40 years ahead of someone". They just have their own school of thought, not necessarily better than other schools, including Russians. Old doesn't mean obsolete ("Old, but not obsolete" - Arnold S. :)).

Oh, and by the way, this "enlightened western scholarship" is not a monolith, but is also divided. For example circles associated with the Oxford University, including scholars such as Peter Heather, rather stick to (slightly modified) "traditional" narrations of the Migration Period - unlike Florin Curta. So let's not denigrate people just for having different interpretations, IMO let's judge each individual theory separately, without labeling and dividing into "enlightened" and "not enlightened" categories...



And here I agree.

"Germani" was at the beginning just one tribe, later this name "spread" into other similar tribes.

This took place with name "Slavs" too, because we could as well be talking about "Antic languages". After all, the Antes spoke the same language as the Sclaveni. So why did the name "Sclaveni" prevail? Because it did, and why is England called England (after the Angles), and not Saxonia (after the Saxons) or Jutland?

Wessex (West Saxons) was the most powerful realm, so maybe England should be Saxonia.

No, seriously - why did the ethnonym "Anglia / England" prevail? :confused: Is there an explanation?

Interesting that the Irish/Scots also used a term derived from Saxon despite the fact that almost all the early contacts were with the Angles of Northumbria. AFAIK the main people pressing towards Wales through the midlands of England were also Angles. Little known fact that the latter raided Meath in Ireland in the 680sAD - the first recorded non-Celtic attack on Ireland. The motives behind it are discussed here:

http://www.historyireland.com/pre-norman-history/when-saxon-strangers-first-came-to-ireland-the-raid-on-brega-ad-684/

Gravetto-Danubian
08-12-2015, 01:33 PM
Well it sounds a bit patronising.

You know, not everyone agrees with Curta and the like (Curta's hypotheses are especially weak in explaining linguistic changes, that's his weakest spot). It's also not really true that they are "40 years ahead of someone". They just have their own school of thought, not necessarily better than other schools, including Russians. Old doesn't mean obsolete ("Old, but not obsolete" - Arnold S. :)).

Oh, and by the way, this "enlightened western scholarship" is not a monolith, but is also divided. For example circles associated with the Oxford University, including scholars such as Peter Heather, rather stick to (slightly modified) "traditional" narrations of the Migration Period - unlike Florin Curta. So let's not denigrate people just for having different interpretations, IMO let's judge each individual theory separately, without labeling and dividing into "enlightened" and "not enlightened" categories...



And here I agree.

"Germani" was at the beginning just one tribe, later this name "spread" into other similar tribes.

This took place with name "Slavs" too, because we could as well be talking about "Antic languages". After all, the Antes spoke the same language as the Sclaveni. So why did the name "Sclaveni" prevail? Because it did, and why is England called England (after the Angles), and not Saxonia (after the Saxons) or Jutland?

Wessex (West Saxons) was the most powerful realm, so maybe England should be Saxonia.

No, seriously - why did the ethnonym "Anglia / England" prevail? :confused: Is there an explanation?

True . I accept it is not for me to judge who is correct or better.



Btw, Heather is increasingly a lone voice. The tide of opinion sees identity as complex, situational, multilayered , and fluctuant. And contrary to the approach of many on this thread, they advise that a literal reading of roman ethnography is exactly what not to do.

Moderator
08-12-2015, 04:29 PM
Warning-All posts are to remain civil and on topic. Personal insults, and insults about east vs west academics will not be tolerated.

vettor
08-12-2015, 06:18 PM
Ptolemy of Alexandria named Baltic Sea as 'Venedic' Bay after people who lived on the Baltic coast? Let's assume Ptolemy was right, but Joradanes was wrong. Another question. Tacitus (98AD) amentioned Venedi, Aestii and Fenni. Aestii were people on the Baltic coast (modern day Kaliningrad and Lithuania) according to several authors. Who did Tacitus describe as Venedi in his book Germania if Aestii were settled on the Baltic coast?

http://i2.wp.com/www.jassa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Sarmatia.jpg
ptolemy map above


see vistula river on the coast, right side of this on coast is Gythones, next to them the phinni, then a river , then Ve ne di , between ve and ne is a river . under this word ve ne di is SARMATIA....then another river then velte tribe

he writes in Latin
“The Greater Venedae races inhabit Sarmatia along the entire Venedicus bay" .................which is same as his map.........some modern historian removed or did not apply along the venedicus bay to fabricate that the venedae controlled all ukraine, belarus, poland, slovakia etc etc

the venedics montes sits under the tribes of Gythones on the map

below the Ve ne di are the are the Galindae, the Sudini, and the Stavani,all baltic-prussian tribes

on the map In the north is the venedic montes
under them sit another baltic -prussian tribe, the Bodini
under them is the Peucini montes
under this is the carpathi montes

The Peucini are the bastanae ( same tribe ) a tribe that was huge in numbers and even supplied Macedonia with 80000 people in their wars..........you will gain far more in knowing the history of the Bastanae than the insignificant venedi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

vettor
08-12-2015, 06:26 PM
Vettor,

There are lots of "Venedi" or very similar ethnonyms scattered throughout Ancient Europe, including also Gaul and the Adriatic coast.

You cannnot simply pick one out of many "Venedi", and then claim that no other "Venedi" existed, when we have plenty of them.

Maybe later I will post a compilation of all known "Venedi".

But - in general - various authors described "Venedi" in different locations, implying that they described many different tribes.

There is only one venedi and they sit on the coast , the naming of people with the greek ae ending to the name, i.e sarmatae, bastanae, Getae etc means many different tribes who are similar to each other in custom or language, but they are not ethnically the same.
so the term sarmatae, can incorporate many different tribes, alans, sklaveni ,avars, and roxlani people ........


do your compilation ...........you will even find them in portugal and ireland , but the conclusion is that there is only one venedi tribe and they resided on the coast and where an insignificant tribe that dealt in amber and where absorbed by the goths prior to their march to the black sea

Brent.B
10-30-2015, 10:42 PM
Certain areas - for example the islands of Rügen and Usedom - were assimilated culturally, and population likely remained in vast majority Slavic in terms of ancestry, despite adoption of German language. Influx of German immigrants to those two islands was rather small. But other areas - such as the region of Wagria - were Germanized through wholesale replacement of Slavs by immigrants. Finally, there were of course also such areas where Slavs stayed, but also many immigrants came, so both groups were intermixed. Eventually the ruling culture in such mixed areas prevailed, and Slavs adopted German language.

Concerning Rügen, do you have any sources that back up what you are saying? I've been curious about the effects of the ostsiedlung there.

parasar
05-23-2017, 09:20 PM
We got some great results. Everything seems to be lining up for the European history and phylogeny of R1a.

A Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia, Russia, (5500 - 5000 BCE) was found to be R1a-M459.

...
Update:
I0061 UzOO74 tooth 3 MathiesonNature2015 (1240k of same same sample with 390k in HaakLazaridis2015) .. 8375 6850-6000 BCE ... Karelia_HG EHG .. Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia .. Russia 61.65 35.65 M C1 R1a1a1
http://biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/41456/field_highwire_adjunct_files/1/135616-2.xlsx