Page 115 of 292 FirstFirst ... 1565105113114115116117125165215 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,150 of 2915

Thread: New Samples from Migration Era and Early Medieval Moravia

  1. #1141
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,180
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by VladimirTaraskin View Post
    The story about Karl is unconvincing. This name could be transferred from one Slavs to another. Let's say there is a version that the Slavs of Novgorod are immigrants from Pomerania (Western Slavs). But ultimately, of course, we'll see what aDNA shows.
    It is not about word, but about the fact that this word developed into each of dialect according to same rules as inherited words.

    But it is not just about Karl. Even first palatization (every Slavic language had it same way, it was before Proto-Slavic stage) is not dated before 4th century AD.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     Michał (06-02-2021),  Ryukendo (06-02-2021)

  3. #1142
    Registered Users
    Posts
    260
    Sex
    Omitted
    Ethnicity
    1/2 Swedish 1/2 German
    Y-DNA (P)
    N1c
    mtDNA (M)
    U2

    Y-hg N should not be used as a constraint for where the Proto-Slavic Urheimat was located.

    To recap what I've already said in other threads, Balts (xEstonians) belong to a single subclade of N (N-L1025 TMRCA 2500ybp). It's not entirely clear when it arrived, or from where, but the greatest amount of modern diversity is in Fennoscandia, specifically Central Sweden. The Kivutkalns site in Latvia had no Y-hg N >200BC, the first N-L1025 sample was LTU_IA, from 300AD. So we can very roughly assume, that N-L1025 arrived in Latvia/Lithuania sometime between 200BC and 300AD, potentially from Sweden (Goths?).

    Slavs with Y-hg N on YFull and FtDNA projects, overwhelmingly belong to subclades downstream from "Fenoscandian" or "Baltic" branches of N-L1025. The only exception being Russians, who obviously assimilated various Uralic peoples.

    I think Coldmountains, Michał and others here hit the nail on the head. The distribution of Y-hg N in modern Slavs is probably the result of recent phenomenon, not Iron Age contacts with Finnics just west of Moscow. The most likely explanation IMO, would be Slavs assimilating Balts, although migration within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also possible and some "Fennoscandian" branches could even point to Goths or Vikings.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Zelto For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (06-02-2021),  leonardo (06-02-2021),  Michał (06-02-2021),  Ryukendo (06-02-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (06-02-2021)

  5. #1143
    Registered Users
    Posts
    567
    Sex
    Location
    Moscow
    Ethnicity
    East Europe + Finland
    Nationality
    Russian
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936-Y19110
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a5b

    Russian Federation
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    It is not about word, but about the fact that this word developed into each of dialect according to same rules as inherited words.

    But it is not just about Karl. Even first palatization (every Slavic language had it same way, it was before Proto-Slavic stage) is not dated before 4th century AD.
    It is unlikely that historical linguistics can accurately determine such questions, after all, it is not mathematics. Again, it is possible that after the departure of the Goths, ties between the tribes were restored. But what I don't believe in is the mass migration from Kiev or post-Kiev culture to the west. There is no such archaeological data. This is not a migration of ten or a hundred people, it should be a huge flow of people to settle the territory from Italy to Lithuania. If it was, then archaeologists would have established it long ago

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VladimirTaraskin For This Useful Post:

     ambron (06-02-2021),  Atticus (06-02-2021),  etrusco (06-02-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-02-2021)

  7. #1144
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,521
    Sex

    I see some linguistic discussions but few references. Just to give people a bit of background as to what is happening:

    1. There is an excellent dissertation by Pronk-Tiethoff of University of Leiden on layers of Germanic borrowing in Slavic. The full text can be found here: https://scholarlypublications.univer...dle/1887/20185

    This got turned into a book. Petri Kallio gives a review of his book here: https://journal.fi/fuf/article/download/86104/44985/
    Ilya Yakubovich gives his review here: https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_Proto-Slavic

    The major finding of the work, which seems very well regarded and well within the rigorous methodological mainstream of comparative linguistic work, seems to be that, firstly there are no loans from proto-Germanic/pre-Germanic to Slavic at any level, and second that there are two layers of Germanic loans into Slavic languages, both of which underwent regular sound changes into each modern Slavic branch: a Gothic layer into Proto-Slavic in the first half of the first millenium AD, and a West Germanic layer into Common Slavic in the second half of the first millenium AD/in the early Middle Ages (when Slavs, having spread over a very large area, could still understand each other but dialectical differences had emerged). This West Germanic layer, with words being "regularized" as they spread between the already-differentiated Slavic branches, was the source of the "Korol" word a few pages back in this discussion that reflected a generic word for emperor, "Karl", entering Slavic languages due to the extensive influence of Charlemagne.

    The dissertation, starting from pg 56, also contains an extensive and illuminating discussion on the Proto-Slavic homeland, which the author acknowledges there is no consensus about. However, the following issues seem well-established:
    a. There is no well-developed nautical terminology in Slavic.
    b. There is no word for amber in Slavic; all words for amber are Baltic loanwords that were independently borrowed into each Slavic branch.
    c. There is no definitive mention of Slavs by classical authors in the Mediterranean region, when ethnicities living on the well-travelled amber road stretching from the Baltics through Western Poland and Silesia down to the Roman port of Aquileia were well-understood by classical authors.

    For these reasons, and in light of the hydronymic studies by Udolph, the author tends towards a Slavic homeland in the northeastern foothills of the Carpathians, or perhaps somewhere close to the Pripet--probably south of the Pripet, but of course not from the Pripet itself. She accepts Golab's argument that the area north of the Pripet has Baltic hydronyms and thus is perhaps less likely to be the homeland.

    The fact that proto-Slavic (and in fact proto-Balto-Slavic) was not in contact with any language on the way to proto-Germanic or with proto-Germanic itself is also apparently supported by Ranko Matasovic in his 2008 publication, which people keep citing--but unfortunately is in Croatian. Matasovic and Pronk-Tiethofff's disproof of a proto-Germanic layer in any stage from Balto-Slavic to proto-Slavic represents good progress, if you compare it with Golab's impressionistic stratification of layers of loanwords from 1991, in fig 1 of this article: https://www.academia.edu/805660/2003...an_migrations_. His impressionistic system still retains an early Germanic and a shared-Germanic-Slavic layer of the vocabulary.

    2. About Iranic contacts, there is a very helpful summary by Roland Kim in a submission to the Encyclopedia Iranica:
    https://www.academia.edu/37845208/Sl...stic_relations

    Roland clarifies the existence of two schools to explain the origin of Iranic lexical items in Slavic: a, that the similarities between Slavic and Iranic--including the lexical items along with the phonological and morphological similarities--all date back to proximity between early groups right after the breakup of late Indo-European, and b. that they are due to contacts between proto-Slavic speakers and Scythians in historical times and later. He states that the current consensus among comparative linguists divides Iranic lexical items in Slavic into three layers, the earliest of which comes from contact between pre-proto-Slavs, Scythians and Sarmatians in the first centuries BC. He proceeds to list a large number of such loanwords, most of which he sources to lexical items in Old Iranian or later stages of the Iranian languages. Interestingly, some of the loanwords (e.g. divu "devil") clearly point to interaction with Iranics with a spiritual system already influecned by Zoroastrianism.

    Because he just lists the loanwords along the putative source, I have no idea if he stratified the loanwords using phonological rules himself (i.e. he found out if they belonged to proto-Indo-Iranian? proto-Iranian? Old Iranian? Middle Iranian? Ossetic? by himself), or if he's summarizing the results from the other papers that contain the arguments that stratify the loanwords. In either case Matasovic says over and over that the careful stratification of the Iranic loanwords remains one of the most important tasks to be done for Slavic linguistics in his 2008 paper. Its a little surprising that this has been done for the Germanic loanwords but not Iranic.

    There appears to be an excellent book chapter that everyone cites, Ranko Matasović (2018): Iranian Loanwords in Proto-Slavic: A Fresh Look, but it cannot be found on the internet anywhere. The book itself doesn't appear to be part of an online publication even, so it seems we have to look for a physical copy. Can anyone help out here?

    3. Lexically, Balto-Slavic is very much part of "Northwest Indo-European", even though phonologically and morphologically it is much more closely related to Indo-Iranian. Matasovic studied non-Indo-European substrate words in Baltic and Slavic in this 2013 article: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/172848, which represents a good summary of the research (on lexical items in general), as well as another avenue of proof (on non-Indo-European lexical items in particular).
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 06-02-2021 at 10:33 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  8. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Alain (06-02-2021),  Atticus (06-02-2021),  bce (06-03-2021),  CopperAxe (06-02-2021),  Galadhorn (06-02-2021),  Granary (06-03-2021),  JMcB (06-03-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-02-2021),  leonardo (06-02-2021),  losAntonis (06-02-2021),  Michał (06-02-2021),  parastais (06-02-2021),  ph2ter (06-02-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (06-02-2021),  Zelto (06-02-2021)

  9. #1145
    Registered Users
    Posts
    567
    Sex
    Location
    Moscow
    Ethnicity
    East Europe + Finland
    Nationality
    Russian
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936-Y19110
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a5b

    Russian Federation
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelto View Post
    Y-hg N should not be used as a constraint for where the Proto-Slavic Urheimat was located.

    To recap what I've already said in other threads, Balts (xEstonians) belong to a single subclade of N (N-L1025 TMRCA 2500ybp). It's not entirely clear when it arrived, or from where, but the greatest amount of modern diversity is in Fennoscandia, specifically Central Sweden. The Kivutkalns site in Latvia had no Y-hg N >200BC, the first N-L1025 sample was LTU_IA, from 300AD. So we can very roughly assume, that N-L1025 arrived in Latvia/Lithuania sometime between 200BC and 300AD, potentially from Sweden (Goths?).

    Slavs with Y-hg N on YFull and FtDNA projects, overwhelmingly belong to subclades downstream from "Fenoscandian" or "Baltic" branches of N-L1025. The only exception being Russians, who obviously assimilated various Uralic peoples.

    I think Coldmountains, Michał and others here hit the nail on the head. The distribution of Y-hg N in modern Slavs is probably the result of recent phenomenon, not Iron Age contacts with Finnics just west of Moscow. The most likely explanation IMO, would be Slavs assimilating Balts, although migration within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is also possible and some "Fennoscandian" branches could even point to Goths or Vikings.
    Or maybe N-L550 moved from Sweden arrived before the Goths. I, for example, am very interested in who were the Rugii tribe that lived at the mouth of the Vistula before the arrival of the Goths. And is it not just so that the Russian Rurik dynasty in the West was called rugii? At the same time the fact that the Rurik dynasty was N-L550 ...
    Last edited by VladimirTaraskin; 06-02-2021 at 07:01 PM.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to VladimirTaraskin For This Useful Post:

     ambron (06-02-2021)

  11. #1146
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,271
    Sex
    Location
    Zagreb
    Ethnicity
    Kaikavian Croatian
    Nationality
    Croatian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1a2b-A815
    mtDNA (M)
    HV0-T195C!

    Croatia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by ambron View Post
    ph2ter, the genome slightly more western than the Belarusians is a sub-regional Polish genome. If subpolulation were to be used instead of the average for Poles, it would probably be visible. In various analyzes I have seen, Av2 probably resembled Mazovians the most.

    If you look at your PCA now, you will see that the demographic substrate problem returns. If, for example, Poles are to be a mixture of Av2 with a local demographic background, then this background will be genetically like today's Slovaks.
    Not exactly, the Poles are southwest of Belarusians and south-southhwest of Av2:

     
    All simple calculations, maps and plots I make for free, but for more complicated maps and calculations I ask for a donation via Hidden Content PayPalHidden Content account

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ph2ter For This Useful Post:

     Alain (06-02-2021),  altvred (06-02-2021),  ambron (06-02-2021),  Coldmountains (06-02-2021),  JMcB (06-03-2021),  leonardo (06-02-2021),  Michał (06-02-2021)

  13. #1147
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,521
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by VladimirTaraskin View Post
    I generally think that the tribe of the Zarubinets culture, as well as the Przeworsk culture, is either R1a-M458 or I2a-L621 or they are together, but even in Poland they have already assimilated some separate tribes R1a-Z280 and they came to Ukraine already mixed.

    If you are asking where the ethnogenesis took place, it is most likely still in Poland, but I can also quite assume that in the Zarubinets culture of Ukraine. As for the further development of events, I do not see any serious migrations from Ukraine to Poland or the Czech Republic. The only major migration to the West from this territory occurred together with the Avars, but these are the Bulgarians, the Macedonians (that is, the former Ants). All other Western Slavs, especially the Czechs, Slovaks, and South Slavs, are local tribes that survived the departure of the Goths who inhabited Poland. I fully admit that some other tribes from Pannonia and Moravia were also included in this ethnogenesis.

    If we assume that ethnogenesis occurred only in one Zarubinets culture (without the Przeworsk culture), then your option is the only possible one. But I wouldn't bet much on this option.
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    Let’s have a bet then!
    We just need to decide what we should or shouldn’t find in aDNA to confirm or reject each hypothesis.

    Linguistically though your proposal is impossible. There were no East or West Slavs before Zarubinets time wise. All of those languages would develop in similar lines up to Charlemagne. This is possible only in homogenous culture. You can’t have different culture (pottery, economy, etc) in two geographically distant places split by Chernyakhov from one another and still develop exact same sound rules. That is impossible even logically or intuitively.
    Even if Slavic was separated by closely located Kiev (free) and Chernyakhov (under Goths), it would develop dialectal differences already (like Latvian under Livonian Order and free Lithuanians). Of course, a secondary convergence (assimilation) to later split in dialects is possible. But meh.
    Quote Originally Posted by parastais View Post
    I have not researched myself this question on genesys of Zarubinets. But do you agree with next steps of the chain:
    ? -> Zarubinets -> Kiev Culture -> Prague Culture -> Slavs?
    In light of this discussion, this is what Pronk-Tiethoff--the scholar who stratified Germanic loanwords in all stages of Slavic (including pre-proto-Slavic) that I mentioned in the previous post, says about associations between Slavic and cultures of Poland such as Przeworsk or Zarubinets (which cover both Western and Eastern Poland):

    So far, only negative linguistic evidence concerning the location of the ProtoSlavic homeland has been adduced. This evidence places the homeland: 1. out of
    the range of influence of the Roman Empire, 2. to the east of the amber trade
    route and possibly of the line Kaliningrad-Odessa and 3. away from the Baltic
    Sea.
    This evidence combined makes the so-called “autochthonous theory” or
    “Weichsel/Oder theory” about the location of the Proto-Slavic homeland highly
    improbable. According to this theory, which has mostly been adhered to by
    Polish scholars, the Proto-Slavs originally lived in present-day western Poland,
    in the territory between the rivers Vistula and Oder from the second
    millennium BC onwards (a current adherent is, e.g., Mancźak 2009). The theory
    connects the Proto-Slavs to the archaeological Lusatian culture (Schenker 1995:
    1-2). Martynov is also one of the advocates of the “autochthonous theory” (1963:
    5) and he connects the earliest contacts between the Proto-Slavic and ProtoGermanic peoples to this western location of the Proto-Slavic homeland (cf.
    1.3.4). Historical and linguistic evidence, however, makes the presence of
    Proto-Slavs anywhere west of the river Vistula before the second century AD
    highly improbable.
    The fact that both Matasovic and Pronk-Tiethoff reject Germanic influences in all layers of Slavic until the Goths and the time of Charlemagne also makes any theory with a very Western location for pre-proto-Slavs or proto-Slavs somewhat unlikely, no?

    Also, how can you believe that there is no possibility for migrations from the East to Poland, when the archaeogenetic evidence we have right now indeed show Belarusian-like individuls replacing the Kowaleko "Goths" (or perhaps just the non-Belarusian-like individuals in Kowaleko, both the males and females, if we use more neutral language)? Admittedly the Belarusian-like individuals could have come from somewhere other than Belarus/Ukraine, the Northeastern Carpathians maybe, but the evidence we have now already indicates there is almost certainly no genetic continuity between pre-early-Middle Age populations and modern Polish people in Poland itself, no?
    Last edited by Ryukendo; 06-02-2021 at 10:35 PM.
    Quoted from this Forum:

    "Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!"

    " A Basal Eurasian and an Aurignacian walk into a bar... "

    " No, you are in the wrong... I really hope that you are not jumping on my thread with intent to harass me, just like other "receiving comitee", that unites in classic bullying unity, which makes me sad about such people, deprived of love etc.... "

  14. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Ryukendo For This Useful Post:

     Alain (06-02-2021),  Coldmountains (06-02-2021),  CopperAxe (06-02-2021),  JMcB (06-03-2021),  leonardo (06-02-2021),  Michał (06-02-2021),  parastais (06-02-2021),  Zelto (06-02-2021)

  15. #1148
    Registered Users
    Posts
    1,180
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    N - Z16980

    Quote Originally Posted by VladimirTaraskin View Post
    It is unlikely that historical linguistics can accurately determine such questions, after all, it is not mathematics. Again, it is possible that after the departure of the Goths, ties between the tribes were restored. But what I don't believe in is the mass migration from Kiev or post-Kiev culture to the west. There is no such archaeological data. This is not a migration of ten or a hundred people, it should be a huge flow of people to settle the territory from Italy to Lithuania. If it was, then archaeologists would have established it long ago
    It is mathematics. Or rather strict algorithms. Some of later Common Slavic sound rules can be attested in Byzantines sources (early Slavic words before the rule and few centuries later words show rule). But I hope some day proper Slavic linguist joins these kinds of threads and explain in more detail. I only touched Slavic reconstructions due to interest in Baltic material.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to parastais For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (06-02-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-02-2021),  Michał (06-02-2021)

  17. #1149
    Registered Users
    Posts
    567
    Sex
    Location
    Moscow
    Ethnicity
    East Europe + Finland
    Nationality
    Russian
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936-Y19110
    mtDNA (M)
    H2a5b

    Russian Federation
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryukendo View Post
    In light of this discussion, this is what Pronk-Tiethoff--the scholar who stratified Germanic loanwords in all stages of Slavic (including pre-proto-Slavic) that I mentioned in the previous post, says about associations between Slavic and cultures of Poland such as Przeworsk or Zarubinets (which cover both Western and Eastern Poland):



    The fact that both Matasovic and Pronk-Tiethoff reject Germanic influences in all layers of Slavic until the Goths and the time of Charlemagne also makes any theory with a very Western location for pre-proto-Slavs or proto-Slavs somewhat unlikely, no?

    Also, how can you believe that there is no possibility for migrations from the East to Poland, when the archaeogenetic evidence we have right now indeed show Belarusian-like individuls replacing the Kowaleko "Goths" (or perhaps just the non-Belarusian-like individuals in Kowaleko, if we use more neutral language)? Admittedly the Belarusian-like individuals could have come from somewhere other than Belarus/Ukraine, the Northeastern Carpathians maybe, but the evidence we have now already indicates there is almost certainly no genetic continuity between pre-early-Middle Age populations and modern Polish people in Poland itself, no?
    This is one of a dozen other points of view. Moreover, it contradicts the archaeological data. For example, in Ukraine, together with the Zarubinets population, there is evidence (residential buildings, burials) of Yastorf culture. But even this is not the main thing. The main thing here is that Zarubinetsky and Yastorfsky settlements and burials in Ukraine, for example, were different. Therefore, we do not know who was the population of the Zarubinets culture and the Przeworsk culture, too. There is a point of view of Shchukin that they were Germans. These respected linguists have refuted Shchukin's hypothesis. And Sedov, for example, never said that the Zarubinets culture is the Germans, he was more inclined to believe that they are closer to the Laten culture that existed in the Czech Republic.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to VladimirTaraskin For This Useful Post:

     etrusco (06-02-2021),  JoeyP37 (06-02-2021),  Ryukendo (06-02-2021),  Zelto (06-02-2021)

  19. #1150
    Registered Users
    Posts
    5,271
    Sex
    Location
    Zagreb
    Ethnicity
    Kaikavian Croatian
    Nationality
    Croatian
    Y-DNA (P)
    I2a1a2b-A815
    mtDNA (M)
    HV0-T195C!

    Croatia European Union
    Quote Originally Posted by VladimirTaraskin View Post
    This is one of a dozen other points of view. Moreover, it contradicts the archaeological data. For example, in Ukraine, together with the Zarubinets population, there is evidence (residential buildings, burials) of Yastorf culture. But even this is not the main thing. The main thing here is that Zarubinetsky and Yastorfsky settlements and burials in Ukraine, for example, were different. Therefore, we do not know who was the population of the Zarubinets culture and the Przeworsk culture, too. There is a point of view of Shchukin that they were Germans. These respected linguists have refuted Shchukin's hypothesis. And Sedov, for example, never said that the Zarubinets culture is the Germans, he was more inclined to believe that they are closer to the Laten culture that existed in the Czech Republic.
    Maybe all these cultures participated in the formation of the Slavs (ie. R1a-Z280, I2a1 and R1a-M458).
     
    All simple calculations, maps and plots I make for free, but for more complicated maps and calculations I ask for a donation via Hidden Content PayPalHidden Content account

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ph2ter For This Useful Post:

     Alain (06-02-2021),  Atticus (06-02-2021),  Brent.B (06-03-2021),  etrusco (06-02-2021),  Michał (06-02-2021),  VladimirTaraskin (06-02-2021)

Page 115 of 292 FirstFirst ... 1565105113114115116117125165215 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Medieval Pashtun Samples
    By J Man in forum Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2020, 05:37 AM
  2. G25 Distance Maps to selected Early Medieval Samples
    By ph2ter in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 05-09-2020, 02:33 PM
  3. Early Medieval Czech DNA (years 600-900 AD)
    By Tomenable in forum Central
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 04-19-2018, 01:07 PM
  4. Early Medieval Germanic barrow burials
    By JonikW in forum History (Medieval)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2018, 12:34 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2016, 06:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •