PDA

View Full Version : Greater Poland continuously inhabited during the Migration Period



Tomenable
04-10-2016, 08:48 PM
There was no total hiatus in Greater Poland during the Migration Period, but continuity of settlement.

This article was published in February 2016:

"Migrations from 1500 years ago influenced the shape of modern Europe" (in Polish):

http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,408368,migracje-ludnosci-sprzed-1500-lat-wplynely-na-ksztalt-wspolczesnej-europy.html

This excerpt deserves to be quoted so I've translated it:


"(...) Polish archaeologists long thought, that between the Migration Period and the Middle Ages a total collapse of settlement took place - areas of modern Poland were supposed to be abandoned by previous population, and it was thought that only after some time Slavs came from the east and re-settled the area.

But large-scale archeological studies conducted during the last few decades modify this picture, especially in case of Greater Poland [Wielkopolska region].

Archaeologists point out especially to discoveries from Konarzewo. There they have managed to find the larges up-to-now in Poland number of surviving dwellings, which falsifies the claim, that these areas were abandoned during the Migration Period. (...) Constructions are from the 5th and the 6th centuries. They are connected with people representing Przeworsk culture.

"Przeworks culture during its existence was an entity with an undoubtedly germanic cultural model, but it doesn't mean, that it was formed exclusively by Germanic population" - says prof. Michałowski

Prof. Michałowski cannot provide an explicit answer to the question who inhabited multiple settlements flourishing in Greater Poland in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. Material culture - excavated items - indicate germanic influences, "but we don't know what was really their ethnic identity - most likely they just considered themselves to be locals, born in that place, and desiring to live there until their death" - concludes prof. Michałowski.

It is thought that Slavs appeared in areas of present-day Poland in the 2nd half of the 6th century or in the 7th century.

Conclusions of prof. Michałowski are supported by findings of a team of scientists who are members of the research Project "Migration Period between Odra and Vistula" (LINK to project's website (http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/project)), directed by prof. Alexander Bursche.

These scientists have already established by now, that in the mid-1st millennium a total disappearance of human settlement did NOT take place in the territory of present-day Poland. According to this research team, the population adhering to germanic cultural traditions, which was present in the territory of present-day Poland during the Migration Period, stayed and became assimilated with the Slavs. (...)"

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 09:25 PM
Przeworsk culture = Lugiorum Nomen (the federation of Lugii Tribes). Vandals were just part of it.

According to source [1] cited by Polish wikipedia, the Lugii were - genetically - descended from previous populations of Lusatian and Pomeranian cultures, but were culturally and linguistically influenced by the Celts and later by Germanic tribes:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lugiowie


Lugiowie, Ligiowie (łac. Lugii, Lygii, Lugiones, gr. Lougoi) – lud indoeuropejski, którego pochodzenie oraz skład etniczny jest niepewny. Mogła być to federacja różnych plemion zamieszkująca już przed naszą erą i w pierwszych wiekach naszej ery górne dorzecze Odry i Wisły, a więc teren dzisiejszej południowej i środkowej Polski, a także podkarpackie tereny zachodniej Ukrainy. Genetycznie pochodzili zapewne w głównej mierze z lokalnych grup ludności używających języków staroeuropejskich lub indoeuropejskich (kultury łużycka i pomorska), uległych celtyckim wpływom kulturowym (nieliczni na ziemiach polskich Celtowie nie mogli stanowić znaczniejszego substratu etnicznego) i zgermanizowanych[1].

The ethnonym "Lugii" is of Celtic origin, as explained for example here on Polish historycy.org:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=42083&view=findpost&p=1510475

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

We have ancient R1a-Z280 from westernmost part of the Lusatian culture (sample HAL36).

Gravetto-Danubian
04-10-2016, 09:46 PM
There was no total hiatus in Greater Poland during the Migration Period, but continuity of settlement.

This article was published in February 2016:

"Migrations from 1500 years ago influenced the shape of modern Europe" (in Polish):

http://naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,408368,migracje-ludnosci-sprzed-1500-lat-wplynely-na-ksztalt-wspolczesnej-europy.html

This excerpt deserves to be quoted so I've translated it:

Not a total disappearance, but a MASSIVE depopulation nevertheless. The finding of odd sites here and there doesn't change the overall picture - most of which are stray findings and therfor of questionable worth. And by the 6th century, these late 'Przeworsk' are barely Przeworsk. Rather, they seem to be eastern outposts of the Thuringian realm.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 09:53 PM
Not a total disappearance, but a MASSIVE depopulation nevertheless.

A massive depopulation was apparently in East Germany, Lusatia, Pomerania, Silesia, Mazovia, Lesser Poland, etc.

But NOT in Greater Poland, which was a hotspot of population, and where later Poland emerged in the 10th century.

In other words - everywhere around Greater Poland there was a depopulation, but Greater Poland was a "refugium".

At least this is what these archaeologists are telling us - please read again these excerpts:


modify this picture, especially in case of Greater Poland [Wielkopolska region].

multiple settlements flourishing in Greater Poland in the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries.

They write that they found evidence of continous settlement during the Migration Period, and add:

"especially in Greater Poland"

They are putting special emphasis on Wielkopolska - so they didn't find similar evidence elsewhere.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 09:53 PM
This is what I have been suspecting for a long time.

That re-population was from within, not from outside. People survived in one region, and re-populated neighbouring regions.

Genetic and anthropological evidence is also showing this. We have R1a-Z280 in the Lusatian culture in the Late Bronze Age.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-10-2016, 09:59 PM
This is what I have been suspecting for a long time.

That re-population was from within, not from outside. People survived in one region, and re-populated neighbouring regions.

Genetic and anthropological evidence is also showing this. We have R1a-Z280 in the Lusatian culture in the Late Bronze Age.

I disagree. As I told you, you need to look at population densities in late 5th century and early 6th century in EE. There were areas with large concentrations of settlements - but Poland was not one.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:04 PM
Your opinion is based on books from several or more years ago.

And this thread is based on new, most recent excavations.

So you will need to modify your views of population density.


population densities in late 5th century and early 6th century in EE. There were areas with large concentrations of settlements - but Poland was not one.

Poland as a whole was not, but the region of Wielkopolska was.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:05 PM
West Slavs seem to be descended from Slavicized "Baltoid" Venedi.

This also explains why ethnonym Wends has been applied to them.

Already Jordanes & Procopius distinguished 3 kinds of Slavic people:

- Venedi, Antes and Sclaveni

They also noted that those settling the Balkans were Antes & Sclaveni.

So Antes and Sclaveni were I2a-heavy groups, Venedi were R1a-heavy.

Venedi were noted as living along the Vistula arleady in Roman period.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:16 PM
Ashkeazi Jews increased from 330 people to 9 million people during ~800 years:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/ashkenazi-jews-linked-to-group-of-just-330-people-from-1633051380

How many people were necessary in 500 AD to re-populate Poland until year 1000 AD ???

I've asked a question about the effective population size of Slavic populations in 500 AD:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6832-Effective-population-size-of-Slavs-before-the-Migration-Period&p=149155&viewfull=1#post149155

Is there evidence that present-day Slavs are descended from a small group of Proto-Slavs?

Gravetto-Danubian
04-10-2016, 10:18 PM
Your opinion is based on books from several or more years ago.

And this thread is based on new, most recent excavations.

So you will need to modify your views of population density.



Poland as a whole was not, but the region of Wielkopolska was.

No my opinion is based on the very latest data , which I kindly obtain direct from Polish archaeologists.
You've jumped to the conclusion that because we now had 4 settlements in Greater Poland which might date as late as 6th century (but really, the majority date only to the 5th, as the 6th century is only represented by an extreme outlier of the radiocarbon calibration curve confidence interval in 1 or 2 cases, and all other 6th century finds are stray), that it was demographically burgeoning.

By contrast, there are scores (up to a hundred) of settlements close to the Carpathians, west Bank Ukraine, and by the lower Danube




West Slavs seem to be descended from Slavicized "Baltoid" Venedi.

This also explains why ethnonym Wends has been applied to them.

Already Jordanes & Procopius distinguished 3 kinds of Slavic people:

- Venedi, Antes and Sclaveni

They also noted that those settling the Balkans were Antes & Sclaveni.

So Antes and Sclaveni were I2a-heavy groups, Venedi were R1a-heavy.

Venedi were noted as living along the Vistula arleady in Roman period.

There were no such people as Venedi in the 6th century. The only person to use it was Jordanes, because he anachronized the term from predecessors like Tacitus.
But I would agree that west Slavs have significant pre-Slavic (late Germanic, or "Venedic" (in a loose / sloppy use of the word) in them.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:22 PM
But I would agree that west Slavs have significant pre-Slavic (late Germanic, or "Venedic" (in a loose / sloppy use of the word) in them.

There is a real genetic wall separating Germans from Lusatian Sorbs, Kashubians and Poles.

This shows that whomever West Slavs have "in them", was genetically not like modern Germans.

Sorbs even after several centuries of living next to Germans are still genetically distinct from them.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:24 PM
Swedes are much more closely related to North-West Slavs than Germans.

Which probably tells us about the genetic nature of "East Germanic" tribes.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:32 PM
There were no such people as Venedi in the 6th century.

On what basis do you claim this?

Have you managed to link some archaeological culture to Venedi, and found out that this culture disappeared?

Venedi at the Vistula were mentioned not only by Tacitus, also by numerous other Roman era sources.

And contrary to what Vettor likes to claim, Venedi were not only along the coast, but all over Eastern Poland.

leonardo
04-10-2016, 10:32 PM
Swedes are much more closely related to North-West Slavs than Germans.

You may be correct. Deep clade y-dna will bear the results.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:36 PM
I was talking about autosomal DNA though.

"Genetic Heritage of Balto-Slavs..." (2015) talked about "Baltic-like genetic substratum in West & East Slavs".

This Baltic-like genetic substratum can indeed represent pre-Migration Period population.

Whether it spoke a Germanic language is another issue, but genetically was "Baltic-like".

leonardo
04-10-2016, 10:39 PM
I was talking about autosomal DNA though.

"Genetic Heritage of Balto-Slavs..." (2015) talked about "Baltic-like genetic substratum in West & East Slavs".

This Baltic-like genetic substratum can indeed represent pre-Migration Period population.

Whether it spoke a Germanic language is another issue, but genetically was "Baltic-like".

Is there a reason that y-dna would not be considered relevant?

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 10:58 PM
By contrast, there are scores (up to a hundred) of settlements close to the Carpathians, west Bank Ukraine, and by the lower Danube

Are there some archaeological maps of Europe, showing settlements dating to each century (e.g. 4th, 5th, 6th centuries)?

It would be nice to have such maps, to check which areas of Europe were really depopulated at that time.

Because AFAIK depopulation was not just in Poland, but in all of Central and Eastern Europe, with few exceptions.

Hard to imagine that half of the continent was abandoned by people, so other explanations are needed (like e.g. plagues).

Gravetto-Danubian
04-10-2016, 10:59 PM
On what basis do you claim this?

Have you managed to link some archaeological culture to Venedi, and found out that this culture disappeared?

Venedi at the Vistula were mentioned not only by Tacitus, also by numerous other Roman era sources.

And contrary to what Vettor likes to claim, Venedi were not only along the coast, but all over Eastern Poland.

Always one step forward, two steps back, it seems.

haven't you noticed already a few days ago that "Venedi' was an imprecise term- a generic exo-ethonym used by Romans to refer to the communities east of the Oder-Vistula, like Europeans used the terms "Indians" to refer to various and different native Americans ?

And weren't there several different Roman Iron-Age cultures in EE - Przeworsk, Wielbark, Lubozsyce, West Balt where a literal, Gustav Kossinian reading of Roman sources would place the Venedi?. So where would you 'definitively' place your Venedi ? Everywhere, in all cultures ?
Or Nowhere ?

Whatever the case, all these culture collapsed by 450 AD, even if 4 houses remained into 500 AD. Whatever identity was left, it would have markedly changed, and it seems to have been linked to Thuringia.

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 11:03 PM
even if 4 houses remained into 500 AD.

First you mentioned 4 settlements (each with dozens of houses), but now just 4 houses ??? :P

Even 10,000 people would be enough to increase to a few million after a few centuries.

Ashkenazi Jews supposedly increased from few hundred to few million during up to 800 years.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-10-2016, 11:11 PM
First you mentioned 4 settlements (each with dozens of houses), but now just 4 houses ??? :P

Even 10,000 people would be enough to increase to a few million after a few centuries.

Ashkenazi Jews supposedly increased from few hundred to few million during up to 800 years.

Tongue in cheek

This is what europe looked like :

8742

Bottom is c, 420 AD (Hun period); top is c. 500 AD.
Still in progress, and please just keep for here

Tomenable
04-10-2016, 11:56 PM
These maps show that Greater Poland was indeed settled in year 500 AD.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 01:41 AM
These maps show that Greater Poland was indeed settled in year 500 AD.

But it would appear there were also additional migrations from the southeast. As you say, a Slavicizsation of native 'Veneds', 'Lugi', proto-Vandals, or whatever other name we might choose as a catch-all term for the peoples in the Oder-Vistula region.

Brent.B
04-11-2016, 02:44 AM
But it would appear there were also additional migrations from the southeast. As you say, a Slavicizsation of native 'Veneds', 'Lugi', proto-Vandals, or whatever other name we might choose as a catch-all term for the peoples in the Oder-Vistula region.

I wonder what yDNA these local "veneds" would have... M458? Or would that (m458) be from the immigrants from the southeast?

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 03:40 AM
I wonder what yDNA these local "veneds" would have... M458? Or would that (m458) be from the immigrants from the southeast?

We're all eagerly awaiting to find out ;)

vettor
04-11-2016, 07:07 AM
I wonder what yDNA these local "veneds" would have... M458? Or would that (m458) be from the immigrants from the southeast?

IMO, ............just on R1 in Poland prior to the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire...........I say there was more R1b than R1a in poland at the time, its the only logical sense ....if the lombards, vandals, visigoths, burgundians, Rugii, veneds, ostrogoths etc etc where more R1a than R1b, we would see the results now in western europe, ie, Spain, Italy, France, north-africa.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 08:01 AM
the lombards, vandals, visigoths, burgundians, Rugii, veneds, ostrogoths etc.

The thing is that all those tribes combined had smaller population than the City of Rome alone.

That's why genetics shows no evidence of any admixture in Southern Europe from that period.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 08:17 AM
there are scores (up to a hundred) of settlements close to the Carpathians, west Bank Ukraine, and by the lower Danube.

Does it refer to the number of settlements from Prague-Korchak + Penkovka combined ???

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 09:22 AM
Another article:

"Czy Polacy to Germanie?" ("Are the Poles Germanic?"):

http://www.polskieradio.pl/7/179/Artykul/1124539,Czy-Polacy-to-Germanie

Translated excerpt:


What kind of genes do we have? What was hapenning in present-day Poland in the middle of the 1st millennium? What communities lived here? This is one of the greatest mysteries, which is attempted to be solved by both historians, and archaeologists, for years.

These mysteries are supposed to be solved by the results of research conducted as part of the "Migration Period in the basins of the Oder and the Vistula" project, by a team of archaeologists under prof. Aleksander Bursche. (...)

20-30 years ago people did not bother about this problem, because it was assumed, that Slavs had been living here for times immemorial. But since the 1970s a new theory is being promoted: that Slavs had come to our lands only in the 5th and 6th centuries. What did they find?

- This theory was first proposed by prof. Kazimierz Godłowski. He wrote, that in the 5th century cultures with germanic traditions disappeared, and later gradual appearance of slavic settlement took place - explains prof. Aleksander Bursche. - and this is the picture that we want to research in detail. Already our first results indicate, that the reality was not so one-sided. Also first results of studies by biologists [geneticists?] indicate this.

In the 4th century in many regions of Poland settlements of Germanic tribes started to disappear. But some results negate this. - They are surprising. They show, that in some regions, for example at the lower Vistula and in Cuiavia, germanic settlement survived on a local scale. Both archaeological findings and studies on pollen of plants from bodies of water indicate this - says PhD Bartosz Kontny.

If in sediments we find pollen of agricultural plants, then it means, that someone was still practicing agriculture and settlement continued - he explains."

But why are they assuming that those were "Germanic tribes".

Their DNA was nothing like this of modern Germanic-speakers.

There are already first aDNA results from Wielbark culture.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 09:32 AM
Does it refer to the number of settlements from Prague-Korchak + Penkovka combined ???

Its hard to come up with definite numbers, but in the early 500s, we might have something like
* 4 settlements in Pomerania; These appear to have no link to past Wielbark-Oksywie groups, but new Scandinavian settlers.
* Similar number in lower Odra region. Appear to be linked to Thuringia.
* What you mentioned in Greater Poland, incl around Poznan. 4 - 5 sites.
* SE POland: 2-3 Kolochin settlements, ? 1 or 2 residual Maslomecz culture
* NE Poland: several sites of Elblag, Oltzyn, etc, Baltic groups.

In Podolia, Moldavia, middle Dnieper Ukraine: probably 40 by 600, going to up to 100 known settlements in the broader region, likely more.

Lastly, the Carpathian basin, where the largest concentration of population in EE as. Although many Germanic groups left for Italy, Spain, etc, a significant portion remained, especially Gepids, Rugi, some Goths in Dalmatia, and perhaps as far as Macedonia & Epirus. These late Germanic groups in Carpathian basin, along with actual 'Slavs" from further east, late nomads, residual Romance speakers etc, became Slavicized and expanded to West Balkans, southern Poland, Bohemia, etc. So the population which left north-eastern Europe c. 400 AD in part might have returned after 5/600 AD.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 09:59 AM
^^ Based on your post above, ~20 settlements in Poland in the 500s, compared to ~40 in Prague-Penkovka by 600.

Does it really show that Poland was "depopulated" compared to areas further east during the 500s ???

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 10:07 AM
^^ Based on your post above, ~20 settlements in Poland in the 500s, compared to ~40 in Prague-Penkovka by 600.

Does it really show that Poland was "depopulated" compared to areas further east during the 500s ???

No. I have never thought Poland was depopulated. However, would you agree that Prague - Penkova region was the Sklavenes and Antes, which later spread elsewhere to ECE & SEE ?
I think you'd say yes.

Tomenable
04-11-2016, 10:21 AM
Anthropological investigation of populations of the Middle Elbe - Saale region in the 400s - 1100s period (in German):

http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-27577/TLDA_WMUF_13027304X_19.pdf

English summary is on pages 74 - 76. The map and the list of compared populations on pages 29 - 31.

Check also dendrograms from page 43.

Michał
04-11-2016, 05:33 PM
A massive depopulation was apparently in East Germany, Lusatia, Pomerania, Silesia, Mazovia, Lesser Poland, etc.

But NOT in Greater Poland, which was a hotspot of population, and where later Poland emerged in the 10th century.

In other words - everywhere around Greater Poland there was a depopulation, but Greater Poland was a "refugium".

Since they also write that this "exceptional level of continuity" in some sites in Greater Poland could be most likely attributed to the Germanic remnants who were subsequently assimilated by the Slavic newcomers, I guess you would conclude that Greater Poland (and thus the Polans) were much more strongly influenced (genetically) by the Germanic substratum than any other West Slavic population (including the Mazovians, Vistulans, Moravians, Bohemians and Polabians). EDIT: I have just noticed that you don't consider those Przeworsk remnants from Greater Poland to have spoken Germanic. Anyway, which specific Y-dna clades would you associate with those "local" Polans? According to your scenario, these should be some R1a (mostly M458) subclades that are specific to Poland (and most frequent in Greater Poland) but practically absent in such places like Russia or Czech Republic. Honestly speaking, I don't see any good candidates.

Michał
04-11-2016, 06:00 PM
I've asked a question about the effective population size of Slavic populations in 500 AD:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6832-Effective-population-size-of-Slavs-before-the-Migration-Period&p=149155&viewfull=1#post149155

Is there evidence that present-day Slavs are descended from a small group of Proto-Slavs?
I have once discussed this question in another thread:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=117663&viewfull=1#post117663

Michał
04-11-2016, 06:05 PM
Swedes are much more closely related to North-West Slavs than Germans..
Could you please provide a reference to the source of this statement?

Brent.B
04-11-2016, 09:44 PM
Wasn't there a study done a few years ago showing mtDNA continuity from iron age Poland to today? I suppose that these archeological findings add more support to the theory that Poland was not depopulated... Like Michał said above, I wonder what yDNA will be associated with these "local Polans".

If we do assume that Poland was NOT depopulated completely in the 500-600's, then I wonder where all the "Germanic" yDNA in Poland went? Shouldn't we be expecting to find some? IIRC, there is very little/no Germanic DNA in these regions today... meaning perhaps that the people inhabiting the region (Przeworsk/Wielbark) are not Germanic after all?

lgmayka
04-11-2016, 10:46 PM
IIRC, there is very little/no Germanic DNA in these regions today... meaning perhaps that the people inhabiting the region (Przeworsk/Wielbark) are not Germanic after all?
The Early Slavs by Barford suggests a couple of explanations.
---
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.
---

In short, he suggests two possibilities:

- The local people had adopted Germanic physical culture (though not necessarily language) for a period. When the infrastructure to support that culture collapsed, the people turned to a simpler but more sustainable culture.

- The local people had been led by a Germanic elite. When that elite fled with their Germanic culture and infrastructure, the remaining locals turned to a simpler but more sustainable culture.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-11-2016, 10:52 PM
The Early Slavs by Barford suggests a couple of explanations.
---
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.
---

In short, he suggests two possibilities:

- The local people had adopted Germanic physical culture (though not necessarily language) for a period. When the infrastructure to support that culture collapsed, the people turned to a simpler but more sustainable culture.

- The local people had been led by a Germanic elite. When that elite fled with their Germanic culture and infrastructure, the remaining locals turned to a simpler but more sustainable culture.

I find these arguments unsatisfactory, as they ultimately derive from Walter Pohl & the "Vienna school'. I respect both Barford and Pohl & crew, but this theory doesn't make sense to me, and has been criticized by some historians (eg Andrew Murray) as the Germanicism of old in disguise. That is, it suggests that only peasants stayed behind to become Slavs. Maybe, the only the more desparate needed to immigrate , whilst the more secure simply remained where they were ? Ha

Barford also tries to ignore the evident depopulation of the region, minimalizing it to an elite departure when quite clearly it was more than that.

Brent.B
04-12-2016, 01:36 AM
[/B]

I find these arguments unsatisfactory, as they ultimately derive from Walter Pohl & the "Vienna school'. I respect both Barford and Pohl & crew, but this theory doesn't make sense to me, and has been criticized by some historians (eg Andrew Murray) as the Germanicism of old in disguise. That is, it suggests that only peasants stayed behind to become Slavs. Maybe, the only the more desparate needed to immigrate , whilst the more secure simply remained where they were ? Ha

Barford also tries to ignore the evident depopulation of the region, minimalizing it to an elite departure when quite clearly it was more than that.

What about the first argument that lgmayka put? There is clearly evidence of depopulation happening, but apparently this did not happen in all areas. As a result, there should be Germanic Y-DNA in the region today, where there seems to be none. Combined with mtDNA showing genetic continuity, this article seems to give credit to the autochthonous school.

I know there are a lot of people on the forum that believe the Przeworsk/Wielbark culture was germanic, but if one takes that position then the only way to explain the absence of Germanic DNA in the region is by believing they ALL left... otherwise there would be german yDNA there today.

From my layman perspective, the situation makes sense if one believes that
1) The ancestors of today's Pole's lived in Poland.
2) These ancestors went through a crisis where the population partially-to-largely died depending on the region (Collapse of Rome and it's trade networks, disease, invasion by the huns, etc.)
3) As a result of this crisis, a new culture emerges to replace the last one (material change from Przeworsk/Wielbark to the Sukow-Dziedzice culture. The culture is more egalitarian than the last because the trade networks that supported the elites fell apart along with Rome)
4) Now "Slavic History" as we know it starts...

Gravetto-Danubian
04-12-2016, 03:32 AM
What about the first argument that lgmayka put? There is clearly evidence of depopulation happening, but apparently this did not happen in all areas. As a result, there should be Germanic Y-DNA in the region today, where there seems to be none. Combined with mtDNA showing genetic continuity, this article seems to give credit to the autochthonous school.

It affected *all* areas of Poland. Definitely. There is a marked population drop. But it also affected all of northern Europe, from northern Germany to the East Baltic. It had 3 stages

(1) a gradual population shift south c. 300 AD (eg Przeworsk & Wielbark shifting south gradually, and Elbe_Germani moving into Alemania)
(2) a precipitous drop c. 400 AD
(3) final post 450 AD.

You can see the find spots in late 5th century / early 6th.
Note in Pomerania, for example - there was a change over in population 3 times over: the final Oder-Germanic groups disappeared by 450 AD, a groups of Scandinavians settled c. 500 AD, then the Slavs arrived c. 650 AD.

8763

C. 300 AD Pomerania

8763

500 AD

8765

Central Poland 300 AD

8766

450-500 AD

The least affected area was the Baltic northeast corner



I know there are a lot of people on the forum that believe the Przeworsk/Wielbark culture was germanic, but if one takes that position then the only way to explain the absence of Germanic DNA in the region is by believing they ALL left... otherwise there would be german yDNA there today.

It depends on what you call "Germanic' culturally.
But there is Germanic Y DNA -I1 and R1b -u106 make up to 20 % of the population, perhaps more if you count other R1b sub-groups.
Plus we don't know what central and eastern Germanics looked like genetically. As Tom has pointed out, modern Germans are largely Rhenish derived due to depopulation on old saxony



From my layman perspective, the situation makes sense if one believes that
1) The ancestors of today's Pole's lived in Poland.
2) These ancestors went through a crisis where the population partially-to-largely died depending on the region (Collapse of Rome and it's trade networks, disease, invasion by the huns, etc.)
3) As a result of this crisis, a new culture emerges to replace the last one (material change from Przeworsk/Wielbark to the Sukow-Dziedzice culture. The culture is more egalitarian than the last because the trade networks that supported the elites fell apart along with Rome)
4) Now "Slavic History" as we know it starts...

Yes I see you've read Urbanczyk. But it is not only a 'social crisis" and a 'dissolving' into an egalitarian mass. Rather, every sub-region sees different processes, and if anything, the classic Przeworsk period was more egalitarian than 370 - 450 when several "princely" graves appear. As mentioned, Pomerania appears to have become linked to Swedish power structures, Silesia to Thuringia, and southern Poland first part of Huns, then later Avar political spheres. And I believe there is good evidence of a migration from Ukraine +/- Bealrus and possibly the Carpathian basin also - spreading up the Vistula as Marek Dulinicz's work with radiocarbon and dendrodates shows. But I'll have more to say bout this in near future.

As to from where most modern Poles derive their ancestry from, aDNA will hopefully reveal where precursor M458 was in the Iron Age, but that 50% of Poles bear it suggests a massive founder effect, just like I2a in West Balkans

About the Sukow culture- this has long been a question archaeologists have pondered, often thought of being a specially adapted 'northern tradition' of north-western Slavs. However, such surface-level rounded houses have also been found in Bohemia, Slovenia & eastern Croatia.

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 07:22 AM
As to from where most modern Poles derive their ancestry from, aDNA will hopefully reveal where precursor M458 was in the Iron Age, but that 50% of Poles bear it suggests a massive founder effect, just like I2a in West Balkans

M458 is by no means as much as 50% of modern Poles. M458 is around half of all R1a of modern Poles (or 60-40 percent). There are regional differences, but depending on sample, M458 tends to be 40-60% of R1a and Z280 forms the other 40-60%.


suggests a massive founder effect, just like I2a in West Balkans

One difference is that, AFAIK, most common clades of M458 are much older (TMRCA) than most common clades of I2a.

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 07:31 AM
Anyway, which specific Y-dna clades would you associate with those "local" Polans?

I'm not sure, but in this link you and T101 made your predictions:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=146987&viewfull=1#post146987

And I think that T101's prediction is much closer to what we'll find.

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 07:34 AM
Could you please provide a reference to the source of this statement?

It's my observation from several sources.

Autosomally speaking, North-West Slavs seem to be closer to Swedes and Norwegians than to Germans. Maybe this is only because of shared deep ancestry (i.e. much more of SHG / EHG / WHG admixture), but perhaps due to more recent events too.

When you look at Y-DNA, you can also see that e.g. Kashubians share more Y-DNA with Swedes than with Germans.

R1b is less numerous than I1 among Kashubians.

lgmayka
04-12-2016, 09:13 AM
But there is Germanic Y DNA -I1 and R1b -u106 make up to 20 % of the population, perhaps more if you count other R1b sub-groups.
Certainly not in Poland as a whole. A better estimate of I1 is 6%, and of R1b-U106 perhaps 5%. Here is a reasonable summary of percentages (http://www.gwozdz.org/Results.html).

Plus we don't know what central and eastern Germanics looked like genetically. As Tom has pointed out, modern Germans are largely Rhenish derived due to depopulation on old saxony.
That argument could apply to almost any place on earth. We don't have sufficient ancient samples from anywhere to be absolutely certain that major population changes did not take place from then until now.

As to from where most modern Poles derive their ancestry from, aDNA will hopefully reveal where precursor M458 was in the Iron Age, but that 50% of Poles bear it suggests a massive founder effect, just like I2a in West Balkans
R1a-M458 is about 25% in Poles. But just as important is the fact that R1a-M458 divided into two major clades (L260 and CTS11962) at least 4500 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/). (Michał would raise that to 4950-5400 years.) R1a-L260 and R1a-CTS11962 must be treated as two separate cases. They probably rose to dominance in two different tribes or cultures, perhaps separated by considerable distance.

- R1a-L260 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L260/) split off one subclade about 2500 years ago, then another rougly 2300 years ago. Its major expansion (as R1a-YP254) began only 2000 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP254/).

- R1a-CTS11962 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS11962/) split off a subclade about 3300 years ago, but otherwise began a very rapid expansion (as R1a-L1029) only 2100 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/).

Although R1a-L260 and R1a-CTS11962 each have at least 8% share in modern Poland, their patterns of concentration outside that country are rather different. Compare this map of L260 (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/35/) with this map of L1029 (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/371/).

Gravetto-Danubian
04-12-2016, 09:20 AM
Certainly not in Poland as a whole. A better estimate of I1 is 6%, and of R1b-U106 perhaps 5%.

That argument could apply to almost any place on earth. We don't have sufficient ancient samples from anywhere to be absolutely certain that major population changes did not take place from then until now.

R1a-M458 is closer to 25% in Poles. But just as important is the fact that R1a-M458 divided into two major clades (L260 and CTS11962) at least 4500 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/). (Michał would raise that to 4950-5400 years.) R1a-L260 and R1a-CTS11962 must be treated as two separate cases, which almost certainly rose to dominance in two different tribes or cultures, perhaps separated by considerable distance.

- R1a-L260 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L260/) barely survived until 2500 years ago. Its major expansion (as R1a-YP254) began only 2000 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP254/).

- R1a-CTS11962 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-CTS11962/) split off a small subclade about 3300 years ago, but otherwise began a very rapid expansion (as R1a-L1029) only 2100 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/).

Although R1a-L260 and R1a-CTS11962 each have over 10% share in modern Poland, their patterns of concentration outside that country are very different. Compare this map of L260 (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/35/) with this map of L1029 (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/371/).

I had read somehwere that I1 was as high as 15%, perhaps only in northern Poland. But thanks for the clarification of the figures

I guess a question which remains is how differentially distributed the several 'pan-Slavic' lineages were before the migrations versus how much it represents chance regional founding effects after them.

Michał
04-12-2016, 12:36 PM
Wasn't there a study done a few years ago showing mtDNA continuity from iron age Poland to today?
This was what the authors were claiming, although they were actually unable to demonstrate that the modern mtDNA lineages in Poland are derived from those found in Wielbark or Przeworsk rather than from some newcomers from the East. This has been discussed on the Molgen forum:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=464
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=1161&start=15



If we do assume that Poland was NOT depopulated completely in the 500-600's, then I wonder where all the "Germanic" yDNA in Poland went? Shouldn't we be expecting to find some? IIRC, there is very little/no Germanic DNA in these regions today... meaning perhaps that the people inhabiting the region (Przeworsk/Wielbark) are not Germanic after all?
Well, if trusting the modern STR results from Greater Poland (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=144653&viewfull=1#post144653), this part of Poland seems to show slightly elevated level of both major haplogroups associated with Germanic ancestry, ie. R1b and I1. On the other hand, the same is seen for L260 and I2, although in the latter case this might include an increased proportion of some "Germanic" clades under I2a-M223 rather than increased frequency of Slavic I2a-CTS10228, so one would need to take a closer look at these haplotypes in order to distinguish between these two species.

Importantly, it will be very difficult to distinguish between the Y-DNA lineages derived from ancient Germanic inhabitants and those brought in by more recent (Late Medieval and post-Medieval) German newcomers to Greater Poland.

My father in law is from clade R1b-Z326 (https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?msa=0&ie=UTF&mid=z_p0jL71037U.kLfL3od2nvQk) (more specifically Z326>Z325>CTS2509*(>FGC564*)), a typical Germanic clade that is also found in Poland and Italy (including Sicily), and I also have a friend who belongs to the Germanic subclade I2a-Z161 under M223. They both originate from the Świętokrzyskie region in Central Poland and their surnames indicate Polish origin.

Michał
04-12-2016, 02:04 PM
- The local people had adopted Germanic physical culture (though not necessarily language) for a period. When the infrastructure to support that culture collapsed, the people turned to a simpler but more sustainable culture.
It is hard to believe that this was left unnoticed by so many ancient historians, most notably by Tacitus who has specifically mentioned those tribes in ancient "Germania" that spoke non-Germanic languages, but neither of those tribes was located in today's Poland (if not counting the Aestii in Old Prussia).


- The local people had been led by a Germanic elite. When that elite fled with their Germanic culture and infrastructure, the remaining locals turned to a simpler but more sustainable culture.
As noted by Gravetto-Danubian, the major problem with this scenario is that Przeworsk was a very "homogeneous" culture (as opposed to Wielbark with its bi-ritual cemeteries) and nothing indicates that it included two different subpopulations that did not interbreed (so there was no exchange of the Y-DNA lineages) and have somehow managed to preserve their separate languages for about seven centuries. On the other hand, placing the Proto-Slavs in Wielbark is associated with even more problems, so changing Przeworsk for Wielbark does not help much.

Secondly, we would need to explain how this "oppressed" Slavic language from Przeworsk was able to suddenly expand east and south, as the data from Poland indicate that after the "Germanic elite" left Poland by about 400 AD, the local people have barely survived until their "moderate revival" in the 7th-8th century, so how come those few surviving Slavic groupings were able to occasionally cross the Danube and plunder the Byzantine territory (starting from the first half of the 6th century!).

Thirdly, this scenario does not explain how it was possible that all those young Slavic clades under CTS11962 and L260 (plus those under Z280, not to mention I2a-CTS10228) were spread to Ukraine, Russia, Pannonia, Bulgaria, etc. When exactly could it happen (under the assumption that the sudden expansion of L1029 and L260 was associated with the "rebirth" of the local "post-Germanic" population in Poland)? In case your variant of this scenario assumes that it was only L260 (plus some minor lineages under Z280) that was born and expanded from Poland, you still need to explain how to reconcile the influx of the Early Slavs from the East (Korchak-Prague) with the expansion of L260 out of Poland (please note that the total number of L260 among the Eastern Slavs is more or less equal to that among the Western Slavs).

Michał
04-12-2016, 02:25 PM
What about the first argument that lgmayka put? There is clearly evidence of depopulation happening, but apparently this did not happen in all areas. As a result, there should be Germanic Y-DNA in the region today, where there seems to be none. Combined with mtDNA showing genetic continuity, this article seems to give credit to the autochthonous school.

I know there are a lot of people on the forum that believe the Przeworsk/Wielbark culture was germanic, but if one takes that position then the only way to explain the absence of Germanic DNA in the region is by believing they ALL left... otherwise there would be german yDNA there today.

From my layman perspective, the situation makes sense if one believes that
1) The ancestors of today's Pole's lived in Poland.
2) These ancestors went through a crisis where the population partially-to-largely died depending on the region (Collapse of Rome and it's trade networks, disease, invasion by the huns, etc.)
3) As a result of this crisis, a new culture emerges to replace the last one (material change from Przeworsk/Wielbark to the Sukow-Dziedzice culture. The culture is more egalitarian than the last because the trade networks that supported the elites fell apart along with Rome)
4) Now "Slavic History" as we know it starts...
So how exactly would you date the start of that hypothetical Slavic expansion out of Poland? Please note that the expanding Slavs have reached the lower Danube by about 530 AD, and this was a period when Poland has not even started to recover from the extremely strong demographic crisis. Also, which archeological cultures from the post-Germanic period would you associate with the massive Slavic expansion eastward and southward? Please note that based on the genetics (including both autosomes and Y-DNA), we know that this was a massive population movement and not just a strong cultural influence.

George
04-12-2016, 02:47 PM
It is hard to believe that this was left unnoticed by so many ancient historians, most notably by Tacitus who has specifically mentioned those tribes in ancient "Germania" that spoke non-Germanic languages, but neither of those tribes was located in today's Poland (if not counting the Aestii in Old Prussia).


As noted by Gravetto-Danubian, the major problem with this scenario is that Przeworsk was a very "homogeneous" culture (as opposed to Wielbark with its bi-ritual cemeteries) and nothing indicates that it included two different subpopulations that did not interbreed (so there was no exchange of the Y-DNA lineages) and have somehow managed to preserve their separate languages for about seven centuries. On the other hand, placing the Proto-Slavs in Wielbark is associated with even more problems, so changing Przeworsk for Wielbark does not help much.

Secondly, we would need to explain how this "oppressed" Slavic language from Przeworsk was able to suddenly expand east and south, as the data from Poland indicate that after the "Germanic elite" left Poland by about 400 AD, the local people have barely survived until their "moderate revival" in the 7th-8th century, so how come those few surviving Slavic groupings were able to occasionally cross the Danube and plunder the Byzantine territory (starting from the first half of the 6th century!).

Thirdly, this scenario does not explain how it was possible that all those young Slavic clades under CTS11962 and L260 (plus those under Z280, not to mention I2a-CTS10228) were spread to Ukraine, Russia, Pannonia, Bulgaria, etc. When exactly could it happen (under the assumption that the sudden expansion of L1029 and L260 was associated with the "rebirth" of the local "post-Germanic" population in Poland)? In case your variant of this scenario assumes that it was only L260 (plus some minor lineages under Z280) that was born and expanded from Poland, you still need to explain how to reconcile the influx of the Early Slavs from the East (Korchak-Prague) with the expansion of L260 out of Poland (please note that the total number of L260 among the Eastern Slavs is more or less equal to that among the Western Slavs).

The Ukrainian archaeologist Volodymyr Baran (in his sum-up work "Davni Sloviany" /Kyiv, 1998/) remarked in a number of contexts (I'm just passing this on) that the Slavic cultures which emerged west of the Vistula (he called the first "dziedzitska"-- they may also have other names) were hybrid constructions, with a fundamental Przeworsk origin base, and significant accretions from Prague-Korchak, and implicitly from one other origin which he does not define or locate, but which contributed the original house construct of "dziedzitska", quite different from Prague-Korchak or Penkivka. He did not get into DNA issues at all however. His very interesting volume is available online. I have a copy in my documents but was negligent in noting down its source...

Michał
04-12-2016, 04:20 PM
One difference is that, AFAIK, most common clades of M458 are much older (TMRCA) than most common clades of I2a.
You probably meant something else, but the above statement seems to be incorrect. For example, I2a-L621 and I2a-CTS4002 are definitely common subclades under I2a, yet their TMRCA ages are older than the TMRCA age for the entire clade R1a-M458 itself (not to mention its downstream subclades).

I suspect you were trying to point out that such major subclades under M458 like L260 (2500 ybp according to YFull) and CTS11962 (3300 ybp) are older than such a major subclade under I2a like CTS10228 (2200 ybp). However this only means that in the case of R1a-M458 we know slightly more sub-branches predating the sudden expansion of the Early Slavs than it is the case for I2a-L621. In other words, R1a-M458 was probably slightly more "diversified" than I2a-L621 before the Early Slavic territorial expansion started. For example, the YFull tree includes 5 lineages under M458 that existed in year 2300 BP (and 4 of them expanded shortly thereafter), while we have 3 such lineages under L621 (and only one has significantly expanded in the subsequent period).

However, let's try to compare the TMRCA ages of those suddenly expanding subclades under R1a-M458 and I2a-L671. Let's count only those clades that include multiple (ie. more than two) independent sublineages just downstream, as these are most likely the clades that were associated with a sudden demographic expansion. The TMRCA ages are shown according to YFull. Since CTS10228 did not have any expanding sister clades, I have also included all its daugther clades (shown in gray), just to demonstrate that the demographic expansion associated with R1a and I2a was nearly simultaneous.

Under R1a-M458
YP1337 - 1800 ybp
YP254 - 2000 ybp
L1029 - 2100 ybp
YP515 - 2300 ybp


Under I2a-L671
CTS4002 - 5500 ybp
CTS10228 - 2200 ybp
A2512 - 2200 ybp
Z17855 - 1650 ybp
Y4460 - 2200 ybp
S17250 - 1850 ybp

I am very curious about the exact geographic location of the very early (and probably moderate?) expansion of I2a-CTS4002 that seems to have taken place in the Chalcolitic or Early Bronze Age.

Michał
04-12-2016, 04:36 PM
I'm not sure, but in this link you and T101 made your predictions:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6522-Early-Medieval-aDNA-from-Poland-coming-soon&p=146987&viewfull=1#post146987

And I think that T101's prediction is much closer to what we'll find.
So in other words, you assume that it was a mixture of "Germanic" and "Balto-Slavic"/"Slavic" subclades. T101 did not include any M458 subclades in his prediction, so in case you agree with him, this would suggest that M458 came to Poland from the East (with the Korchak-Prague people). Does it mean that you no longer support your "I2a only" scenario for the Early Slavic expansion?

The crucial question is which subclades under R1a-CTS1211 are you expecting to find in Przeworsk and Wielbark. Are these any of the common "Slavic" subclades known to us (like Y2902, S18681, L1280, Y2613, YP371, P278.2, L365, L366, etc.), or rather some relatively rare or nearly extinct "Balto-Slavic" sublineages under CTS1211?

Michał
04-12-2016, 05:07 PM
When you look at Y-DNA, you can also see that e.g. Kashubians share more Y-DNA with Swedes than with Germans.
Which are these multiple Y-DNA clades that are shared by the Kashubians and Swedes while being absent in Germans?
The only haplogroup/clade that seems to be significantly more frequent among the Poles and Swedes than among the Germans is haplogroup N (and more specifically N1c-L550). All remaining major haplogroups/subclades (including for example I1, R1b, R1a-L664 and R1a-Z284) indicate that the Swedes are more closely related to the Germans than to the Poles. Also, the frequencies of R1a-M458, R1a-Z280 and I2a-CTS10228 (among others), indicate that the Poles are more closely related to the Germans than to the Swedes.



R1b is less numerous than I1 among Kashubians.
Well, both I1 and R1b are more common among the Swedes and Germans than among the Poles.
When using your approach, we would need to admit the the Poles are more closely related to the Africans than to the Swedes, because the Poles have more haplogroup E than R1a-Z284.

Michał
04-12-2016, 05:46 PM
They probably rose to dominance in two different tribes or cultures, perhaps separated by considerable distance.
If this was indeed the case (and I admit that this cannot be ruled out), I doubt there was any large distance between those two hypothetical expansion centers, and this is because these two clades have not only shared the same place of origin (ie. the location of the L260/CTS11962 split) but they also suddenly expanded in about the same moment, and since their geographical distributions show very significant overlap, it is only some local differences regarding their frequencies in particular regions that make us strongly suspect that their initial location in the pre-expansion times was slightly different.


Although R1a-L260 and R1a-CTS11962 each have at least 8% share in modern Poland, their patterns of concentration outside that country are rather different. Compare this map of L260 (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/35/) with this map of L1029 (http://www.semargl.me/haplogroups/maps/371/).
I would like to warn the less experienced forumers that this kind of maps is quite useful, they cannot be used to compare the frequencies of particular clades in different regions.
For example, it is almost certain that the frequency of L1029 in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine is higher than in Poland (or in any other country), but you won't see it on those maps.

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 08:14 PM
About frequencies of lactase persistence allele in Early Medieval Poland:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122384

In Polish: http://archeowiesci.pl/2015/06/11/skad-ten-allel/

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 08:20 PM
In Early Medieval (Piast dynasty Poland) Cuiavia 82 - 86% of the population were lactose tolerant.

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

The peak of allele sharing with SHG (Ajvide/Ire) is ... also in Cuiavia (or in Central Poland in general):

http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2012/04/prehistoric-scandinavians-genetically.html

https://s24.postimg.org/jo05u1y5h/allele+sharing.jpg

And North-Central Poland also stands out when it comes to frequency of CCR5-Delta32 mutation:

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--zxcMur_z--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/e9ljg2yabixykwszjujh.png

If Poland was de-populated and then re-populated in the Migration Period, why such peculiarities?

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 09:05 PM
Michał,

What are your predictions when it comes to autosomal affinities of Wielbark and Przeworsk populations?


So in other words, you assume that it was a mixture of "Germanic" and "Balto-Slavic"/"Slavic" subclades.

I prefer to be cautious with claims about subclades, but in my opinion Przeworsk/Wielbark will be mostly R1a.

That's why I wrote that T101's prediction is closer to my own (because he predicts them to be 65% R1a).

As for subclades - I don't know what subclades we will find. T101 thinks that no M458 will be found there.

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 09:10 PM
he only haplogroup/clade that seems to be significantly more frequent among the Poles and Swedes than among the Germans is haplogroup N (and more specifically N1c-L550).

Here is my prediction when it comes to N1c-L550:

Frequency of N1c in Wielbark/Przeworsk will be more similar to modern Poland/Sweden than to modern Germany. ;)

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 09:18 PM
Does it mean that you no longer support your "I2a only" scenario for the Early Slavic expansion?

"I2a only" Slavs is not even my scenario. ;)

But you and some other users have a scenario strongly linking M458 with Slavic expansion.

Does it mean that if we find M458 in Pre-Migration Period Poland, you will admit that the Proto-Slavic Urheimat was in Poland?

Or will you rather change your mind about M458 being "originally" Slavic in such case?

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 09:25 PM
Several people are 90% convinced that M458 =Slavs, AND that it wasn't present in Iron Age Poland.

I'm curious what would their reaction be, if some M458 shows up in Iron Age or Bronze Age Poland. :)

Will they in such case admit that Slavs originated in Poland, or will they claim that M458 isn't Slavic?

leonardo
04-12-2016, 09:39 PM
Importantly, it will be very difficult to distinguish between the Y-DNA lineages derived from ancient Germanic inhabitants and those brought in by more recent (Late Medieval and post-Medieval) German newcomers to Greater Poland.

Do you really believe so, Michał? I thought Medieval and recent (19th century) German immigrants to Poland were from northern, more specifically, northwestern Germany and the Lowlands. Would these individuals have the same y-dna as East Germanic tribes from the Migration period?

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 10:21 PM
Would these individuals have the same y-dna as East Germanic tribes from the Migration period?

Autosomally they look very different, so why should they have the same Y-DNA ???

leonardo
04-12-2016, 11:13 PM
Autosomally they look very different, so why should they have the same Y-DNA ???

That's what I am questioning. I would imagine they do not.

leonardo
04-12-2016, 11:18 PM
The Ukrainian archaeologist Volodymyr Baran (in his sum-up work "Davni Sloviany" /Kyiv, 1998/) remarked in a number of contexts (I'm just passing this on) that the Slavic cultures which emerged west of the Vistula (he called the first "dziedzitska"...
George, is your "dziedzitska" the same as Sukow-Dziedzice? The description you give for "dziedzitska" soounds very similar to what I know as Sukow-Dziedzice. I think Sukow-Dziedzice is the translation to English. For me, West Slavs emerged, at least partially, from the Sukow-Dziedzice Culture, and I believe it contained sub-branches of L1029.

leonardo
04-12-2016, 11:27 PM
Which are these multiple Y-DNA clades that are shared by the Kashubians and Swedes while being absent in Germans... Also, the frequencies of R1a-M458, R1a-Z280 and I2a-CTS10228 (among others), indicate that the Poles are more closely related to the Germans than to the Swedes.
Michał, would you consider the possibility that most of those with M458 and German surnames were originally Slavs who have been Germanized over the centuries? As such, is it possible that subclades such as YP263 (and subsequent sub-branches) may have the Baltic area as a common location of origin?

George
04-12-2016, 11:28 PM
George, is your "dziedzitska" the same as Sukow-Dziedzice? The description you give for "dziedzitska" soounds very similar to what I know as Sukow-Dziedzice. I think Sukow-Dziedzice is the translation to English. For me, West Slavs emerged, at least partially, from the Sukow-Dziedzice Culture, and I believe it contained sub-branches of L1029.

Yes that's the name. Baran does agree that the Polabian Slavs basically developed from S-D. But like I mentioned he only operates with archaeological (+ linguistic and historical) factors. He's a pre-DNA type of scholar.

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 11:38 PM
As for Vettor's hypothesis that Germanic tribes brought mainly R1b to Southern Europe - this new study contradicts this notion:

Italian Partecipanze - largely descended from Lombards - have 16% of I1a1b (L22), compared to 0% (zero) in the control sample:

http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v114/n2/full/hdy201477a.html

Apart from I1a1b (L22), they also have elevated frequency of J1 (M267) - 14% (compared to 3% in the control sample).

When it comes to R1b - frequency of R1b among Partecipanze is actually lower than in the control sample. Especially that of U152.

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 11:42 PM
So Lombards were paternally I1a1b-L22, it seems.

Y haplogroups Partecipanza group vs control group:

SGP = control group

https://s22.postimg.org/shfar7ei9/Y+haplogroups+Partecipanza+group+vs+control+grou.p ng

High frequency of J2a1b-M67 shows that North Italian Partecipanza are also Non-Germanic in origin.

What Non-Germanic (maybe even Non-European) elite group with J2a1b could that be ???

Gravetto-Danubian
04-12-2016, 11:48 PM
Several people are 90% convinced that M458 =Slavs, AND that it wasn't present in Iron Age Poland.



Commentators here who have some knowledge on the matters have all suggested that several clades were involved
So I wonder if you've been frequenting lesser quality fora ? ;)

Tomenable
04-12-2016, 11:52 PM
^ I know from reading another forum, that Michał considers the following subclades to be typically Slavic:

R1a-CTS11962, R1a-L260, R1a-CTS8816, R1a-Y2613, R1a-YP340, I2a-Din

What if any of them show up in Iron Age Poland - will it mean victory for Józef Kostrzewski & "autochtonists"? ;)

Or will Michał just re-define and re-adjust his list of typically Slavic subclades in such case? ;)

Megalophias
04-13-2016, 12:06 AM
That's J2-M67, frequency of J1 is low and not significantly different between groups.

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 12:09 AM
Not sure why I read "M267" there. Of course its M67.

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 12:13 AM
So markers distinguishing Partecipanza from the general population, are I1a1b (L22) and J2a1b (M67).

And of nearly 2x lower frequency of R1b-U152, which shows that it wasn't an elite marker in Feudal Italy.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-13-2016, 12:13 AM
^ I know from reading another forum, that Michał considers the following subclades to be typically Slavic:

R1a-CTS11962, R1a-L260, R1a-CTS8816, R1a-Y2613, R1a-YP340, I2a-Din

What if any of them show up in Iron Age Poland - will it mean victory for Józef Kostrzewski & "autochtonists"? ;)

Or will Michał just re-define and re-adjust his list of typically Slavic subclades in such case? ;)

The autochthonist premise is often based on questionable assumptions- like certain Pots deriving from Przeworsk forms, which in reality only have generic similarities and a 200 year age gap. In fact, prior to aDNA, I'd not seen a solid evidence in support of their stance. For example, they'd argue that Slavs became nomadic thus "invisible" from 400 - 500 AD. As Michal stated, such theories appear to be Vistulocentric, and don't even try to account for Slavs elsewhere. To be proven, they'd have to show that all lineages came from the Vistula-Oder basin: M458, as well as the non-M458 R1a, in addition to I2a1b.

But bias can be seen anywhere. Eg I've seen a couple of modern Balkan 'scholars' argue Slavs are just Thracians re-named, or the long-espoused theory of Slavs coming from Polesie despite the fact that hardly anyone lived there 100 - 500 AD (although one might argue pre-pre-proto-Slavs lived there in 100 BC).

So we might be seeing that Slavs didn't come from one magic well.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-13-2016, 12:15 AM
So Lombards were paternally I1a1b-L22, it seems.

Y haplogroups Partecipanza group vs control group:

SGP = control group

https://s22.postimg.org/shfar7ei9/Y+haplogroups+Partecipanza+group+vs+control+grou.p ng

High frequency of J2a1b-M67 shows that North Italian Partecipanza are also Non-Germanic in origin.

What Non-Germanic (maybe even Non-European) elite group with J2a1b could that be ???

Are they self-proclaimed Lombard descendants ?
If not aDNA, then Im ignoring :)

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 12:18 AM
Are they self-proclaimed Lombard descendants ?
If not aDNA, then Im ignoring :)

Lombard and / or Ostrogothic:

Despite relatively wide CIs (Table 3), our estimates confirm with what is currently known about the historic origins of Partecipanza, pointing at a period comprised between 1300 and 600 years ago. Interestingly, the upper bound coincides with the Migration Period, and in particular with the settling of Ostrogoths and Lombards in Italy (493 AD and 568 AD, respectively).

But much more likely Lombard:

The area of San Giovanni in Persiceto became part of the Lombard kingdom relatively late (728 ad, under King Aistulf) and their rule lasted only half a century, after having been defeated by the French King Charlemagne in 776 ad (Capitani, 2009). Nevertheless, a number of historical facts seem to link this area with Lombard settlements. Among them, the most relevant involves the Abbey of Nonantola, one of the most powerful monastic centres of the area. The Abbey was founded by Lombard kings in 752 ad (Bottazzi, 2003). Since then, emphyteutic grants from Nonantola (first documented in 1170 ad) had a relevant role in the formation of the assets of Partecipanza. San Giovanni in Persiceto, according to some scholars, was the seat of a Lombard Duchy in the second half of the eighth century (Bottazzi, 2003; Santos Salazar, 2006). Eventually, the case of a burial site discovered in the early 1960s but originally misinterpreted as a recent mass grave has been reported. This funerary evidence exhibits a number of Germanic features and has been recently radiocarbon dated to ~1000 years ago (D'Adamo and Pedrini, 2013).

Putting it all together, it seems plausible to relate historical and archaeological information with our molecular results, suggesting that a Lombard component may have had a key role in the foundation of Partecipanza.

As it is obvious, we are not implying that hg I1-L22 coincides with ancient Lombards. Their original genetic variability is still unknown and probably varied in time and space. It is anyway reasonable to believe that I1-L22 was an important part of this [Lombard] background.

Presumed Lombard migration route:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Lombard_Migration.jpg/220px-Lombard_Migration.jpg

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 12:37 AM
Where could that J2a1b come from?

I guess it could be from some Iranic groups (Alans?, Sarmatians?) who came together with Germanics.

Maybe it could also be from the Huns.

vettor
04-13-2016, 05:52 AM
Are they self-proclaimed Lombard descendants ?
If not aDNA, then Im ignoring :)

The claim is the PAR ones are the only ones, most likely Lombard descents ......................but Lombard history also states the Lombards spent 100 years in Eastern Austria before moving to Italy ~500AD

Tomenable is claim the 16% I-L22 as Lombard when he should also claim most of the others as well

The paper also states that only 6 family lines remain from the ancient times today in the PAR group

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 07:18 AM
when he should also claim most of the others as well

The others don't differ from the general population, so they are probably due to Non-Paternity Events, nobilitation of locals, descent from Non-Lombard barbarians, etc. From the beginning of its existence the group could contain locals (see what historians write about the formation of elites in barbarian kingdoms). Only lineages statistically different from the control group are informative.

Paul the Deacon wrote that Lombards incorporated men from various other tribes and peoples to their community:

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

Those other haplogroups are likely from such peoples (including also natives of Italy), not from "original" Lombards.

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 07:44 AM
Frequency of Y-hg I1-L22 reaches 15.91% in PAR, being completely absent in SGP and rare in Italy (0.79%; Boattini et al., 2013). Furthermore, its frequency does not exceed 5% in all the considered comparison populations. As in the case of its parental clade I1-M253, I1-L22 is most frequently found in Northern Europe, around the Baltic sea, where it probably originated (...)

Waldemar
04-13-2016, 07:58 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Lombard_Migration.jpg/220px-Lombard_Migration.jpg

Here's another theoretical migration route...
http://s18.postimg.org/x95rzcp09/Screen_Hunter_1374_Apr_13_08_53.jpg

PS. Bear in mind that Paul's chronicle was written in the late 8th century, so well over 200 years after arrival of Lombards to Italy. I would take his account on early history of Lombards with a grain of salt.

Waldemar
04-13-2016, 08:37 AM
"Origo Gentis Langobardorum" (7th century AD)

[1.] Est insula qui dicitur Scadanan, quod interpretatur excidia, in partibus aquilonis, ubi multae gentes habitant; inter quos erat gens parva quae Winnilis vocabatur. Et erat cum eis mulier nomine Gambara, habebatque duos filios, nomen uni Ybor et nomen alteri Agio; ipsi cum matre sua nomine Gambara principatum tenebant super Winniles. Moverunt se ergo duces Wandalorum, id est Ambri et Assi, cum exercitu suo, et dicebant ad Winniles: " Aut solvite nobis tributa, aut praeparate vos ad pugnam et pugnate nobiscum". Tunc responderunt Ybor et Agio cum matre sua Gambara: "Melius est nobis pugnam praeparare, quam Wandalis tributa persolvere". Tunc Ambri et Assi, hoc est duces Wandalorum, rogaverunt Godan, ut daret eis super Winniles victoriam. Respondit Godan dicens: "Quos sol surgente antea videro, ipsis dabo victoriam". Eo tempore Gambara cum duobus filiis suis, id est Ybor et Agio, qui principes erant super Winniles, rogaverunt Fream, uxorem Godam, ut ad Winniles esset propitia. Tunc Frea dedit consilium, ut sol surgente venirent Winniles et mulieres eorum crines solutae circa faciem in similitudinem barbae et cum viris suis venirent. Tunc luciscente sol dum surgeret, giravit Frea, uxor Godan, lectum ubi recumbebat vir eius, et fecit faciem eius contra orientem, et excitavit eum. Et ille aspiciens vidit Winniles et mulieres ipsorum habentes crines solutas circa faciem; et ait: "Qui sunt isti longibarbae" ? Et dixit Frea ad Godan: "Sicut dedisti nomen, da illis et victoriam". Et dedit eis victoriam, ut ubi visum esset vindicarent se et victoriam haberent. Ab illo tempore Winnilis Langobardi vocati sunt.

[2.] Et moverunt se exhinde Langobardi, et venerunt in Golaidam, et postea possiderunt Aldonus Anthaib et Aainaib seu et Burgundaib; et dicitur, quia fecerunt sibi regem nomine Agilmund, filium Agioni, ex genere Gugingus. Et post ipsum regnavit Laiamicho ex genere Gugingus. Et post ipsum regnavit Lethuc, et dicitur, quia regnasset annos plus minus quadraginta. Et post ipsum regnavit Aldihoc, filius Lethuc. Et post ipsum regnavit Godehoc.
(...)
Source (http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/origo.html)


I. There is an island that is called Scadanan, which is interpreted “destruction,” in the regions of the north, where many people dwell. Among these there was a small people that was called the Winniles. And with them was a woman, Gambara by name, and she had two sons. Ybor was the name of one and Agio the name of the other. They, with their mother, Gambara by name, held the sovereignty over the Winniles. Then the leaders of the Wandals, that is, Ambri and Assi, moved with their army, and said to the Winniles: ‘Either pay us tribute or prepare yourselves for battle and fight with us.’ Then answered Ybor and Agio, with their mother Gambara: ‘It is better for us to make ready the battle than to pay tributes to the Wandals.’ Then Ambri and Assi, that is, the leaders of the Wandals, asked Godan that he should give them the victory over the Winniles. Godan answered, saying: ‘Whom I shall first see when at sunrise, to them will I give the victory.’ At that time Gambara with her two sons, that is, Ybor and Agio, who were chiefs over the Winniles, besought Frea, the wife of Godan, to be propitious to the Winniles. Then Frea gave counsel that at sunrise the Winniles should come, and that their women, with their hair let down around the face in the likeness of a beard, should also come with their husbands. Then when it became bright, while the sun was rising, Frea, the wife of Godan, turned around the bed where her husband was lying and put his face towards the east and awakened him. And he, looking at then, saw the Winniles and their women having their hair let down around the face. And he says, ‘Who are these Long-beards?’ And Frea said to Godan, ‘As you have given them a name, give them also the victory.’ And he gave them the victory, so that they should defend themselves according to his counsel and obtain the victory. >From that time the Winniles were called Langobards.

II. And the Langobards moved thence and came to Golaida and afterwards they occupied the aldionates of Anthaib and Bainaib and also Burgundaib. And it is said that they made for themselves a king, Agilmund by name, the son of Agio, of the race of Gugingus. And after him reigned Laimaichio of the race of Gugingus. And after him reigned Lethuc and it is said that he reigned about forty years. And after him reigned Aldihoc the son of Lethuc. And after him reigned Godehoc.
(...)
Source (http://www.northvegr.org/histories%20and%20chronicles/origo%20gentium%20langobardum.html)

Waldemar
04-13-2016, 08:52 AM
So Lombards were paternally I1a1b-L22, it seems.

Y haplogroups Partecipanza group vs control group:

SGP = control group

https://s22.postimg.org/shfar7ei9/Y+haplogroups+Partecipanza+group+vs+control+grou.p ng


That makes perfect sense because Lombards originated in Scandza.


What Non-Germanic (maybe even Non-European) elite group with J2a1b could that be ???

Alans, Avars and other nomadic tribes?

PS. I suppose we need a significant percentage of I-L22 and R-U152 in aDNA samples from Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures to confirm they were Germanic-speaking.

vettor
04-13-2016, 09:45 AM
Frequency of Y-hg I1-L22 reaches 15.91% in PAR, being completely absent in SGP and rare in Italy (0.79%; Boattini et al., 2013). Furthermore, its frequency does not exceed 5% in all the considered comparison populations. As in the case of its parental clade I1-M253, I1-L22 is most frequently found in Northern Europe, around the Baltic sea, where it probably originated (...)

We do not know what haplogroups the lombards picked up in Austria before heading to Italy

IIRC, there was a paper about 2 years ago on the finding of Lombard skeletons in Eastern Austria ................I cannot recall the results from this paper. I also recall eurogenes taking notes on it

edit
found paper , but no time to read it

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4219681/

Waldemar
04-13-2016, 10:12 AM
^^
Overall, the mitochondrial DNA (mt-DNA) profiles of 28 out of 38 analysed individuals were successfully replicated (73.7%). Twenty-two different lineages were identified that belonged to the haplogroups (hg) H (n = 9; 32.1%), U, J (both n = 4; 14.3%), HV, T2, I, N1b, K (each n = 2; 7.1%), and N1a (n = 1; 3.6%).

-------------

Tracing medieval population movements through ancient DNA: the Lombard Example - http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/events/mag15_3

Michał
04-13-2016, 12:20 PM
What are your predictions when it comes to autosomal affinities of Wielbark and Przeworsk populations?
I don't expect they will differ too much from the average Central European autosomal profile (especially Przeworsk, as Wielbark may resemble the Baltic and Scandinavian populations a bit).

As for the details, Przeworsk will likely show more EEF than the modern Baltic-speaking populations (and probably slightly more than the modern Polish population, but not much). I would guess that the mixture of modern Czechs and Bavarians should be relatively close to the Przeworsk autosomal results.

Wielbark will likely resemble a mixture of German, Scandinavian and Baltic results. I am not sure what level of "homogeneity" should we expect in this culture, but the "Germanic" component (a mixture of Danish and Swedish?) should dominate in the "typical" Wielbark inhumation graves.


I prefer to be cautious with claims about subclades, but in my opinion Przeworsk/Wielbark will be mostly R1a.

That's why I wrote that T101's prediction is closer to my own (because he predicts them to be 65% R1a).

As for subclades - I don't know what subclades we will find. T101 thinks that no M458 will be found there.
IMO, the knowledge of exact subclades will be crucial for evaluating their potential role in Slavic ethnogenesis.

Michał
04-13-2016, 12:41 PM
Does it mean that if we find M458 in Pre-Migration Period Poland, you will admit that the Proto-Slavic Urheimat was in Poland?

Or will you rather change your mind about M458 being "originally" Slavic in such case?
I was asked similar questions before, so you will find my answers on the Molgen forum:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=825&start=314
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=1161&start=34
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=1161&start=38
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=1161&start=47

Generalissimo
04-13-2016, 12:43 PM
About 40 Wielbark genomes are almost ready. Their Y-DNA is being sequenced next.

Michał
04-13-2016, 01:09 PM
Do you really believe so, Michał? I thought Medieval and recent (19th century) German immigrants to Poland were from northern, more specifically, northwestern Germany and the Lowlands. Would these individuals have the same y-dna as East Germanic tribes from the Migration period?
I don't think the Y-DNA profiles of ancient East Germanic tribes and Medieval Germans were identical, but I would expect a significant overlap between the Y-DNA clades present in Przeworsk and in Medieval Germany. This is mostly because both Przeworsk and Medieval Germany included people of Jastorf ancestry, and I would also add a similar "Old-European" (post-Lusatian) and Celtic (or para-Celtic) substratum in both these cultures.

For example, are we able to determine whether the presence of such clades like R1b-Z326 and I2a-Z161 among the ethnic Poles is a result of East Germanic (Vandalic or Gothic) or rather Late Medieval/Post-Medieval German ancestry (especially when having no aDNA data from Przeworsk)?

The situation could have been slightly different for the East Germanic populations located further east or south-east (like Poienesti-Lukasevka or Zarubintsy) where the geographical isolation and founder effect could have resulted in a strong domination of some Jastorf-derived clades that are relatively rare today in the Proto-Germanic homeland.

As for Wielbark, I would expect a very significant contribution of the "Germanic" post-Oksywie population, so apart from some Y-DNA lineages derived from Scandinavia and West Baltic populations, Wielbark could have included many lineages of Iron Age Danish or North German origin.

Michał
04-13-2016, 01:23 PM
Autosomally they look very different, so why should they have the same Y-DNA ???
I must have overlooked those autosomal results for East Germanic populations, so please give us a link to these aDNA data.

Generalissimo
04-13-2016, 01:27 PM
Wielbark could have included many lineages of Iron Age Danish or North German origin.

This is highly unlikely. More likely are many now extinct lines of I2. Suffice to say that population wasn't very North Germanic looking in terms of genome-wide structure.

Michał
04-13-2016, 01:37 PM
Michał, would you consider the possibility that most of those with M458 and German surnames were originally Slavs who have been Germanized over the centuries? As such, is it possible that subclades such as YP263 (and subsequent sub-branches) may have the Baltic area as a common location of origin?
I would rather say that the "Baltic area" (ie. Northern Poland and NE Germany) was likely one of the major initial targets for the early YP263 people moving north-west from a region located further east (or south-east, probably close to the Polish-Belarusian-Ukrainian border).

Michał
04-13-2016, 01:43 PM
This is highly unlikely. More likely are many now extinct lines of I2. Suffice to say that population wasn't very North Germanic looking in terms of genome-wide structure.
Does it mean that you would exclude any Danish/North German contribution (let's say within the 10-30% range)?

Also, does it mean that you have access to those autosomal results? If so, could you please share it with us (at least some general overview in case you are not allowed to reveal all the details)?

Generalissimo
04-13-2016, 01:44 PM
Take a close look at the Bronze Age Hungarians already published.

Michał
04-13-2016, 01:49 PM
Take a close look at the Bronze Age Hungarians already published.
Are you saying that Wielbark descended mostly from those Bronze Age Hungarians?

Generalissimo
04-13-2016, 01:55 PM
Are you saying that Wielbark descended mostly from those Bronze Age Hungarians?

Not all Wielbark, but maybe those in Western Poland came from the same population(s) one way or another. Let's wait and see.

Michał
04-13-2016, 01:59 PM
So Lombards were paternally I1a1b-L22, it seems.

It seems quite likely that I1a1b-L22 was relatively common among the Lombards, but in this particular case we should also consider a founder effect, so many Longobard-specifc clades could have been lost during this process, while other subclades could have become dominant after arriving to specific locations in Northern Italy.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-13-2016, 02:00 PM
This is highly unlikely. More likely are many now extinct lines of I2. Suffice to say that population wasn't very North Germanic looking in terms of genome-wide structure.

I have wondered about this possibility - not Przeworsk specifically, necessarily, but somewhere. Because, the idea that just one branch of L621 really survived the Bronze Age transition, and just hid somewhere biding its time until 500 AD seemed a little strange, albeit possible.

So it might answer Michal's question about where CTS10228 and 'cousin' clades were in the BA.

Who know, maybe the General has sniffed some inside information ? I note the possibility in that recent paper (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi5y4jx4ovMAhULGpQKHQACA2sQFggbMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anthrogenica.com%2Fshowthread .php%3F6635-Holy-Roman-Empire-amp-Migration-Period-Ancient-DNA-from-Germany&usg=AFQjCNHvvFZNy3RU49YCQ4fgi5iYFxmPgQ&sig2=vmU5J1wDHTgCKiJTltc93Q&bvm=bv.119408272,d.dGo) of SNPs from Migration Age Germany one sample was I (x I1), whilst the rest were R1 and I1 (but testing was rather limited).

Gravetto-Danubian
04-13-2016, 02:04 PM
..Bronze Age Hungary.

It's good you're coming round to this idea, eventually :)
I think a few odd surprises and important details will come to light once we move into proper Bronze Age European samples.

Michał
04-13-2016, 02:24 PM
^ I know from reading another forum, that Michał considers the following subclades to be typically Slavic:

R1a-CTS11962, R1a-L260, R1a-CTS8816, R1a-Y2613, R1a-YP340, I2a-Din

What if any of them show up in Iron Age Poland - will it mean victory for Józef Kostrzewski & "autochtonists"? ;)

Or will Michał just re-define and re-adjust his list of typically Slavic subclades in such case? ;)
What if Wielbark and/or Przeworsk turn out to be full of R1b, I1 and I2(non-Din). Will these haplogroups be miraculously transformed into "Proto-Slavic" ones? ;)

BTW, I consider it quite likely that I2a-Din is of deep Germanic origin (as discussed with George in another thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs/page33&p=117774#post117774)), so finding related clades in Przeworsk or Wielbark would be consistent with this hypothesis.

Also, the situation with YP340 is a bit more complicated (as discussed elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=127797&viewfull=1#post127797)), so I would rather list the two major downstream subclades (YP371 and P278.2) as evidently Slavic clades.

Pribislav
04-13-2016, 02:25 PM
The situation could have been slightly different for the East Germanic populations located further east or south-east (like Poienesti-Lukasevka or Zarubintsy) where the geographical isolation and founder effect could have resulted in a strong domination of some Jastorf-derived clades that are relatively rare today in the Proto-Germanic homeland.

Michał, do you think I2a-CTS10228 could be one of those Jastorf-derived clades?

Michał
04-13-2016, 02:40 PM
Michał, do you think I2a-CTS10228 could be one of those Jastorf-derived clades?
Yes, I consider it quite likely.

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 04:58 PM
BTW, I consider it quite likely that I2a-Din is of deep Germanic origin

You are a bit like Maciamo from Eupedia, there is hardly any haplogroup left that isn't of Germanic origin according to both of you. :biggrin1: IIRC, you consider N1c-M2783 to be of Germanic origin, even though it can't be found in Scandinavia and is descended from broadly Finno-Ugric N1c-L1026. While the reality is, that N1c came to Scandinavia with Non-Germanic immigrants.

If you check frequencies of N1c among Norwegians, you will see that by far the highest frequency is in Finnmark.

PS:

Given current MENA immigration to Sweden, I wonder when will Maciamo start considering J1, E1b, etc. as Germanic. ;)

But immigration to Scandinavia is not a new phenomenon.

Tomenable
04-13-2016, 05:41 PM
What if Wielbark and/or Przeworsk turn out to be full of R1b, I1 and I2(non-Din).

Depends which R1b.

Non-L11/L151 subclades of R1b are much more common among West Slavs than among Germans:

R1b-M343(xL11):

Poland (n=202) - 6,44%
Slovenia (n=102) - 5,9%
Czech Rep. (n=87) - 5,7%
Slovakia (n=276) - 5,0%
Germany (n=321) - 1,83%

Most of this is L23(xL51/M412):

R1b-L23(xM412):

Czech Rep. (n=87) - 5,7%
Poland (n=202) - 5,44%
Slovenia (n=102) - 3,9%
Slovakia (n=276) - 3,6%
Germany (n=321) - 0,62%

This data is from Myres 2010:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html

lgmayka
04-13-2016, 11:37 PM
BTW, I consider it quite likely that I2a-Din is of deep Germanic origin (as discussed with George in another thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs/page33&p=117774#post117774)), so finding related clades in Przeworsk or Wielbark would be consistent with this hypothesis.
The lineage leading from I-CTS4002 to I-CTS10228 (https://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/) disappears from the DNA record for 3300 years before bursting onto the Central-Eastern-Southeastern European scene only 2200 years ago. I don't see how anyone can claim to know the language spoken by that lone patrilineage throughout those 3300 years (3500 B.C. - 200 B.C).

Gravetto-Danubian
04-14-2016, 12:47 AM
BTW, I consider it quite likely that I2a-Din is of deep Germanic origin (as discussed with George in another thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs/page33&p=117774#post117774)), so finding related clades in Przeworsk or Wielbark would be consistent with this hypothesis.



The lineage leading from I-CTS4002 to I-CTS10228 (https://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/) disappears from the DNA record for 3300 years before bursting onto the Central-Eastern-Southeastern European scene only 2200 years ago. I don't see how anyone can claim to know the language spoken by that lone patrilineage throughout those 3300 years (3500 B.C. - 200 B.C).

In that other thread, Michal links clues of the northwestern origin of CTS10228 to its also north-western cousin - L161.
Yet, if I have understood the L161 tree correctly, it appears to be split into an 'eastern' & 'western group'. The former Y1331* and Y1330 are found in Bulgaria & Poland, whilst the S2639 variety is in your Scots & Irish, etc.

Michał
04-14-2016, 09:19 AM
You are a bit like Maciamo from Eupedia, there is hardly any haplogroup left that isn't of Germanic origin according to both of you.
I would rather say that there is nothing controversial in associating the Germanic ancestry with specific subclades under R1b, I1 and I2a, as this seems to be a commonly accepted view on this forum (and elsewhere), which cannot be said about your totally unsupported claims that R1b-U106 is associated mostly with Celtic (and not Germanic) ancestry, or that R1a-M458 should be considered a marker of Baltic (rather than Slavic) ancestry.



IIRC, you consider N1c-M2783 to be of Germanic origin, even though it can't be found in Scandinavia and is descended from broadly Finno-Ugric N1c-L1026.
As usually, you don't read my posts carefully enough (which makes the discussion with you a bit annoying). Please read my post on the Molgen forum that started all this discussion about the origin of N1c-L550>L1025>M2783:
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=844&start=40



While the reality is, that N1c came to Scandinavia with Non-Germanic immigrants.

This is exactly what my scenario assumes.
I would suggest spending more time on reading (and thinking!) and less on writing. ;)

Michał
04-14-2016, 09:30 AM
Depends which R1b.

Non-L11/L151 subclades of R1b are much more common among West Slavs than among Germans:

R1b-M343(xL11):

Poland (n=202) - 6,44%
Slovenia (n=102) - 5,9%
Czech Rep. (n=87) - 5,7%
Slovakia (n=276) - 5,0%
Germany (n=321) - 1,83%

Most of this is L23(xL51/M412):

R1b-L23(xM412):

Czech Rep. (n=87) - 5,7%
Poland (n=202) - 5,44%
Slovenia (n=102) - 3,9%
Slovakia (n=276) - 3,6%
Germany (n=321) - 0,62%

This data is from Myres 2010:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html
Unfortunately, this does not answer my question (especially its second part), so let me repeat it. In case any clades under R1b, I1 and I2a(non-Din) turn out to be the dominant species in Przeworsk or Wielbark, will you consider them the "Proto-Slavic clades"?

Also, in case R1b-L23(xL11) (or more specifically R1b-Z2103) turns out to be a relatively frequent clade in Przeworsk and/or Wielbark (which I consider relatively unlikely), will you consider R1b-Z2103 a "major Proto-Slavic marker"?

Michał
04-14-2016, 09:39 AM
The lineage leading from I-CTS4002 to I-CTS10228 (https://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/) disappears from the DNA record for 3300 years before bursting onto the Central-Eastern-Southeastern European scene only 2200 years ago. I don't see how anyone can claim to know the language spoken by that lone patrilineage throughout those 3300 years (3500 B.C. - 200 B.C).
Since I have only presented this as a hypothesis (or one of many possible scenarios, though IMO the most likely one), I wonder who is that person who knows the language mentioned above. In other words, I don't see how anyone can suggest that anyone claimed to know the language spoken by that lone patrilineage throughout those 3300 years (3500 B.C. - 200 B.C).

Gravetto-Danubian
04-14-2016, 09:47 AM
Since I have only presented this as a hypothesis (or one of many possible scenarios, though IMO the most likely one), I wonder who is that person who knows the language mentioned above. In other words, I don't see how anyone can suggest that anyone claimed to know the language spoken by that lone patrilineage throughout those 3300 years (3500 B.C. - 200 B.C).

Perhaps Michal's connection of CTS10228 with Basternae, and the like, was metaphorical/ broad. That is to say, the "Basternaen route' named by Mark Shchukin, from the the Baltic to the Black Sea, passed over for millenia by numerous groups SE to NW, and vice-versa. If L621 is from the Bronze Age north, it might have come down with some "Basternae" type people.

George
04-14-2016, 12:37 PM
Since I have only presented this as a hypothesis (or one of many possible scenarios, though IMO the most likely one), I wonder who is that person who knows the language mentioned above. In other words, I don't see how anyone can suggest that anyone claimed to know the language spoken by that lone patrilineage throughout those 3300 years (3500 B.C. - 200 B.C).

I agree with Michal that the "Bastarnian hypothesis" is the most likely solution in the state of current knowledge as to the "bursting" of CTS10228 onto the scene. I also agree with his caveat as to the possibility of other scenarios. Re the Bastarnian context: I remain uncertain as to which of its components would have carried CTS10228: Was it Jastorf? Was it the Pomeranian contribution? Was it one of the local components (Milograd, "Scythian")? More aDNA might help to clarify these problems. There are presently arguments in favour of them all.

lgmayka
04-14-2016, 01:26 PM
In that other thread, Michal links clues of the northwestern origin of CTS10228 to its also north-western cousin - L161.
Yet, if I have understood the L161 tree correctly, it appears to be split into an 'eastern' & 'western group'. The former Y1331* and Y1330 are found in Bulgaria & Poland, whilst the S2639 variety is in your Scots & Irish, etc.
Yes. Moreover, the TMRCA of CTS10228 and L161 is the I-Y3104 level (https://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3104/), over 11,000 years ago. The TMRCA of I-Y3104 and Loschbour is I-M423, almost 14,000 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/I-M423/).

Michał
04-14-2016, 02:23 PM
In that other thread, Michal links clues of the northwestern origin of CTS10228 to its also north-western cousin - L161.
Yet, if I have understood the L161 tree correctly, it appears to be split into an 'eastern' & 'western group'. The former Y1331* and Y1330 are found in Bulgaria & Poland, whilst the S2639 variety is in your Scots & Irish, etc.
Actually, it was not only that very distantly related clade L161 (or the so called "Isles" group) but also another large group of people who are much more closely related to I2a-Din and have been previously called "Disles" (and are now assigned to either L621* or to the much larger "downstream paragroup/cluster" CTS10936*, shown in YFull as CTS4002*). In the I2a FTDNA project, this group includes more than 30 people, and nearly all of them are from Western Europe (including Ireland, Scotland, England and Germany) with only one project member (among those who are visible to non-project members) originating from Central-Eastern Europe (Poland, #N113464 in group CTS10936*). Unfortunately, this predominantly Western European contrbution to CTS4002*/CTS10936* is not yet reflected in the YFull tree. The TMRCA age for the Slavic clade CTS10228 and the Central-Western European paragroup CTS4002*/CTS10936* is 5500 ybp (according to YFull), which corresponds to 3500 BC (thus Chalcolitic), while the upstream node L621 is dated to 6500 ybp (4500 BC, thus Neolithic). This suggests that the distant paternal ancestors of the "Slavic" clade CTS10228 lived somewhere in Central-Western Europe in a period between 4500 and 3500 BC. There were not many subsequent populations movement from Central-Western Europe to Central-Eastern Europe, but one of them was certainly associated with the spread of Germanic-speaking people from Northern Germany (through Poland) to Moldavia/Western Ukraine, so I see no reason to consider the deep Germanic origin of clade CTS10228 unlikely.


Yes. Moreover, the TMRCA of CTS10228 and L161 is the I-Y3104 level (https://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3104/), over 11,000 years ago. The TMRCA of I-Y3104 and Loschbour is I-M423, almost 14,000 years ago (https://yfull.com/tree/I-M423/).
And the TMRCA age for I-P37 is 18,500 years ago... (and so on), only that all this is much less relevant (or absolutely irrelevant) when discussing the origin of clade CTS10228.

lgmayka
04-14-2016, 05:31 PM
In the I2a FTDNA project, this group includes more than 30 people, and nearly all of them are from Western Europe (including Ireland, Scotland, England and Germany) with only one project member (among those who are visible to non-project members) originating from Central-Eastern Europe (Poland, #N113464 in group CTS10936*). Unfortunately, this predominantly Western European contrbution to CTS4002*/CTS10936* is not yet reflected in the YFull tree.
They are not reflected because they have not ordered the Big Y, hence we do not know where they will land on the tree. Just for example, one possibility is that all the Western European men listed as CTS10936* form a single clade with YF02847 on YFull's haplotree. In that case, their clade has no greater weight (in determining origin) than the one Polish lineage.

EDIT: In fact, I received an email from an I2a administrator saying that "NN1 and the NN2 men share several SNPs not found in NN3." NN1 and NN2 are Western European, NN3 is Polish.

But again, the most important point is that this split occurred 5500 years ago, about 3300 years before the expansion of I-CTS10228 began.

Michał
04-14-2016, 09:23 PM
They are not reflected because they have not ordered the Big Y, hence we do not know where they will land on the tree.
Just for example, one possibility is that all the Western European men listed as CTS10936* form a single clade with YF02847 on YFull's haplotree. In that case, their clade has no greater weight (in determining origin) than the one Polish lineage.
Since we don't know where they will land on the tree, it is also possible that the only Polish case of CTS10936* forms a common subclade under CTS10936 with some Central-Western European lineages, and we also need to remember that the "Disles" group includes not only CTS10936* but also L621(xCTS10936), with the latter grouping including only the Central-Western European FTDNA customers, so far, which favors the Central-Western European origin of both L621 and CTS10936.



EDIT: In fact, I received an email from an I2a administrator saying that "NN1 and the NN2 men share several SNPs not found in NN3." NN1 and NN2 are Western European, NN3 is Polish.
I guess NN3 is sample YF03513 from the YFull tree. Is he the FTDNA customer #N113464 or these are two different lineages from Poland?
Do you know the ancestral location for #YF02847 (the other CTS10936* case from the YFull tree)?


But again, the most important point is that this split occurred 5500 years ago, about 3300 years before the expansion of I-CTS10228 began.
The most important thing is that the available data favor the Central-Western European origin of both L621 and CTS10936, and we don't know when exactly the lineage ancestral to CTS10228 migrated east (or south-east). This could have happend any time between 3500 BC and 200 BC. However, based on archaeology we can suspect that the two most likely processes contributing to this movement were the eastward expansion of the Lusatian culture in the second millennium BC (followed by the subsequent expansion of the Post-Lusatian Pomeranian culture?) and/or the more recent expansion of the East Germanic tribes in the late first millennium BC.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-14-2016, 09:48 PM
It's very difficult to say, I think
M423 derived lineages were probably strewn across north Central Europe already back in the Neolithic, although difficult to say how far East. But I also tend to think that M423 on the whole has a western 'weighting'.

Michal - as far another eastward movement - we should also consider the La Tene influences from 200 BC which were formative on several cultures in EE - Przeworsk, Zarubintsy, etc (although La Tene would have been mostly R1b).

I often wonder what I lineages were present in Europe's east before the arrival of R1a in the late Mesolithic (timing hypothetical). Maybe I1- which would account for its massive bottleneck ?

Tomenable
04-14-2016, 10:20 PM
Procopius in History of the Wars, III, xxii, 13-16 wrote about those Vandals who never moved from their original homeland:

"(...) Now as for those Vandals who remained in their native land, neither remembrance nor any name of them has been preserved to my time. (...) they were either overpowered by the neighbouring barbarians or they were mingled with them not at all unwillingly and their name gave way to that of their conquerors. Indeed, when the Vandals were conquered at that time by Belisarius, no thought occurred to them to go from there to their ancestral homes. For they were not able to convey themselves suddenly from Libya to Europe, especially as they had no ships at hand, but paid the penalty [2] there for all the wrongs they had done the Romans and especially the Zacynthians. (...)"

[2] In Arcana, 18, 5 ff., Procopius estimates the number of the Vandals in Africa, at the time of Belisarius, at 80,000 males, and intimates that practically all perished.

Volat
04-14-2016, 10:34 PM
CTS10228 was spread by the Slavs in the last 1000 years. In earlier part of the history the marker could be spread by Germanic as Michal suggested. I can also suggest that the marker could be spread by Celts of central Europ. Celts lived in central Europe migrating as far east as western Ukraine and as far west as British Isles.

The ancestral marker of CTS10228 predating Indo-European expansion could be spread by paleo-Europeans. THere are many possibilities and attempts to associate y-chromosome markers with ethnicities of ancient world will lead us nowhere. I don't think the concept of ethnicity as we percieve it today existed in ancient world.

Tomenable
04-14-2016, 10:38 PM
CTS10228 was spread by the Slavs in the last 1000 years.

Why only in the last 1000 years, not the last 1600-1500 years?



I often wonder what I lineages were present in Europe's east before the arrival of R1a in the late Mesolithic (timing hypothetical). Maybe I1- which would account for its massive bottleneck ?

Maybe also I2a2a1b1b (one sample was found in Yamnaya).

Volat
04-14-2016, 10:44 PM
Why only in the last 1000 years, not the last 1600-1500 years?

Because 1,500-1,600 years ago Goths could also be responsible for spreading this particular marker.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-14-2016, 10:46 PM
Maybe also I2a2a1b1b (one sample was found in Yamnaya).

Yes maybe too. But I2a2, more generally, is found as far as middle Neolithic Iberia. Like today, it has a broad, not infrequent distribution, from Russia to England, at 5 - 10 % prevalence, up to 15% in NW Germany and Holland.

Volat
04-14-2016, 10:54 PM
There is a layer of ancient Celtic words in proto-Slavic. Proto-Slavs had contacts with the Celts. The most likely region is central / central-eastern Europe.

Linguist Martynov writes about Germanic, Iranic and Celtic loan-words in Proto-Slavic. The text is in Russian which is worth to read. Martynov was a good linguist.


Древние славяно-иноязычные языковые отношения носят субстратно-суперстратный и ингредиентный характер. Скифское нашествие, приведшее к уничтожению лужицкой культуры (VI-V вв. до н.э.) и, по-видимому, мирное внедрение италийского этноса, приведшее к возникновению лужицкой культуры (XII до н.э.), создают временные рамки для становления праславянского языка, пограничную временную зону, отделяющую протобалтийское языковое состояние от праславянского. Собственно праславянский язык следует считать сложившимся после нашествия скифов и уничтожения лужицкой культуры. До этого времени выделяется протославянский, возникший гораздо раньше в результате наслоения италийского на западнобалтийский, от которого уже отделились восточнобалтийские диалекты (XII-X до н.э.)

Мы рассмотрели конвергентные процессы в эволюции языкового состояния ретроспективно от праславянского через заттаднобалтийское к протобалтийскому. Установить именно такую последовательность этапов развития помогает методика, стратифицирующая эти процессы в реальном пространстве — времени. Сначала определяется контактная зона праславянской языковой территории в V-III вв. до н. э. Это удается сделать, поскольку, во-первых, нам хорошо известна та территория, которую в это время занимали германцы (низовье Эльбы, Ютландский полуостров и южная Швеция), проникшие впервые на восток от нижнего и среднего течения Одры в II в. до н. э., а во-вторых, распространение славянизмов в прагерманском гарантирует локализацию древнейших славяно-германских контактов именно на этой территории и в это же время. Нам удается определить и продолжение контактной зоны праславянской языковой территории, так как почти одновременно со славяно-германскими устанавливаются древнейшие славяно-кельтские языковые контакты. Кельты, которые занимали территорию Богемии и Моравии в III в. до н. э., вышли на верхнюю Одру. Таким образом, можно считать, что в период древнейших контактов, которые носители праславянского языка осуществляли после нашествия скифов и гибели лужицкой культуры (VI—V вв. до н. э.), пограничная зона славянского языкового массива проходила почти на всем его протяжении.

Нашествие скифов, археологически хорошо документированное, перекрыло основную лехитскую территорию, распространившись до Куявии. Мы, следовательно, в этом случае можем судить не только о пограничной зоне распространения протославянского языка, но и о всей или почти всей территории его распространения. Поскольку иранский ингредиент, включивший в себя лексику и грамматические слова, не оставил следов в восточнобалтийских языках, которые по крайней мере за пять веков до этого отделились от языковой территории западных балтов, можно наметить и северо-восточные границы протославянской территории, отделявшие современное Мазовше с его явным восточнобалтийским субстратом.

Наконец, практически одновременно с распадом протобалтийской языковой территории на западную и восточную проходила италийская инфильтрация (возможно, именно она привела к этому распаду). Чрезвычайно богатый италийский ингредиент праславянского языка недвусмысленно указывает на этот процесс. Инфильтрация эта началась с распространения предлужицкой культуры и закончилась становлением лужицкой культуры (XII-IX вв. до н. э.). Италийский ингредиент, как и иранский, указывает примерно на ту же территорию распространения протославянского языка, так как территория восточных балтов оказалась им не затронутой. То, что италийское вторжение охватывало практически ту же территорию с несколько большим распространением на север, доказывает инфильтрация ряда элементов италийского ингредиента в древнепрусский язык, т. е. на ту часть западнобалтийского массива, которая не подверглась славянизации (ср. др.-прус, auculo «игла», lauxnos «светила»; maldininkas «юноша», топонимы с корнем bait-, формы личных местоимении и др.). Интересно, что прусское название щита scaytan (без параллелей в восточнобалтийских языках) указывает скорее на италийскую инфильтрацию, чем кельтскую (лат. scutum «щит» < *scoitom), несмотря на прасл. scitъ, которое по неизвестным нам причинам изменило огласовку еще в протославянский период (*skoitom > *skeitom > scitъ).

Менее вероятно проникновение пракельт. skeitos (ирл. sciath), которое после перехода ei > ё (ср. кletь) не должно было дать прасл. scitъ. О возможности проникновения
кельтизмов через славянизированную территорию на
западнобалтийскую неславянизированную свидетельствует пракельт. saldi 'сало' > прасл. sadlo (*saldo) > западнобалт. (прус.) saltan 'сало'. Эти пока еще немногочисленные примеры не только не противоречат концепции западнобалтийского происхождения праславянского
языка, но и демонстрируют тот факт, что разновременное италийское и кельтское влияние проходило на той же территории, т. е. территории, пограничной с прусскими землями.

Наличие славяно-германских и славяно-кельтских контактов, иранского и италийского ингредиентов праславянского языка вовсе не означает, что иных контактов и иных ингредиентов для праславянского не могло быть. Однако и рассмотренных фактов оказывается достаточно для восстановления доистории праславянского языка.

Поэтапно снимая пласты славянской лексики и частично грамматики, возникшие в результате конвергентных процессов, мы все ближе подходим к первичному ингредиенту, который неизбежно оказывается балтийским. Балтийский характер первичного ингредиента праславянского языка доказывается путем исследования дивергентных процессов и прежде всего мощного инновационного процесса суффиксальной именной деривации, проходившей в протобалтийском и составившем основные формантно-функциональные ресурсы праславянского именного словообразования. Сопоставляя конвергенцию и дивергенцию в их определяющих, диагностирующих факторах, мы неизменно приходим к выводу о дочернем характере протославянского языкового состояния сравнительно с протобалтийским.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-14-2016, 10:59 PM
I guess NN3 is sample YF03513 from the YFull tree. Is he the FTDNA customer #N113464 or these are two different lineages from Poland?
Do you know the ancestral location for #YF02847 (the other CTS10936* case from the YFull tree)?



# 264740 is the newly analysed chap.
From UK / Ireland
The other BigY'd Disles B are: 8386, 39389

lgmayka
04-15-2016, 03:11 AM
# 264740 is the newly analysed chap.
From UK / Ireland
The other BigY'd Disles B are: 8386, 39389
And these three form a clade separate from #N113464.

Tomenable
04-15-2016, 04:38 AM
Yes maybe too. But I2a2, more generally, is found as far as middle Neolithic Iberia. Like today, it has a broad, not infrequent distribution, from Russia to England, at 5 - 10 % prevalence, up to 15% in NW Germany and Holland.

I1 was also in many places, we have 2 samples of I1 dating back before 5000 BC - one from Sweden (Stora Förvar), one from Hungary (BAB5).

Waldemar
04-15-2016, 06:20 AM
Procopius in History of the Wars, III, xxii, 13-16 wrote about those Vandals who never moved from their original homeland:

"(...) Now as for those Vandals who remained in their native land, neither remembrance nor any name of them has been preserved to my time. (...) they were either overpowered by the neighbouring barbarians or they were mingled with them not at all unwillingly and their name gave way to that of their conquerors. Indeed, when the Vandals were conquered at that time by Belisarius, no thought occurred to them to go from there to their ancestral homes. For they were not able to convey themselves suddenly from Libya to Europe, especially as they had no ships at hand, but paid the penalty [2] there for all the wrongs they had done the Romans and especially the Zacynthians. (...)"

[2] In Arcana, 18, 5 ff., Procopius estimates the number of the Vandals in Africa, at the time of Belisarius, at 80,000 males, and intimates that practically all perished.

The same Procopius wrote...
"Now the Vandals, dwelling about the Maeotic Lake [the Sea of Azov], since they were pressed by hunger, moved to the country of the Germans, who are now called Franks, and the river Rhine, associating with themselves the Alans, a Gothic people. Then from there, under the leadership of Godigisclus, they moved and settled in Spain, which is the first land of the Roman empire on the side of the ocean. At that time Honorius made an agreement with Godigisclus that they should settle there on condition that it should not be to the detriment of the country (...) When the Vandals originally, pressed by hunger, were about to remove from their ancestral abodes, a certain part of them was left behind who were reluctant to go and not desirous of following Godigisclus."

Theoretical migration route of Alans and Vandals
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Alani_map.jpg


What Non-Germanic (maybe even Non-European) elite group with J2a1b could that be ???

It seems that Alans joined Lombards, Vandals and other Gothic tribes, so perhaps this resulted in significant percentage of J2a1b.

"Origio Gentium Langobardum" (7th century AD):
"Audochari went forth from Ravenna with the army of the Alanorum and came into Rugilanda and fought with the Rugos and killed Theuvane king of the Rugorum, and led many captives with him into Italy. Then the Langobardi departed from their own territories and dwelt some years in Rugilanda."

Distribution of haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) in Europe, the Middle East & North Africa:
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg


https://s22.postimg.org/shfar7ei9/Y+haplogroups+Partecipanza+group+vs+control+grou.p ng

Germanic I-L22 (15.91%) + possibly-Germanic R-U152 (27.27%) + Gothicised Alanic J-M67 (13.64%) = 56.82% of Lombards ;)

Michał
04-15-2016, 11:58 AM
There is a layer of ancient Celtic words in proto-Slavic. Proto-Slavs had contacts with the Celts. The most likely region is central / central-eastern Europe.

Linguist Martynov writes about Germanic, Iranic and Celtic loan-words in Proto-Slavic. The text is in Russian which is worth to read. Martynov was a good linguist.

Actually, the most commonly accepted view is that the number of any borrowings directly from Celtic to Proto-Slavic was either extremely low (when compared, for example, to the borrowings from Germanic) or nonexistent at all. The two examples mentioned by Martynov do not find much support among the specialists in the field, and Martynov himself admits that the Proto-Celtic word *skoitom (shield) should not produce the Proto-Slavic scitъ, not to mention that a very similar word existed in West Baltic (staytan/scaytan) which he derives from Italic rather than from Celtic (sic!), although one could suspect a common Proto-Balto-Slavic origin based on the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form *skei-to-m.

Volat
04-15-2016, 12:07 PM
Actually, the most commonly accepted view is that the number of any borrowings directly from Celtic to Proto-Slavic was either extremely low (when compared, for example, to the borrowings from Germanic) or nonexistent at all. The two examples mentioned by Martynov do not find much support among the specialists in the field, and Martynov himself admits that the Proto-Celtic word *skoitom (shield) should not produce the Proto-Slavic scitъ, not to mention that a very similar word existed in West Baltic (staytan/scaytan) which he derives from Italic rather than from Celtic (sic!), although one could suspect a common Proto-Balto-Slavic origin based on the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European form *skei-to-m.


There're fewer Celtic loan-words in proto-Slavic in comparison to Iranic and Germanic loan-words. I gather ancient Italic is Celtic in the context of Martynov's work.

George
04-15-2016, 04:27 PM
The same Procopius wrote...
"Now the Vandals, dwelling about the Maeotic Lake [the Sea of Azov], since they were pressed by hunger, moved to the country of the Germans, who are now called Franks, and the river Rhine, associating with themselves the Alans, a Gothic people. Then from there, under the leadership of Godigisclus, they moved and settled in Spain, which is the first land of the Roman empire on the side of the ocean. At that time Honorius made an agreement with Godigisclus that they should settle there on condition that it should not be to the detriment of the country (...) When the Vandals originally, pressed by hunger, were about to remove from their ancestral abodes, a certain part of them was left behind who were reluctant to go and not desirous of following Godigisclus."

Theoretical migration route of Alans and Vandals
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Alani_map.jpg



It seems that Alans joined Lombards, Vandals and other Gothic tribes, so perhaps this resulted in significant percentage of J2a1b.

"Origio Gentium Langobardum" (7th century AD):
"Audochari went forth from Ravenna with the army of the Alanorum and came into Rugilanda and fought with the Rugos and killed Theuvane king of the Rugorum, and led many captives with him into Italy. Then the Langobardi departed from their own territories and dwelt some years in Rugilanda."

Distribution of haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) in Europe, the Middle East & North Africa:
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-J2.jpg



Germanic I-L22 (15.91%) + possibly-Germanic R-U152 (27.27%) + Gothicised Alanic J-M67 (13.64%) = 56.82% of Lombards ;)

Procopius had no idea as to the specific geography of the Black Sea area north and north east of the Danube. As he puts it in "De Bello Vandalico I.1 This area "cannot be fully and accurately described because the barbarians located beyond the Ister (which they call the Danube) refuse the Romans access to the coasts of these regions". So his reference to the "Palus Maeotis" as the native haunt of the Vandals only means "north of the Danube and east of the Franks". He does know that the Vandals are "a Gothic nation"...

Tomenable
04-15-2016, 10:53 PM
haven't you noticed already a few days ago that "Venedi' was an imprecise term

No I haven't noticed this. I just noticed that there were Venedi in other parts of Europe too.

But the same can be said about the Lugii of Przeworsk culture, who were not the only Lugii.

There was also one Lugii tribe in Scotland (Caledonia) and two Lugii tribes in Northern Iberia.


So where would you 'definitively' place your Venedi?

Depends in which period of time, ethnic boundaries have been fluent. But check this map:

http://s22.postimg.org/urhgmuk7l/Amber_Road_people.png

Tomenable
04-15-2016, 11:30 PM
Dendrogram on page 43 of this book shows, that anthropologically Ancient Germanen were more similar to Medieval Slavs than to Medieval Deutsche:

http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-27577/TLDA_WMUF_13027304X_19.pdf

So Michal's idea that East Germanic DNA will turn out to be similar to Germans, seems wrong, at least as far as anthropology and genetics correlate.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-15-2016, 11:56 PM
No I haven't noticed this. I just noticed that there were Venedi in other parts of Europe too.

But the same can be said about the Lugii of Przeworsk culture, who were not the only Lugii.

There was also one Lugii tribe in Scotland (Caledonia) and two Lugii tribes in Northern Iberia.

Indeed
Which means ethonyms were often shared without direct ethnic links, often due to Roman naming generic conventions, re-cycling, mis-interpretation, and folk-etymologising. etc. it doesn't mean Polish Lugii migrated to Scotland , or did y DNA tests and "discovered" they're ancestors.

;)




But check this map:

http://s22.postimg.org/urhgmuk7l/Amber_Road_people.png

Ok what am I meant to be "checking" ?

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 12:03 AM
Which means ethonyms were often shared without direct ethnic links

There actually is an ethnic link - all those groups were Indo-European.

Though in case of Przeworsk culture - we have a chronological pattern here.

At first sources saw the Lugii in areas occupied by Przeworsk, later they saw the Vandili.

So we have the Lugii conquered by the Vandili, but material culture remained the same.

There is no reason to assume that the Lugii were Germanic before their subjugation by the Vandili.

The ethnonym Lugii is most likely of Celtic origin, but it also doesn't say much about genetic origins of the majority of the population of that polity (i.e. they could be conquered by Celts who imposed their name, just like later the Vandili did).

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 12:08 AM
often due to Roman naming generic conventions

Lugii is not an exonym, it is an endonym of most likely Celtic origin.

But some ethnonyms could be similar due to common PIE origins as well.

For example it is possible that some names date back as far as PIE unity.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-16-2016, 12:24 AM
There actually is an ethnic link - all those groups were Indo-European.



Yes, and they were all homo sapiens too.


Though in case of Przeworsk culture - we have a chronological pattern here.


So we have the Lugii conquered by the Vandili, but material culture remained the same.

There is no reason to assume that the Lugii were Germanic before their subjugation by the Vandili.

The ethnonym Lugii is most likely of Celtic origin, but it also doesn't say much about genetic origins of the majority of the population of that polity (i.e. they could be conquered by Celts who imposed their name, just like later the Vandili did).

Your reconstruction is that of something of a 'science fiction'. You've just pieced together a narrative based on what appears and disappears through the problematic and imperfect lens of Roman historiography. The problem is that you believe that Roman sources can be read like a historical Encyclopedia, and where gaps exists, you feel free to add in your own interpretations. That is to say, you have just *imagined* that A tribe conquered B tribe despite no evidence for that exists - neither archaeological nor literary -(which there should be - at least archaeological)

We still have a long way to go before we gain a real understanding of the power politics, culture or social structure of the Vistula lands during the Roman Iron Age. To do this, you'd need to do 4 years of background reading first about ethno-anthropology, then do a region by region analysis of the material record. You'd also to understand about segmentary lineages, chiefdoms, kinship, social -professional associations, etc; to hope to even come close to what Roman's meant when they referred to "the Goths", or "the Vandals".

I beleive no professional scholar has managed to do this yet, either, for the Przeworsk culture (that Ive come across). But I am hopeful that they will offer some more mature persepctives soon- given the floruit of academia Poland is experiencing. Future overviews will go beyond Przeworsk = Lugii, then Vandals, or whatever. I.e. they might soon gain a real understanding of who the 'Przeworskians" were, how they functioned, what social structures they had, and what identities they possed, how they connected with the wider Europe.
For example, they might find that for during the Przeworsk period, for most individuals, identity revolved around their core family unit and village - they had no clue about any "Vandals". Rather, the Vandals were evernescent & non-constant groups of young men, at times compliant traders with Rome, other times raiders, sometimes cooperated with one another, sometimes mutually antagonistic. It is these guys who probably commanded and competed for the Vistula route, and cremated themselves with bent swords as the Custom which went back to La Tene times.

Many such groups came and went, were killed off, fused and unfused. For the Romans, it didn;t matter who they really were- apart from being Vistulans. It didn't matter too much if they called them Lugii, or Vandals and probably rested on which of their predecessor's work they were copying from, or which fellow orator they were responding to, or what fit better in their meter.
Things changed after 4th century, when names became more defined and monopolized.



At first sources saw the Lugii in areas occupied by Przeworsk, later they saw the Vandili.
Ive not made any remarks or assumptions about the linguistic affinities of the Lugii.




Lugii is not an exonym, it is an endonym of most likely Celtic origin.
But some ethnonyms could be similar due to common PIE origins as well.

For example it is possible that some names date back as far as PIE unity.

How do you know it was an endonym ? Did you hear them call themselves that ?
But I see you admit - terms like Venedi and Lugii could have been widely used - all it shows is that the names themselves are of IE etymology. It sheds little direct light on the Lugii of Scotland

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 12:40 AM
Yes, and they were all homo sapiens too.

"Homo sapiens" is not a closely related language family, while Indo-European is.


which there should be - at least archaeological

The disappearance of La Tčne culture in Poland can be considered as such evidence.

BTW - lens of archaeology are problematic and imperfect as well.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 12:49 AM
How do you know it was an endonym ? Did you hear them call themselves that?

Because we have "Lugian" toponyms and personal names as well, not just ethnonyms.

Toponyms: Lugidunon, Lugidunum, Luguvalium, Lugudunum, Lugdunum

Personal names (Lugius could also refer to ethnic origin of a person): Lug, Lugus, Lugius

All of these are found in Celtic context.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-16-2016, 01:00 AM
"Homo sapiens" is not a closely related language family, while Indo-European is.



The disappearance of La Tčne culture in Poland can be considered as such evidence.

BTW - lens of archaeology are problematic and imperfect as well.

There were but a few La Tene enclaves in Poland. Their disappearance long preceded the change from Lugii to Vandals, for example.

Anyhow, it's a lot more complex than that
Here is a good article about Iron Age identity, Chiefs, etc
"The emergence of Early Iron Age ‘chieftains’ graves’ in the southern Netherlands:
reconsidering transformations in burial and depositional practices"

That's what we should aim for elsewhere

And I don't debate that Lugi appears to be Celtic
But you need to ask, what does it use really signify ?

Waldemar
04-16-2016, 05:24 AM
Tacitus wrote...
"Of these, the Marsigni and Buri, in their language and manner of life, resemble the Suevi. The Gotini and Osi are proved by their respective Gallic and Pannonian tongues, as well as by the fact of their enduring tribute, not to be Germans. Tribute is imposed on them as aliens, partly by the Sarmatę, partly by the Quadi. The Gotini, to complete their degradation, actually work iron mines. All these nations occupy but little of the plain country, dwelling in forests and on mountain-tops. For Suevia is divided and cut in half by a continuous mountain-range, beyond which live a multitude of tribes. The name of Ligii, spread as it is among many states, is the most widely extended."

vettor
04-16-2016, 05:55 AM
Tacitus wrote...
"Of these, the Marsigni and Buri, in their language and manner of life, resemble the Suevi. The Gotini and Osi are proved by their respective Gallic and Pannonian tongues, as well as by the fact of their enduring tribute, not to be Germans. Tribute is imposed on them as aliens, partly by the Sarmatę, partly by the Quadi. The Gotini, to complete their degradation, actually work iron mines. All these nations occupy but little of the plain country, dwelling in forests and on mountain-tops. For Suevia is divided and cut in half by a continuous mountain-range, beyond which live a multitude of tribes. The name of Ligii, spread as it is among many states, is the most widely extended."

The Osi where the most northern of the Illyrian tribes in Pannonia ..........Pannonia was originally all illyrian, then became celtic with a dacian mix
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=u3A3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=osi+tribe+illyrian&source=bl&ots=pK7vtA-tFk&sig=RgXLOsqhju5pZhJHtfurAKywJeA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis7Z6Tu5LMAhWjraYKHUNfB30Q6AEILjAD#v=on epage&q=osi%20tribe%20illyrian&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LP9RAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=osi+tribe+illyrian&source=bl&ots=lGChT0FlTU&sig=94uq8AAjYaruyDVzu0al2FjPXiI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis7Z6Tu5LMAhWjraYKHUNfB30Q6AEIQDAI#v=on epage&q=osi%20tribe%20illyrian&f=false

vettor
04-16-2016, 06:11 AM
There actually is an ethnic link - all those groups were Indo-European.

Though in case of Przeworsk culture - we have a chronological pattern here.

At first sources saw the Lugii in areas occupied by Przeworsk, later they saw the Vandili.

So we have the Lugii conquered by the Vandili, but material culture remained the same.

There is no reason to assume that the Lugii were Germanic before their subjugation by the Vandili.

The ethnonym Lugii is most likely of Celtic origin, but it also doesn't say much about genetic origins of the majority of the population of that polity (i.e. they could be conquered by Celts who imposed their name, just like later the Vandili did).

where does it say the Vandili conquered the Lugii ?

More likely the Lugii , Aviones, Turcilingi, Nuithones, Reudingi, Carini etc tribes joined the Vandili in their conquest of the Roman Empire ..............the Vandili where not that big to do it alone.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 11:01 AM
There were but a few La Tene enclaves in Poland.

If you asked 35 years ago, the answer would be "there was NO La Tene in Poland". But a lot has been discovered since then. Check this map of achaeologically confirmed areas of Celtic settlement in Poland (state of knowledge as of November 2014):

https://balkancelts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/new-poland-map-upd.jpg?w=640

Michał
04-16-2016, 03:39 PM
Dendrogram on page 43 of this book shows, that anthropologically Ancient Germanen were more similar to Medieval Slavs than to Medieval Deutsche:

http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-27577/TLDA_WMUF_13027304X_19.pdf

So Michal's idea that East Germanic DNA will turn out to be similar to Germans, seems wrong, at least as far as anthropology and genetics correlate.
:) Is this supposed to be a joke? I cannot believe your last sentence is supposed to be a serious statement.
If these results show us anything, it is only that the ancient Germanic and Slavic populations were (anthropologically!) more similar to each other than to their modern descendants (in this case to modern Germans), which is nothing surprising when knowing that many anthropological parameters are extremely sensitive to the so-called environmental factors (including for example nutrition and many other factors associated with some significant modifications in the style of life).
If you really believe that the Medieval Alemannen, Franken, Bavaren (Baiuvarii) and Saxons were much more closely related (genetically!) to the Medieval Slavs than to the Modern Germans, than how are you going to explain this putative drastic replacement of the ancient Germanic genetic pool in the post-Medieval period?

BTW, it seems you haven't even bothered to read my old posts from the Molgen forum (to which I have recently provided a link), as otherwise you wouldn't use such extremely doubtful "anthropological arguments":
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=1161&start=15
http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=825&start=317

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 03:58 PM
Michał,

We have 12 Y-DNA samples from the Migration Period from Görzig (in Saxony-Anhalt).

Out of 12 samples, 8 belonged to haplogroup I and only 4 to R1 (including at least 1 R1a):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6635-Holy-Roman-Empire-amp-Migration-Period-Ancient-DNA-from-Germany&p=144929&viewfull=1#post144929

So the proportions of R1b and I were very different from these in present-day Germans.

On the other hand, in a 13th century "Ostsiedlung" sample from Berlin, 2 out of 2 were R1b:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News&p=151377&viewfull=1#post151377

The "Ostsiedlung" sample size is small, but it seems to confirm my point from this thread.

I wrote, that Ancient Germania was mostly I1 - and not mostly R1b like modern Germany.

Pre-Migration Period Germania was dominated by I, and Post-Ostsiedlung Germany by R1b.

Michał
04-16-2016, 04:00 PM
There actually is an ethnic link - all those groups were Indo-European.
:) This is indeed an extremely strong argument in this case. ;)


Though in case of Przeworsk culture - we have a chronological pattern here.

At first sources saw the Lugii in areas occupied by Przeworsk, later they saw the Vandili.

So we have the Lugii conquered by the Vandili, but material culture remained the same.

There is no reason to assume that the Lugii were Germanic before their subjugation by the Vandili.

The ethnonym Lugii is most likely of Celtic origin, but it also doesn't say much about genetic origins of the majority of the population of that polity (i.e. they could be conquered by Celts who imposed their name, just like later the Vandili did).
I agree that the above scenario makes perfect sense (especially in light of what Tacitus wrote about some presumably "Celtic" people conquered by the Germanic tribes and used for some specific jobs, including blacksmithing, which nicely corresponds to the Latenization process), and although it won't be easy to definitely verify those Celtic genetic influences in Przeworsk (mostly because of the burial rites used by the relevant La Tene and Przeworsk groupings), this is definitely worth further investigation. BTW, this is also one of the reason why Przeworsk is much more likely to represent a Germanic-speaking population (rather than Proto-Slavic-speaking one), as otherwise we should expect much more Celtic loanwords in Proto-Slavic (especially among the words associated with metallurgy and some specific cultural influences).

Michał
04-16-2016, 04:15 PM
We have 12 Y-DNA samples from the Migration Period from Görzig (in Saxony-Anhalt).

Out of 12 samples, 8 belonged to haplogroup I and only 4 to R1 (including at least 1 R1a)

This is actually incorrect, should be: at least one R1b.



So the proportions of R1b and I were very different from these in present-day Germans.

On the other hand, in a 13th century "Ostsiedlung" sample from Berlin, 2 out of 2 were R1b:
Again incorrect. When assuming that the remaining R1 samples are also R1b (which seems quite likely), this would make together 6 R1b cases in a group of 14 men (or 43%), which is more or less what we see among the modern Germans.




Pre-Migration Period Germania was dominated by I, and Post-Ostsiedlung Germany by R1b.
Does it mean that you believe that the Ostsiedlung process was strongly selective regarding the Y-DNA haplogroups and thus it was only (or mostly) the "haplogroup I" Germans who migrated eastward while the "R1b Germans" were among those strongly preferring staying home?

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 04:16 PM
Migration Period Görzig (n=12):

I - 67%
R1 - 33%

Ostsiedlung city of Berlin (n=2):

R1b - 100%

Modern Germany (per Eupedia):

R1 - 61%
I - 22%

It seems that frequency of haplogroup I (mostly I1) is three times lower in modern Germany than in Ancient Germania.

On the other hand, frequency of R1b in Ancient Germania (Görzig sample) was only between 25% (at the most) and 8%.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 04:18 PM
When assuming that the remaining R1 samples are also R1b (which seems quite likely)

We have 4 R1 samples, of which 1 is described as R1b, the remaining 3 just as R1.

However, out of the remaining three R1, one is described as "Eastern European".

I assume that between 1 and 3 are R1b, an the "Eastern European" one is R1a.

It means that frequency of R1b in that sample is between 8% and 25% at the most.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 04:27 PM
Does it mean that you believe that the Ostsiedlung process was strongly selective regarding the Y-DNA haplogroups and thus it was only (or mostly) the "haplogroup I" Germans who migrated eastward while the "R1b Germans" were among those strongly preferring staying home?

I believe that Ostsiedlung settlers came from areas where R1b was much more numerous than I1.

And this is actually confirmed by written sources (see for example Helmold's "Chronica Slavorum").

https://s22.postimg.org/bai0spuip/Ostsiedlung.png

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 04:34 PM
Germans who migrated eastward

"Ostsiedlung" settlers came from areas which are today the Netherlands, Belgium, and the French-German borderland. Most of them spoke West Germanic dialects, but many also spoke Romance (e.g. Walloons). Ashkenazi Jews were part of that too.

Many came from westernmost parts of modern Germany (the Rhineland). Many also came from Friesland (Frisia).

Michał
04-16-2016, 04:35 PM
Modern Germany (per Eupedia):

R1 - 61%
I - 22%
This includes both R1a and R1b, and since R1b alone is only 44.5% among the modern Germans, this is not significantly different from those ancient data (5/14 or 36%, when assuming that "Eastern European" R1 is R1a and "Western European" R1 corresponds to R1b). The increased frequency of R1a among the modern Germans can be easily explained by the subsequent assimilation of the Western Slavs.



It seems that frequency of haplogroup I (mostly I1) is three times lower in modern Germany than in Ancient Germania.
I'm afraid this difference is not statistically significant.


On the other hand, frequency of R1b in Ancient Germania (Görzig sample) was only between 25% (at the most) and 8%.
This is incorrect, see above.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 04:44 PM
5/14 or 36%

Where did you find these numbers? Table 3. shows 12 samples in total, of which only 4 are R1.

Richard A. Rocca wrote that in total they had 18 individuals, but only 12 are in Table 3.


when assuming that "Eastern European" R1 is R1a and "Western European" R1 corresponds to R1b

Some of that "Western European" R1 could also be R1a-L664 or R1a-Z284 rather than R1b.

On the other hand, there is no R1b which is typically "Eastern European", so it had to be R1a.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 04:46 PM
I'm afraid this difference is not statistically significant.

Why not? A dozen is a fair amount of samples - no less than the number of available samples from Yamnaya.

I haven't noticed you arguing that the prevalence of R1b in Yamnaya samples is not statistically significant.

Michał
04-16-2016, 04:53 PM
"Ostsiedlung" settlers came from areas which are today in the Netherlands, Belgium, and the French-German borderland. Most of them spoke West Germanic dialects, but many spoke Romance as well (e.g. Walloons), as well as Ashkenazi Jews.

For example in Post-Ostsiedlung Breslau there was a Jewish community as well as a district of Walloon weavers.
So I guess your hypothesis is that the territory of today's Germany has influenced a substantial influx of R1b only after the Germans living east of the Oder "came back" west as a result of WW2?
If so, this should be reflected in the FTDNA data, as most FTDNA customers who consider themselves ethnic Germans are able to trace their ancestors to the pre-WW2 times.
Do you have such FTDNA-based data that would indicate that the haplogroup I/R1b ratio for the territory of modern Germany was significantly different in the 18th-19th centuries from what it is today?

Michał
04-16-2016, 04:55 PM
Why not? A dozen is a fair amount of samples
Just do a simple statistical test and you will know why.


no less than the number of available samples from Yamnaya.

I haven't noticed you arguing that the prevalence of R1b in Yamnaya samples is not statistically significant.
It is not about the size of sample only. Since all Yamna Y-DNA lineages were R1b while today this region shows almost no R1b, this difference is statistically significant, as the chance of getting such result just by accident is extremely low (or close to 0).

On the other hand, the probability that randomly selected group of 14 Y-DNA results for modern Germany will include 5 R1b samples is relatively high (or high enough to to consider the observed difference between two compared samples statistically insignificant).

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 04:58 PM
Michał you seem to be unaware that Germany emerged as the result of fragmentation of the Frankish Empire:

Germany emerged from eastern part of the Frankish Empire (Germany's roots are West of the Rhine):

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Frankish_homeland.jpg

Animated map:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJHEXQdtt6Q

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 05:16 PM
Does it mean that you believe that the Ostsiedlung process was strongly selective regarding the Y-DNA haplogroups and thus it was only (or mostly) the "haplogroup I" Germans who migrated eastward while the "R1b Germans" were among those strongly preferring staying home?

OK, it seems that you have misunderstood me.

I have made some maps, which - I hope - clearly show what is my current hypothesis:

1) Situation in the early 6th century (R1b majority and I1 majority areas):

https://s23.postimg.org/ivqf5lt6j/6th+century.png

2) Situation in the 8th-9th centuries (expansion of R1b into I1 territories):

https://s24.postimg.org/wfvxfaxbp/9th+century.png

3) Situation in the 10th-13th centuries (expansion of R1b into R1a areas):

https://s30.postimg.org/j9nedsfld/12th+century.png

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 05:31 PM
Since all Yamna Y-DNA lineages were R1b

Not all, one of them was I2a (already published) and one was R1a (not yet published).

Michał
04-16-2016, 05:32 PM
Where did you find these numbers? Table 3. shows 12 samples in total, of which only 4 are R1.
I have not noticed that the 2 remaining Medieval samples are described by you as representing "Ostsiedlung", so when excluding them, you will indeed get 3/12 (25%) or 4/12 (33%, when ignoring the "East European" description), which in both cases fails to produce a difference that would be statistically significant.



Some of that "Western European" R1 could also be R1a-L664 or R1a-Z284 rather than R1b.
I doubt the authors were able to differentiate between Z284/L664 and let's say Z280 based on that particular set of STRs (PowerPlex Y23). Please note that they were actually unable to definitely distinguish between R1a and R1b (in all those cases).


On the other hand, there is no R1b which is typically "Eastern European", so it had to be R1a.
On the other hand, please note that they also have included one case of haplogroup I1 (or I(1)) that is described as "Austronesisch", or another case of haplogroup I described as "Uralisch-Yukagirisch", which together makes your above assumption somehow less likely.

Michał
04-16-2016, 05:36 PM
Not all, one of them was I2a (already published)
This one should be assigned to the Catacomb culture: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4642-Allentoft-s-Yamna-I2a&p=89514#post89514



and one was R1a (not yet published).
Then let's wait until it is published, as the information provided on the Russian forum included many inconsistencies.

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 05:38 PM
I have not noticed that the 2 remaining Medieval samples are described by you as representing "Ostsiedlung"

Yes, those two remaining samples are from 13th century city of Berlin.

BTW - my assumption is that Thuringians and Saxons were mostly I1.

Pagan Saxons were conquered by Charlemagne in period 772-804:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4729-Were-Myceneans-lineages-R1b-or-R1a/page5&p=150268#post150268

After that conquest, he planted settlers from the West in their homeland.

See post #156, IMO in the 500s most common Y-DNA in Germany was I.

Michał
04-16-2016, 05:46 PM
OK, it seems that you have misunderstood me.

I have made some maps, which - I hope - clearly show what is my current hypothesis.

Ok, I agree this makes some sense. Let's hope that we get sufficiently large ancient Germanic Y-DNA samples to be able to verify your above hypothesis (though this won't be easy unless the frequency of haplogroup R1b turns out to be extremely low in most Early Germanic samples).

vettor
04-16-2016, 05:50 PM
:) This is indeed an extremely strong argument in this case. ;)


I agree that the above scenario makes perfect sense (especially in light of what Tacitus wrote about some presumably "Celtic" people conquered by the Germanic tribes and used for some specific jobs, including blacksmithing, which nicely corresponds to the Latenization process), and although it won't be easy to definitely verify those Celtic genetic influences in Przeworsk (mostly because of the burial rites used by the relevant La Tene and Przeworsk groupings), this is definitely worth further investigation. BTW, this is also one of the reason why Przeworsk is much more likely to represent a Germanic-speaking population (rather than Proto-Slavic-speaking one), as otherwise we should expect much more Celtic loanwords in Proto-Slavic (especially among the words associated with metallurgy and some specific cultural influences).

Recent findings by archaeologists have established the Gaulish/Celtic capital in Central germany to be Glauberg ............these people have been there, since the Rossen culture of ~4200BC

The only germanic people in those times where in modern north-Germany, Denmark and beyond

Germanic peoples moves south into Central Germany could not have occurred before 500BC and we also know there where no Germanic in South Germany until 300AD

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 05:55 PM
As for Thuringians and Saxons, I wrote:


BTW - my assumption is that Thuringians and Saxons were mostly I1.

And I also expect I2a2 among them, not just I1.

There is still a hotspot of I2a2 in Thuringia today:

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-I2b.gif

And R1b-U106 amounts to just 5-10% in Thuringia:

http://s23.postimg.org/3th2vswu3/Turyngia.png

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 06:45 PM
Michał,

That sample from Migration Period Germany (4th - 5th century) could be ethnic Saxons:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6635-Holy-Roman-Empire-amp-Migration-Period-Ancient-DNA-from-Germany&p=151436&viewfull=1#post151436

The fact that many of modern matches are from Australia and New Zealand suggests this.

Also note that between 58% and 67% of those people belonged to haplogroup I1.

The only available sample of Saxon Y-DNA from England (Martiniano 2016) is also I1:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/full/ncomms10326.html

Tomenable
04-18-2016, 09:52 PM
Grzybowo and Giecz - see the map below - are two of the earliest Piast strongholds in Greater Poland.

Near these 2 strongholds, there are 3 villages named "small village of Gutones" (Gutowo Małe), "big village of Gutones" (Gutowo Wielkie) and "village of Gutones" (Gułtowy). There are many more of such potential Gothic toponyms in Poland (list below):

Article (in Polish) linking "Gut-", "Gud-", "Got-", etc. prefixes with Gothic settlements surviving the Migration Period:

http://www32.zippyshare.com/v/3dNYP6Oq/file.html

The region of the city of Września, and the neighbouring two Early Piast strongholds and three "Gothic" villages:

Map:

http://s3.postimg.org/f3ofi9ayp/Okolica.png

http://s3.postimg.org/f3ofi9ayp/Okolica.png

Settlement names in Poland: http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/urzedowe_nazwy_miejscowosci.php

http://s3.postimg.org/kushi8o5f/Toponimy_gockie.png

Gravetto-Danubian
04-18-2016, 10:40 PM
Grzybowo and Giecz - see the map below - are two of the earliest Piast strongholds in Greater Poland.

Near these 2 strongholds, there are 3 villages named "small village of Gutones" (Gutowo Małe), "big village of Gutones" (Gutowo Wielkie) and "village of Gutones" (Gułtowy). There are many more of such potential Gothic toponyms in Poland (list below):

Article (in Polish) linking "Gut-", "Gud-", "Got-", etc. prefixes with Gothic settlements surviving the Migration Period:

http://www32.zippyshare.com/v/3dNYP6Oq/file.html

The region of the city of Września, and the neighbouring two Early Piast strongholds and three "Gothic" villages:

Map:

http://s3.postimg.org/f3ofi9ayp/Okolica.png

http://s3.postimg.org/f3ofi9ayp/Okolica.png

Settlement names in Poland: http://ksng.gugik.gov.pl/urzedowe_nazwy_miejscowosci.php

http://s3.postimg.org/kushi8o5f/Toponimy_gockie.png

This isn't convincing unless we know the settlements continued through Roman - migration - middle age era
Otherwise toponyms can be made up anytime, as likely these were, I.e sometime in the Middle Ages or even later through heresay. I imagine such town names refer to areas of recent German (generic) settlement, and not ancient "Gothic" survival

Do you have archaeological evidnece for settlement continuity through the ages, or charter records as to when the site is first mentioned ?

As a point of comparison, many towns around Austria and southern German with suffix -walha were presumed to be "Roman" enclaves. In reality, -walha referred to nobles in the Middle Ages, and such towns represent donations by such nobility, not surviving Romans

Tomenable
04-18-2016, 10:51 PM
"Settlement of Gutones / Goths" style toponymy:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=ziNly7KMkY1Q.kTpMpidG9Ogc&usp=sharing

http://i.imgur.com/WIdfjVA.png

Wielbark culture - f - and Przeworsk culture - a - in 375 AD:

http://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=361337

Przeworsk was conquered / dominated by the Goths as well.

Tomenable
04-18-2016, 10:58 PM
I imagine such town names refer to areas of recent German (generic) settlement

If that was the case, there would be more of such names in Western Poland, including Pomerania and Silesia.

While as the map shows, Silesia and Pomerania have zero of such "settlement of Gutones" style toponyms.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-18-2016, 11:38 PM
If that was the case, there would be more of such names in Western Poland, including Pomerania and Silesia.

While as the map shows, Silesia and Pomerania have zero of such "settlement of Gutones" style toponyms.

Well my point stands. I'd bet all these towns were named after 900 AD, quite likely after 1000 AD, and don't actually mean much other than saying something about tradition.
It's hard to give definite conclusions, because we need contextual data as to when they are named, and when they were first built etc. Anyhow, most seem to lies well outside the presumably "Gothic" Wielbark culture.
Can you find out when these names first appear, who founded the town, & under what circumstances ? If so, that'll help clarify what they mean.
I'd expect someone might have already written a thesis about this ?

Another example - towns like Sirmium / Srijem, Sisak/ Siscia, Nis/ Naissus, Arbo/ Raab in the Balkans were clearly abandoned for some 50 - 100 years, yet the name still exists. how? ( I know, but Im posing a question to you)

Volat
04-19-2016, 01:46 AM
Grzybowo and Giecz - see the map below - are two of the earliest Piast strongholds in Greater Poland.

Near these 2 strongholds, there are 3 villages named "small village of Gutones" (Gutowo Małe), "big village of Gutones" (Gutowo Wielkie) and "village of Gutones" (Gułtowy). There are many more of such potential Gothic toponyms in Poland (list below):

Article (in Polish) linking "Gut-", "Gud-", "Got-", etc. prefixes with Gothic settlements surviving the Migration Period:


There is Polish-Yotvingian dictionary compiled by a priest. The dictionary contains 215 words. In Yotvingian (west Baltic of north-eastern Poland and western Belarus) Gutti (in plural form) were Germans of Teutonic Order who colonised eastern Prussia.

This toponym maybe after German settlements of 13-15th century . The toponym was spread from northern Poland to other part of Poland in later period.

Yotvingian exoethnonym Gutti was transferred from Goths to Germans. Lithuanians transferred exothnonym to Belarusians . In traditional Lithuanians Belarusians were known as Gudai (in plural form). On some occasions some ethnicities transferred ethnic term of one group onto another.

Toponyms do not provide convincing evidence. Historians usually use hydronyms. If you can find Gothic (east Germanic) hydronyms in Poland.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-19-2016, 02:42 AM
There is Polish-Yotvingian dictionary compiled by a priest. The dictionary contains 215 words. In Yotvingian (west Baltic of north-eastern Poland and western Belarus) Gutti (in plural form) were Germans of Teutonic Order who colonised eastern Prussia.

This toponym maybe after German settlements of 13-15th century . The toponym was spread from northern Poland to other part of Poland in later period.

Yotvingian exoethnonym Gutti was transferred from Goths to Germans. Lithuanians transferred exothnonym to Belarusians . In traditional Lithuanians Belarusians were known as Gudai (in plural form). On some occasions some ethnicities transferred ethnic term of one group onto another.

Toponyms do not provide convincing evidence. Historians usually use hydronyms. If you can find Gothic (east Germanic) hydronyms in Poland.

Thanks Volat
That is what I suspected, without knowing the specifics

Tomenable
04-19-2016, 04:59 AM
Volat - as for hydronymy in Poland, there is a scarcity of Ancient Germanic names, but this cannot be explained by settlement hiatus, because - in stark contrast to Ancient Germanic hydronymy - Pre-Germanic (including Old European) hydronyms and toponyms have been preserved well enough (so this seems to indicate an insignificant Germanic presence prior to the Migration Period, rather than depopulation during the M.P. - in other words, this fact rather favours Generalissimo's or Kostrzewski's theories about Pre-Germanic continuity):

Excerpts from "Najstarsza warstwa nazewnicza na ziemiach Polski" (2001):

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/

See footnote 6 on survival of Pre-Germanic (including Old European) names in Poland:

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/ger_3.jpg

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/ger_3.jpg

Some Gothic hydronyms exist along the Vistula and Bug Rivers, but not away from these rivers:

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/ger_4.jpg

Surprisingly there appears to be no Germanic hydronymy at all in Pomerania (except for vicinity of Vistula):

The only areas with some Germanic hydronymy are:

1) Along Vistula-Bug rivers (= where Goths migrated from the north to the south)

2) In Lower Silesia (also along the main river route, but not really in the interior)

"Map 11 - Germanic names":

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/ger_2.jpg

Tomenable
04-19-2016, 05:39 AM
Here is the most relevant part of footnote 6 translated to English:

"Udolph (1994, p. 919) attempts to explain the lack of Germanic substrate in toponymy by a hiatus before the arrival of West Slavs. He only forgets to explain, why in such case toponyms dating back to an even more remote "Old European" period have survived?"

Exactly, Pre-Germanic names survived better than Germanic ones.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-19-2016, 05:41 AM
As for hydronymy - there is scarcity of ancient Germanic hydronymy in Poland, but this cannot be explained by settlement hiatus, because - in stark contrast to ancient Germanic hydronymy - Pre-Germanic (including Old European) hydronymy and toponymy has been preserved well enough (so this indicates insignificant Germanic presence prior to the Migration Period, not depopulation during the MP - in other words, this fact rather favours Generalissimo's or Kostrzewski's theories about Pre-Germanic continuity):

Excerpts from "Najstarsza warstwa nazewnicza na ziemiach Polski" (2001):

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/

See footnote 6 on survival of Pre-Germanic (including Old European) names in Poland:

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/ger_3.jpg

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/ger_3.jpg

Some Gothic hydronyms exist along the Vistula and Bug Rivers, but not away from these rivers:

http://home.agh.edu.pl/~evermind/germania/ger_4.jpg

Surprisingly there appears to be no Germanic hydronymy at all in Pomerania:

Hhmm.
I certainly would agree we shouldn't automatically assume that the Oder-Vistula region spoke Germanic just because Tacitus said so, and agree that there is some population continuity which might have "passed on' these 'archaic IE" form, but any cautious linguistic can tell you that hydronyms are difficult beast to handle. Afterall, linguists debated for 100 years about where the earliest hydronyms for this or that language existed, to no avail. Indeed, one man's "Old European' is another's Slavic pure and simple.

Moreover, you need to reconcile the fact that there was a definite population drop and immigration with this supposed hydronymic continuity - which is in itself not actually proven. The only Roman Age hydronym we know from Poland is Visla/ Vistula, isn't it ? Considering that "old European' hydronyms are found throughout Europe, all in areas which have had documented population shifts, this should alert us away from making the kind of simplistic deductions. Instead what it tells me is that the difference between O/E and Germanic or Slavic is often in the eye of the analyist, and 'modern' languages like Slavic can preserve older "IE" forms within their repertoire. On this matter, I would read Alexander Schenker's "Were there Slavs in Central Europe before the Great Mugrations?"
(I'm not saying he is right, but he presents some of the linguistic arguements)


As we know, in a couple of months we might be in a better position to state things with more certainty about population continuity. But for now, it might be advisable to gather all evidence first, and then try to come up with a rational explanation, rather than picking a particular scenario first, then looking for "proof".

Mis
04-19-2016, 07:59 AM
Goci nim odeszli zostawili Słowiankom nazwy osad, jezior i rzek na mapach żeby wiedzieli co jak mają nazwać.

Waldemar
04-19-2016, 09:28 AM
Goci nim odeszli zostawili Słowiankom nazwy osad, jezior i rzek na mapach żeby wiedzieli co jak mają nazwać.

You just made my day :biggrin1:

Tomenable
04-22-2016, 06:26 AM
I have bought the 2011 book "Archeologia Polski wczesnośredniowiecznej" ("Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland") by Andrzej Buko.

Let's see if there is something relevant for the thread there. But it is few years old, so it probably doesn't include most recent finds.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-22-2016, 08:14 AM
I have bought the 2011 book "Archeologia Polski wczesnośredniowiecznej" ("Archaeology of Early Medieval Poland") by Andrzej Buko.

Let's see if there is something relevant for the thread there. But it is few years old, so it probably doesn't include most recent finds.

Ive got the English Version. It's Ok.
Nothing out of the ordinary, and would miss some of the recently discovered late Przeworsk finds in Greater Poland & Silesia, and the Scandinavian burials in Pomorania.

ADD: It appears to be available as PDF http://brego-weard.com/lib/ns/The_Archaeology_of_Early_Medieval_Poland_Discov.pd f

George
04-22-2016, 01:08 PM
"Pre-Germanic (including Old European) hydronyms and toponyms have been preserved well enough (so this seems to indicate an insignificant Germanic presence prior to the Migration Period, rather than depopulation during the M.P. - in other words, this fact rather favours Generalissimo's or Kostrzewski's theories about Pre-Germanic continuity" (#172)

"Depopulation" may mean either complete disappearance, extremely significant disappearance, or something in between. The retention of older hydronyms by a new population and the subsequent paucity of retained hydronyms from this new population is not an indicator that the newer population was "insignificant" at all times. There are so many examples of this that it is embarrassing to even menton something so obvious. No one, for instance, doubts any longer that the Chernyakhovians were overwhelmingly Germanic and that Germanics constituted the vast majority of the existing population on Chernyakhovian territory in the period c. 230-430 CE. Then they mostly outmigrated and the insignificant remnants who stayed behind were assimilated by the incoming Slavs. Practically no hydronyms were left by the Gothic Germanics and their Germanic associates. Far less than in Poland it would seem. I suspect the same pattern prevailed there. Germanics and Germanicized elements totally predominated there for centuries. Then they massively outmigrated and their remnants were assimilated by incoming Slavs. I expect that aDNA will basically confirm this scenario.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-22-2016, 01:29 PM
"Pre-Germanic (including Old European) hydronyms and toponyms have been preserved well enough (so this seems to indicate an insignificant Germanic presence prior to the Migration Period, rather than depopulation during the M.P. - in other words, this fact rather favours Generalissimo's or Kostrzewski's theories about Pre-Germanic continuity" (#172)

"Depopulation" may mean either complete disappearance, extremely significant disappearance, or something in between. The retention of older hydronyms by a new population and the subsequent paucity of retained hydronyms from this new population is not an indicator that the newer population was "insignificant" at all times. There are so many examples of this that it is embarrassing to even menton something so obvious. No one, for instance, doubts any longer that the Chernyakhovians were overwhelmingly Germanic and that Germanics constituted the vast majority of the existing population on Chernyakhovian territory in the period c. 230-430 CE. Then they mostly outmigrated and the insignificant remnants who stayed behind were assimilated by the incoming Slavs. Practically no hydronyms were left by the Gothic Germanics and their Germanic associates. Far less than in Poland it would seem. I suspect the same pattern prevailed there. Germanics and Germanicized elements totally predominated there for centuries. Then they massively outmigrated and their remnants were assimilated by incoming Slavs. I expect that aDNA will basically confirm this scenario.

"No one, for instance, doubts any longer that the Chernyakhovians were overwhelmingly Germanic and that Germanics constituted the vast majority of the existing population on Chernyakhovian territory in the period c. 230-430 CE."

Really? I've never heard of this conjecture . Quite the contrary, it is often thought that Goths were just one component amongst a multitude of Late Sarmatians, "Veneds", Carpi, etc

" incoming Slavs"

Incoming from where ? The uninhabited swamps of Polesie ? Or the Kiev culture whose main trajectory was north into the forest zone and local transformation into Kolochin

"I expect that aDNA will basically confirm this scenario."

-> so your anticipating Chernyakov remains to be mostly I1 and R1b-U106 ?

lgmayka
04-22-2016, 02:47 PM
"No one, for instance, doubts any longer that the Chernyakhovians were overwhelmingly Germanic and that Germanics constituted the vast majority of the existing population on Chernyakhovian territory in the period c. 230-430 CE."

Really? I've never heard of this conjecture . Quite the contrary, it is often thought that Goths were just one component amongst a multitude of Late Sarmatians, "Veneds", Carpi, etc
Wikipedia's article on the Chernyakhov culture (The culture is probably the result of a poly-ethnic cultural mélange of the Gothic, Geto-Dacian (including Romanised Daco-Romans), Sarmatian and Slavic populations of the area) says:
---
The culture is probably the result of a poly-ethnic cultural mélange of the Gothic, Geto-Dacian (including Romanised Daco-Romans), Sarmatian and Slavic populations of the area.
---

Wikipedia is not a reliable academic source in itself, but it does function rather well as an indicator of conventional wisdom--i.e., academic consensus or the lack thereof.

George
04-22-2016, 03:38 PM
"Really? I've never heard of this conjecture" (#180) Read Boris Mahomedov's masterful synthesis of Chernyakhiv (published in Poland (:=)) in 2001.

More on B.M: http://www.iananu.kiev.ua/privatl/pages/Magomedow/index.html

Tomenable
04-23-2016, 01:35 AM
Gerhard of Augsburg in "Vita et Miracula Sancti Oudalrici" ("Life of St Ulrich" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_of_Augsburg#Early_years)) wrote about duke Mieszko I of Poland:

"Alio quoque tempore quidam dux Wandalorum, Misico nomine cum sagitta toxicata in brachium vulneratus est. Qui cum sentiret, sese veneno nocivo esse percessum, et sibi inminere mortis interitum eadem hora putaret, cum magna fide et constantia votum vovit, ut brachium argentum cum manu quam cicius potuisset ad sanctum Oudalricum mittere non differet. Qui statim post votum relevatus a periculo, ad domum suam rediit, et brachium secundum suum votum componere praecepit. Cumque fabri brachium fabricare coepissent, et manum in eo fingerent, dux continuo de inminenti periculo liberatus surrexit, Deum laudans, qui cum per merita sui sancti episcopi de mortis periculo liberavit."

He called Mieszko "duke of the Vandals". Could it be that some of his subjects still identified as Vandals in the 900s?

Gravetto-Danubian
04-23-2016, 01:42 AM
"Really? I've never heard of this conjecture" (#180) Read Boris Mahomedov's masterful synthesis of Chernyakhiv (published in Poland (:=)) in 2001.

More on B.M: http://www.iananu.kiev.ua/privatl/pages/Magomedow/index.html

Are you sure you have understood what he thinks ?


Можно считать установленным, что представители вельбарских (готских) племен входили в состав черняховского населения Южного Побужья. В северной части региона они оказались основным этническим ядром местного варианта черняховской культуры. Главными причинами начавшегося процесса культурной эволюции этих племен явилось установление нового круга экономических и политических связей, а также, как следствие этого, этническое смешение с местными племенами. В степном Побужье и Северном Причерноморье, где северные переселенцы оказались в меньшинстве среди скифо-сраматксого населения, эти процессы проходили еще активнее. Такой вывод совпадает со сведениями о союзнических отношениях между обеими группами населения, начиная с Готских войн и кончая событиями периода гуннской экспансии.

С другими этническими группами отношения у вельбарского населения складывались иначе. На Верхнем Днестре локализуется массив черняховских памятников, генетически предшествующих раннесредневековым древностям (В. Д. Баран 1981). На них, в отличие от памятников Южного Побужья, не отмечено явного присутствия вельбарского элемента, хотя он отчетливо выступает южнее – в Молдавии и румынской Молдове. В эти районы готы могли продвинуться, лишь обойдя монолитную группу черняховско-славянских поселений с востока, через бассейн Южного Буга [с. 229].

Russian isn't quite my mother tongue, but Magomedov suggests that the Gothic (Wielbark) element is only dominant in the upper Bug area, whilst the Bug Steppe, and generally north Black Sea is Scytho-Sarmatian. The Dniester valleys hold a local "Slavic" form of Chernyakov culture.
Of course, I wait for the day that a not so 'culture-historical' analysis of the Chernykov culture comes to light, but his article certainly aligns with others who root the Ch. culture to provincial Roman, Geto-Dacian, forest-steppe 'Vendi", late Sarmatian, as well as Wielbark forms, all fusing into a demographically prosperous meta-society (eg Kazanski, Peter Heather, Kulikowsky).

Moreover, whilst there is undoubtedly settlement demise in the Chernyakov culture area after 430 AD, this was not everywhere. The most hard hit was the steppe itself - which had previously housed numerous settlements. But there is some continuity in Podolia, the Prut-Siret valleys, and of course the Dnieper forest-steppe (in the 'overlap' zone); but also as far southwest as Bucharest - including the massive cemetery of Sarata Monteoru which began in the mid- late 5th cc. In many of these cases, 'Slavic' era settlements directly overlie the Chernyakov phase.

But, Georgi, here is the major problem for the "Kiev culture" thesis. It ends c. 410 AD. Like much of E. Europe, most Kiev cultur sites appear to have become abandoned. To be sure, some continue and evolve into Kolochin, but there is no evidence of a "Kolochin migration' to the south. Quite the contrary, there appears to be a colonization (? invasion) by more southern elements (<- your ancestors form Galicia & Bukovina ?) north, after a hiatus in the former Kiev C. zone, being from as little as 50 years, to as much as 150. This is evident from the datable materials (various metal forms) which cluster around the year 550 - 600 AD.

George
04-23-2016, 02:22 AM
"Russian isn't quite my mother tongue, but Magomedov suggests that the Gothic (Wielbark) element is only dominant in the upper Bug area, whilst the Bug Steppe, and generally north Black Sea is Scytho-Sarmatian. The Dniester valleys hold a local "Slavic" form of Chernyakov culture. " (#184)

There is more to Germanic than just "Gothic" of course. One of the very interesting aspects of Mahomedov's analysis is to focus on the Germanic "fellow travellers" of the Goths in Chernyakhiv. And if you look at his comprehensive lists of gravesites in the appendices, you'll find that some 80% of them (totaling all areas BTW) are "Germanic". The Scytho-Sarmatian elements are in the southern region near the Black Sea, but even there they are hardly solitary.

Gravetto-Danubian
04-23-2016, 02:27 AM
"Russian isn't quite my mother tongue, but Magomedov suggests that the Gothic (Wielbark) element is only dominant in the upper Bug area, whilst the Bug Steppe, and generally north Black Sea is Scytho-Sarmatian. The Dniester valleys hold a local "Slavic" form of Chernyakov culture. " (#184)

There is more to Germanic than just "Gothic" of course. One of the very interesting aspects of Mahomedov's analysis is to focus on the Germanic "fellow travellers" of the Goths in Chernyakhiv. And if you look at his comprehensive lists of gravesites in the appendices, you'll find that some 80% of them (totaling all areas BTW) are "Germanic". The Scytho-Sarmatian elements are in the southern region near the Black Sea, but even there they are hardly solitary.

This figure sounds preposterous, esp. in light of the fact that many other features (? at least half; such as house form & pottery) go back before the Goths and that of their 'fellow travellors" see chapter 3 (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=m8p4SxNNk1YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=goths+in+the+fourth+century&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=goths%20in%20the%20fourth%20century&f=false), and rests on the notion that a funeral rite has an ethnicity. But as I said, the interpretive archaeology of the Chernyakov culture hasn't evolved much in the last 40 years. Perhaps with help of aDNA, it can be shown just how groups interacted & identified viz-a-viz each other. I'm sure it would not be in the generic macro-blocks of "Goths', "Sarmatians" & "Carpi' as currently espoused.

Tomenable
04-23-2016, 03:12 PM
This excerpt from Buko's book is interesting (pages 91-93):

The English edition (link) has this excerpt on pages 71-72:

http://brego-weard.com/lib/ns/The_Archaeology_of_Early_Medieval_Poland_Discov.pd f

"(...) W fazie zasiedlania tych ziem, u progu VI w. Słowian było zbyt mało, aby mogli owe powiązania [dotychczasowe szlaki i więzi handlowe] szybko odtworzyć. Pozostaje jednak nadal nierozwiązana kwestia zagadkowego ubóstwa ich kultury materialnej. Wydaje się, że przy rozstrzyganiu tego problemu nie wykorzystano podkreślanego wielokrotnie przez pisarzy bizantyjskich faktu zdumiewającej mobilności Słowian, którzy w ciągu kilku generacji widoczni są bez mała w całej Europie. Czynnik ten, charakterystyczny dla społeczności nomadów, a nie rolników i hodowców, jakimi byli Słowianie, upodabniał warunki ich bytowania tych ostatnich - w fazie poszukiwania nowych miejsc zasiedlenia - do sposobu życia koczowników. O ile dla nomadów stan wędrówki był ciągły i naturalny, o tyle dla rolników i hodowców była to sytuacja wymuszona. Słowianie nie stali się przecież przez fakt długich i forsownych wędrówek nomadami. Jednakże ich kultura materialna w fazie najstarszej jest nie tylko zastanawiająco uboga, ale stanowi też niepowtarzalne zjawisko w tej części kontynentu. Źródłem ubóstwa i uproszczenia inwentarza kulturowego podczas zasiedlania Europy mógł być zatem brak warunków do wytwarzania dóbr materialnych wymagających większego nakładu pracy, w nieustabilizowanej osadniczo i gospodarczo sytuacji. Istotną przeszkodą były tu zarówno częste wędrówki, jak i penetracyjny charakter najstarszego osadnictwa. W tym, być może, upatrywać można brak u najdawniejszych Słowian w środkowej Europie rozwiniętego instrumentarium narzędzi, w tym koła garncarskiego, ozdób i wielu innych elementów kultury materialnej, tak charakterystycznych dla innych społeczności tego okresu. Jest zatem wysoce prawdopodobne, że w fazie zajmowania i zagospodarowywania nowych terenów ograniczano się do wytwarzania rzeczy najprostszych, podstawowych i niezbędnych do codziennej egzystencji. Warunkom tym wręcz modelowo odpowiadają np. garnki typu praskiego. Były to bowiem wyroby o formach najprostszych z możliwych, niezdobione, wykonywane ręcznie bez użycia koła, z powszechnie dostępnych lokalnych surowców. Tak zorganizowana produkcja dostarczała naczyń wytworzonych przy minimalnym nakładzie pracy, zewnętrznie nieatrakcyjnych, ale jednocześnie o stosunkowo niezłych parametrach technologicznych. W grupie tych podstawowych potrzeb nie mieści się natomiast np. powszechna produkcja ozdób, które u Słowian, co się podkreśla, występują sporadycznie. Ujmując rzecz obrazowo, sytuacja Słowian w początkach ich wędrówki przypomina nieco etap rozwoju kultury pionierów 'Dzikiego Zachodu', którzy pozostając rolnikami i hodowcami, przemieszczali się w ciągu XIX w. wraz z rodzinami na wzór nomadów (choć nimi nie byli!) przez duże przestrzenie amerykańskiej prerii. Z tej przyczyny zabierali na wozy jedynie rzeczy najprostsze i najbardziej potrzebne. Ich kultura materialna (w tym elementy kobiecego stroju) była więc nieporównywalnie uboższa i uproszczona w stosunku do wytworów ludzi osiadłych. Sytuacja zaczęła wszakże ulegać szybkim zmianom w miarę napływu kolejnych osadników, a nade wszystko dzięki inicjowaniu produkcji, zwłaszcza uprawy roli i hodowli. Sprzyjało to powstawaniu osiedli, ożywieniu gospodarki i aktywizacji szlaków handlowych, po których przemieszczali się rzemieślnicy oraz zaopatrzeni w różnego rodzaju dobra kupcy. Ostatecznie owi pionierzy - podobnie jak przed wiekami Słowianie - w perspektywie historycznej odnieśli niekwestionowany sukces. Etap kultury wczesnosłowiańskiej i jej materialnych korelatów byłby zatem odwzorowaniem okresu nieustabilizowanej gospodarki w czasach poszukiwania i zajmowania nowych ekumen osadniczych. (...)"

Tomenable
04-23-2016, 03:17 PM
BTW - allochthonists often claim that Slavs couldn't be descended from Przeworsk/Wielbark, because Prague culture was so much simpler. However, when we compare Prague culture to Milograd, Chernoles, Zarubintsy or Kiev - then it also looks much simpler than all of them. For example, Kiev culture had the knowledge of potter's wheel - but Prague culture (which is believed to be descended from Kiev), didn't. No matter in which direction you look - western, southern, northern or eastern - everything in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age (except for areas deep inside Russia, close to the Ural Mountains) was more sophisticated than Prague culture. So no matter from which region did Slavs originate, there was undoubtedly a (temporary) regress in material culture during the 500s.

Andrzej Buko suggests that the regress was caused by fact that Slavs had a very mobile, "nomadic" lifestyle during that period. See pp. 71-72 of English edition (linked above), or - if you read Polish - the excerpt quoted above (pp. 91-93 of Polish edition).

Already in the 8th century potter's wheel (re-)appears among Slavs, so they had probably known it before, but didn't use it. Why didn't they use it in the 6th century? For reasons outlined by Andrzej Buko (they were highly mobile in that period).

BTW - after the withdrawal of Roman administration from Britain, local Britons also "forgot" using potter's wheel.

Volat
04-23-2016, 03:32 PM
BTW - allochthonists often claim that Slavs couldn't be descended from Przeworsk/Wielbark, because Prague culture was so much simpler. However, when we compare Prague culture to Milograd, Chernoles, Zarubintsy or Kiev -

Archaeological cultures that are most similar to earliest to known Slavic cultures e east Baltic cultures – Dniepro-Dvinsk, Tushiamlia, Stroke-Ceramic. Milograd culture was a lot more similar to Prague-Korchak than Przeworsk. In searching for early Iron age Slavic cultures several prominent archaeologists suggested to look at Baltic cultures. Shchukin was among those archaeologists.

Tomenable
04-23-2016, 03:34 PM
after the withdrawal of Roman administration from Britain, local Britons also "forgot" using potter's wheel.

Check:

"Piece of the Puzzle: Britain loses the potter’s wheel":

http://www.smallanddeliciouslife.com/britain-loses-the-potters-wheel/

"The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization" (excerpts):

https://books.google.pl/books?id=dPig9bm268sC&pg=PT150&lpg=PT150&dq=Bryan+Ward-Perkins+potter%27s+wheel&source=bl&ots=M8bogTUQSS&sig=xvDLNzkxDuMAbST-KfqYxbU_eDc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iodEU5bGL8iAOPTTgOAJ&ved=0CGwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Bryan%20Ward-Perkins%20potter's%20wheel&f=false

Bryan Ward-Perkins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryan_Ward-Perkins), "Call this a recession? At least it isn’t the Dark Ages":

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Bryan+Ward-Perkins+potter%27s+wheel&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=iodEU6u9IsGb_wa06oCQBw

https://www.google.pl/search?q=Financial+Times+-+Call+this+a+recession&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=6GoOU7-CMc3d_AaLyIHQCw&gws_rd=cr

Excerpts:


Roman Britain had enjoyed an abundance of simple iron goods, documented by the many hob-nail boots and coffin-nails found in Roman cemeteries. These, like the coinage, disappeared early in the fifth century, as too did the industries that had produced abundant attractive and functional wheel-turned pottery. From the early fifth century, and for about 250 years, the potter’s wheel – that most basic tool, which enables thin-walled and smoothly finished vessels to be made in bulk – disappeared altogether from Britain. The only pots remaining were shaped by hand, and fired, not in kilns as in Roman times, but in open ‘clamps’ (a smart word for a pile of pots in a bonfire).

(...)

We do not know for certain what all this meant for population numbers in the countryside, because from the fifth to the eighth century people had so few goods that they are remarkably difficult to find in the archaeological record; but we do know its effect on urban populations. Roman Britain had a dense network of towns, ranging from larger settlements, like London and Cirencester, which also served an administrative function, to small commercial centres that had grown up along the roads and waterways. By 450 all of these had disappeared, or were well on the way to extinction. Canterbury, the only town in Britain that has established a good claim to continuous settlement from Roman times to the present, impresses us much more for the ephemeral nature of its fifth to seventh-century huts than for their truly urban character. Again it was only in the eighth century, with the (re)emergence of trading towns such as London and Saxon Southampton, that urban life returned to Britain.

(...)

It is impossible to say with any confidence when Britain finally returned to levels of economic complexity comparable to those of the highest point of Roman times, but it might be as late as around the year 1000 or 1100. If so, the post-Roman recession lasted for 600-700 years.

To some extent climate changes contributed to that crisis:

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEUROPE.html


1,400 y.a. {536-538 A.D.} wet cold event of reduced tree growth and famine across western Europe and possibly elsewhere

Check also:

http://blog.oup.com/2005/12/the_fall_of_rom/

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/04/specialization-trap.html

https://merovingianworld.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/bryan-ward-perkins-on-east-and-west/comment-page-1/

Article "Archaeology sheds light on the Dark Ages":

https://diyscholar.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/archaeology-sheds-light-on-the-dark-ages/

"It may be initially hard to believe but post-Roman Britain in fact sank to a level of economic complexity well below that of the pre-Roman Iron Age."

^^^ And that took place already BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons (between the collapse of Roman power and the A-S invasion).

Tomenable
04-23-2016, 04:04 PM
BTW - the "Poznań School" (chief supporters of Proto-Slavic homeland in Poland) don't claim that Przeworsk culture were Proto-Slavs. They claim that Lusatian culture were Proto-Slavs, and that Slavs expanded "out of Poland" to the east during the Iron Age.
So those movements from Wejherowo-Krotoszyn territory to Milograd territory in the 3rd or 2nd centuries BC, were Slavic eastward migrations. Zarubintsy culture was Slavic, but their language was derived from the west (according to Poznań School).

But question is what happened with Proto-Slavs in Poland (assuming that they originated in Late Bronze Age Poland). As I've posted in this link, pollen diagrams show a major hiatus in Poland between Wejherowo-Krotoszyn and Przeworsk-Wielbark:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6826-Anthropogenic-Indicators-in-Pollen-Diagrams-(Palynology)


I have noticed the following pattern (after taking a look at diagrams representing a dozen or so sites):

- Phase of Lusatian-Pomeranian cultures
- Hiatus in occupation
- Phase of Jastorf; Przeworsk-Wielbark cultures
- Hiatus in occupation
- Phase of Early Medieval settlement

^ Pomeranian is another name for Wejherowo-Krotoszyn culture.

So even if Proto-Slavis originated in Late BA or Early IA Poland, there is still no certainty whether they survived in that region. It could be that they were subsequently pushed out by expanding Germanics, and returned only in the 6th century AD.

People of Lusatian and Wejherowo-Krotoszyn cultures could indeed speak some sort of Pre-Proto-Slavic language.

Later they emigrated east, mixed with West Baltic speakers (Milograd culture), thus forming Zarubintsy culture.

ffoucart
04-23-2016, 04:08 PM
^^^ And that took place already BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons (between the collapse of Roman power and the A-S invasion).

Just a word: no, because Anglo-Saxon pirated and settlement predates the departure of the legions. The first settlements are from the IIId century, hence the creation of the Litus Saxonicum.

Tomenable
04-23-2016, 04:13 PM
^ Those were just a few people, who then got back to the continent and "invited" more people to come.

Only after that "invitation" did a large-scale immigration of Anglo-Saxon women, children and men start.

Tomenable
05-09-2016, 12:36 PM
Michał,

Would you agree that these are some of the most common Y-DNA clades among Poles?:

Also, are some clades which are common and/or typical in Poland missing from the list?:

If there are some R1b clades which are specific to Poland then let's also include them:

http://s32.postimg.org/3o8cscdol/Y_DNA_Lechici_Tabela.png

Also uploaded in the attachment (worse quality):

9207

Tomenable
05-09-2016, 12:40 PM
^ I made that list based on FTDNA Polish Project and Peter Gwozdz "Polish clades" website.

Michał
05-09-2016, 01:31 PM
Michał,
Would you agree that these are some of the most common Y-DNA clades among Poles?:

What are the requirements that need to be met by a given subclade to be included in your table? For example, it is not clear to me why you include such large (and relatively old) subclades of R1a like Y4459, CTS3402, Y33, YP237, YP343 and CTS11962 but not M458, CTS1211, Z280 or M198 (or such haplogroups like BT, F, K, P, etc.). Also, why you include YP561 but not its deep downstream subclade YP4078, even though YP4078 is the only subclade under YP561 that has been found in Poland, so far?

Tomenable
05-09-2016, 02:21 PM
For example, it is not clear to me why you include such large (and relatively old) subclades of R1a like Y4459, CTS3402, Y33, YP237, YP343 and CTS11962

Either because nothing downstream of these SNPs was listed by FTDNA, or because so many distinct SNPs were listed for different individuals, that I decided to lump up each of such groups of individuals together under ancestral SNP common to all of them.


but not M458, CTS1211, Z280 or M198

Because only relatively few individuals were listed as M458*, CTS1211*, Z280* or M198*.


Also, why you include YP561 but not its deep downstream subclade YP4078, even though YP4078 is the only subclade under YP561 that has been found in Poland, so far?

I will check again, but IIRC either someone was listed as YP561(xYP4078) or nobody was listed as YP4078+.

Otherwise I would have done as you suggest, unless I overlooked something.


What are the requirements that need to be met by a given subclade to be included in your table?

Somewhat arbitrary. I included subclades represented by at least a dozen or so individuals in the Polish Project, excluding people of obviously Non-Polish ethnicity. And I also tried to include only subclades which have as many or more ethnic Poles as/than ethnic foreigners (e.g. Jews).

I did not really pay much attention to R1b, but I will re-check it more carefully later on.

Tomenable
05-09-2016, 02:50 PM
BTW - should I include more subclades under M458? I have just four, because I didn't feel the need to break them down further into smaller downstream clades. But maybe there are other branches of some significance that I missed, which are M458+ but not positive for any of those four SNPs?

Tomenable
11-20-2016, 12:54 AM
deleted

ronzo
06-03-2017, 12:34 AM
I know this thread is dated but I wanted to add I just received my Big Y and I am CTS10936. The interesting thing is I am CTS4002 (-), and CTS 10228 (-). I also have SNP's that are in both Disles A and Disles B. I will be submitting my results to YFull when I receive my BAM file. I am the Admin for this sample of my maternal grandfather.

lgmayka
06-03-2017, 02:12 AM
I know this thread is dated but I wanted to add I just received my Big Y and I am CTS10936. The interesting thing is I am CTS4002 (-), and CTS 10228 (-).
Right now, YFull considers CTS10936 and CTS4002 to be on the same level (https://yfull.com/tree/I-CTS4002/); so your entry will force a split in that level.

Tomenable
02-18-2018, 02:12 AM
New Migration Period settlement:

http://ekoscian.eu/2017/09/28/odkryto-osade-z-wczesnego-sredniowiecza/amp/

And here some palynological data:

"Environmental Sciences and Polish History. Quantitative Analysis of Palynological Data":

http://journals.pan.pl/dlibra/publication/100121/edition/86297/content

They sampled two regions, A and B (including B1 and B2):

https://s17.postimg.org/hex3bz1bz/Screen_Hunter_2154_Jan._25_11.15.jpg

During the Migration Period depopulation was observed in region B but not in region A:

https://s17.postimg.org/exlc4pwv3/Screen_Hunter_2158_Jan._25_11.23.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/874uvahf3/Screen_Hunter_2157_Jan._25_11.23.jpg

https://s17.postimg.org/n33e2vde7/Screen_Hunter_2155_Jan._25_11.22.jpg