PDA

View Full Version : Who were Vandals?



Bodin
28-08-11, 10:06
Vandals are somewhat of enigma . Who could gess which haplogroups they were ?
They could be conected with Przeworsk culture , which maybe belonged to Lugii tribe confederacion , which lidering clans were probably Celtic ( Lug -Celtic god ) . But they could also have German and Baltic elements ( I would exclude Slavic because Slavs do not have maritime tehnology and word for amber - main export article from Baltic sea ) . Very interesting is extinct Balt nation Prussi , who use to burn they deads like Przeworsk , and Veneti probably Balt nation Vindi has very simillar name to Vandals ( same IE roth -love , desire ).Vindic river names are Proto Celtic and simillar to names of rivers in lands of Adriatic Veneti . There was also proposed that Vandals come from Scandinavia : Hallingdal in Norge , Vendel in Swerige and Vendsyssel in Denmark about 120 BC .
Vandals had two tribes Silingi who use to live in Silesia in west Poland , and Hasdingi ( real name was Aria/ Haria , and they were called Hasdingi because of rulling dinasty) around Vistula.
Names of tribes could be conected with Slavic words for force/power -SILA , and master/lord - GAZDA/HAZDA .
Since II century AD they were part of Sarmatian empire, and later they were conected with Alans . II-IV century AD Hasdingi use to live in Panonia on the place where later lived Gepidi . 406 AD they crosing in Galia with Suebes but 20.000 Vandals was kiled by Franks , but then comed Alans alies of Vandals and defeated Franks.Silin 409 they crosed Pirrinei and entered Iberian penincula. Hasdingi setled in Gallaecia , and Silingi in Hispania - Betica ( Andalusia ) .418 Visigots destroyed Hasdingi , and kiled Alan king ( Alans lived in Lusitania , and Carthago Nova ). After that Silingi and Alans conjoined in one nation . 429 they crossing in Africa , in that time Procopius say they numbered 80.000 . In coming years they conquered Numidia , Africa Proconsularis with city Carthage, Sicilly , Sardinia , Corsica , Balearic islands , Byzancena and Tripolitania , using Hunic attacs on Empire .533 Byzantium has conquered they state . Most of them gone to Saladae ( today Bejaia in North Algeria ) and mixed with Berbers . Some escaped in Visigothic and Ostrogothic kingdoms . 5 regiments of Vandalic cavalry was send on Persian border , and rest were moved to Constantinopolis .

Bodin
28-08-11, 10:54
Hier are some haplogroups from aerias they use to setle. I would please someone to post Haplogroups % for Corsica and Baelarean islands. From this data it looks like most probably they were R1b with maybe some G2a.
land I1 I2a I2b R1a R1b G2a J N E1b1b T and L Q Poland 6% 9% 1% 56,40% 16,50% 0,50% 2% 0% 3,50% 0% 0% Hungary 8% 15% 2,50% 32,50% 17% 5% 7% 1% 9,50% 1% 1% Algeria 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 35% 50% Oran (ALG) 0% 0% 0% 1% 10,80% 27,40% 50% Morocco 0% 0% 0% 0% 3,80% 4% 2,40% 0% 85,50% 0% Sicilly 3% 1% 1% 4,50% 30% 5,50% 30,50% 0% 17,50% 6% 1% Sardinia 0% 37% 0% 0% 22% 14,10% 12,50% 0% 10% 1,50% 2% Andaluzia 0% 9,50% 0% 3,50% 58,50% 3% 12,50% 0% 10% 3% 0% Gallaecia 3% 2,50% 1,50% 0% 63% 3% 4,50% 0% 22% 0,50% 0% Tunisia 1% of I 1% 4,50% 3,50% 30% 0% 52% 4% 0%

zanipolo
28-08-11, 12:14
Pliny stated that the vandals where an east-germanic tribe made up of burgundians and goths. Strabo and ptolemy did not mention any named tribe called vandals.

The lugii could not be the vandals because the land they covered would have been enoromous. Plus, prior to the Marcomannic wars there existed no germanic tribe called vandals.

Also, the Lugiii was a collective name for these combined tribes, Harii, Helveconae, Manimi, Helisii and Naharvali, with these names why was the vandali not included if they where Lugii

In my opinion the vandals was the remainder of many tribes that forged a union

GloomyGonzales
28-08-11, 12:30
They could be conected with Przeworsk culture , which maybe belonged to Lugii tribe confederacion , which lidering clans were probably Celtic ( Lug -Celtic god )


Lugii as well could be Slavs. In Slavic languages word “lug” means a field and so the tribe name Lugii could mean people that live in fields(lug). We know other names of Slavic tribes that were constructed the same way: the name of Slavic tribe Polyane derived from word “pole”(eng. field) means people living in fields, Drevlyane derived from word “drevo” (eng. tree) means people living in forests. By the way there’s a Slavic spirit of fields (lug) its name is Lugovoi.

Taranis
28-08-11, 12:36
Lugii as well could be Slavs. In Slavic languages word “lug” means a field and so the tribe name Lugii could mean people that live in fields(lug). We know other names of Slavic tribes that were constructed the same way: the name of Slavic tribe Polyane derived from word “pole”(eng. field) means people living in fields, Drevlyane derived from word “drevo” (eng. tree) means people living in forests. By the way there’s a Slavic spirit of fields (lug) its name is Lugovoi.

What in my opinion speaks against this is the fact that Ptolemy also records Celtic town names in the area of the Lugii. I think that a good case can be made that the Lugii were indeed originally Celtic or Celtic-influenced. You also have tribes with similar-sounding names elsewhere: the Lugi in Britain, and the Luggones in Gallaecia.

I mean, yeah, just by itself a Slavic etymology of "Lugii" would seem plausible, but what point would Ptolemy have to give them Celtic town names?

zanipolo
28-08-11, 13:04
@Bodin

Ptolemy only had vandalic for the Montes Vandalic which was the modern Harz mountains. The ancient ribes around this mountain was Batini, Elysii, Hermunduri and the Corconti.

As for the vandal being Venedi, well the venedi had disappeared ( around 200AD ) by the time the vandals showed up. The venedi where conquered along with the gepids, rugii and Aestii by the goths and changed name to Vidivarii ( on the baltic sea)

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

GloomyGonzales
28-08-11, 13:29
What in my opinion speaks against this is the fact that Ptolemy also records Celtic town names in the area of the Lugii. I think that a good case can be made that the Lugii were indeed originally Celtic or Celtic-influenced. You also have tribes with similar-sounding names elsewhere: the Lugi in Britain, and the Luggones in Gallaecia.

I mean, yeah, just by itself a Slavic etymology of "Lugii" would seem plausible, but what point would Ptolemy have to give them Celtic town names?

It's hard to believe that Lugii were Celts since the basin of Oder and Vistula rivers is not a place where we can expect to see Celtic people. Furthermore, the Przeworsk culture associated with Lugii is not Celtic it is most likely proto-Slavic/Germanic.

Taranis
28-08-11, 13:47
It's hard to believe that Lugii were Celts since the basin of Oder and Vistula rivers is not a place where we can expect to see Celtic people. Furthermore, the Przeworsk culture associated with Lugii is not Celtic it is most likely proto-Slavic/Germanic.

Why is it so hard to believe? And also, why do you mean that one would not expect Celtic peoples there. If you go to the south from the area (upper Oder area), you get into Bohemia, which was one of the core areas of the Hallstatt Culture, and the Celtic Boii lived in that area until they were subjugated by the Germanic Marcomanni in the 1st century BC. There were also the Cotini in modern-day Slovakia (who Tacitus explicitly mentions as "Gaulish") which persisted even longer (into approximately 2nd/3rd century AD). Therefore I don't see why one would not expect some peripherial Celtic influence in Silesia? Also, like I said, Ptolemy recorded the town names. What else would "Lugidunum" and "Carrodunum" be if not Celtic? If you don't believe me, take a look into Ptolemy's Geography, and the chapter on Germania Magna.

There is, by the way, speculation that the modern-day town of Legnica in Poland is actually at the site of Lugidunum, and that the name "Legnica" derives from it.

Regarding the Przeworsk Culture, I agree that it's most likely (East) Germanic. The issue is also the names of the individuial Lugian tribes carry overtly Germanic names. But I think it's reasonable to assume that an earlier Celtic influence exist.

Another aspect that should be mentioned is the fact that the deity Lugus was indeed worshipped across the Celtic-speaking world, and that the practice to have tribal names similar to deity names is a practice also not unheard of (another example would be the "Brigantes" and the goddess "Brigantia"). There is also, potential genetic evidence for this, because there is unusually much R1b-U152 in Poland. Maciamo has suggested that Polish U152 mainly comes from the German expansion in the medieval ages, but I think that it may have been in the area as early as the Lusatian Culture (which was an offshot of the Urnfield Culture, which seems to have been the main carrier for U152). Having said this, I am very careful regarding the ethnic interpretation of the Lusatian Culture: it clearly wasn't Proto-Germanic for sure (way too early for that!), but it doesn't seem to properly fit anywhere else in, either.

Bodin
28-08-11, 13:51
Pliny stated that the vandals where an east-germanic tribe made up of burgundians and goths. Strabo and ptolemy did not mention any named tribe called vandals.

The lugii could not be the vandals because the land they covered would have been enoromous. Plus, prior to the Marcomannic wars there existed no germanic tribe called vandals.

Also, the Lugiii was a collective name for these combined tribes, Harii, Helveconae, Manimi, Helisii and Naharvali, with these names why was the vandali not included if they where Lugii

In my opinion the vandals was the remainder of many tribes that forged a union
So in Lugi there was Harii and real name of Vandal tribe Hasdingi is Aria , this is common IE name , so it could be coincidence but not necesary
I know that Vandals couldnt be all of Lugii , but could they be one part of they confederation?
Which tribes would you sugest as ones that formed Vandal union?
Thanks for answering

Bodin
28-08-11, 14:03
Lugii as well could be Slavs. In Slavic languages word “lug” means a field and so the tribe name Lugii could mean people that live in fields(lug). We know other names of Slavic tribes that were constructed the same way: the name of Slavic tribe Polyane derived from word “pole”(eng. field) means people living in fields, Drevlyane derived from word “drevo” (eng. tree) means people living in forests. By the way there’s a Slavic spirit of fields (lug) its name is Lugovoi.
Doesnt lug meaning small forest ( forest next to house , which was used for cuting woods for worming house over winter , like family forest it also had some magic meaning )? Drevlyani are very interesting because they name had same meaning like name of Tervingi -Gothic tribe - forest peoples , like names Alans and Greitungi has same meaning - People from steppes. So it is common to name nations by place where they live. I pointed that it would be very dificult that Slavs lived so close by Baltic and not have words for sea , boaths ,... and for amber.But Vandals maybe carried some R1a - Balts , Celtic and Germans.

Taranis
28-08-11, 14:05
So in Lugi there was Harii and real name of Vandal tribe Hasdingi is Aria , this is common IE name , so it could be coincidence but not necesary
I know that Vandals couldnt be all of Lugii , but could they be one part of they confederation?
Which tribes would you sugest as ones that formed Vandal union?
Thanks for answering

Ptolemy mentions three tribes as part of the Lugian confederation, the Buri, the Diduni and the Omani. Tacitus also mentions the Buri, but does not mention them as part of the Lugii, neither does he mention the other two tribes.

Bodin
28-08-11, 14:06
It's hard to believe that Lugii were Celts since the basin of Oder and Vistula rivers is not a place where we can expect to see Celtic people. Furthermore, the Przeworsk culture associated with Lugii is not Celtic it is most likely proto-Slavic/Germanic.
What do you mean we cant expect to se Celts around Odra and Visla ( Oder and Vistula ) , there was Celts in Czech and Slovakia and they are just south from these aerias

Bodin
28-08-11, 14:11
Why is it so hard to believe? And also, why do you mean that one would not expect Celtic peoples there. If you go to the south from the area (upper Oder area), you get into Bohemia, which was one of the core areas of the Hallstatt Culture, and the Celtic Boii lived in that area until they were subjugated by the Germanic Marcomanni in the 1st century BC. There were also the Cotini in modern-day Slovakia (who Tacitus explicitly mentions as "Gaulish") which persisted even longer (into approximately 2nd/3rd century AD). Therefore I don't see why one would not expect some peripherial Celtic influence in Silesia? Also, like I said, Ptolemy recorded the town names. What else would "Lugidunum" and "Carrodunum" be if not Celtic? If you don't believe me, take a look into Ptolemy's Geography, and the chapter on Germania Magna.

There is, by the way, speculation that the modern-day town of Legnica in Poland is actually at the site of Lugidunum, and that the name "Legnica" derives from it.

Regarding the Przeworsk Culture, I agree that it's most likely (East) Germanic. The issue is also the names of the individuial Lugian tribes carry overtly Germanic names. But I think it's reasonable to assume that an earlier Celtic influence exist.

Another aspect that should be mentioned is the fact that the deity Lugus was indeed worshipped across the Celtic-speaking world, and that the practice to have tribal names similar to deity names is a practice also not unheard of (another example would be the "Brigantes" and the goddess "Brigantia"). There is also, potential genetic evidence for this, because there is unusually much R1b-U152 in Poland. Maciamo has suggested that Polish U152 mainly comes from the German expansion in the medieval ages, but I think that it may have been in the area as early as the Lusatian Culture (which was an offshot of the Urnfield Culture, which seems to have been the main carrier for U152). Having said this, I am very careful regarding the ethnic interpretation of the Lusatian Culture: it clearly wasn't Proto-Germanic for sure (way too early for that!), but it doesn't seem to properly fit anywhere else in, either.
About naming nations by gods , Vandals could also get name by deity - Venus =Freija , or by group of gods Vani , like Alanic tribe Asii could get name by gods Asi , it is also meaning east , but in some Icelandic edas Votan is coming from the east ( where sun is borned )

GloomyGonzales
28-08-11, 14:27
The problem is that we don’t know the real names of these cities and we have all reasons to presume that Ptolemy corrupted the real names of these cities to make them sound latinized or celtized.
The Przeworsl culture is not East Germanic it is mostly proto-Slavic with East Germanic admixture.

Taranis
28-08-11, 14:32
The problem is that we don’t know the real names of these cities and we have all reasons to presume that Ptolemy corrupted the real names of these cities to make them sound latinized or celtized.

Honestly, I don't see why Ptolemy would celticize names. I agree that the name is certainly corrupted (if the original town names were Celtic, then it would have been "Carrodunon" and "Lugidunon"), but I don't see how and why a Greek cartographer would Celticize Germanic (or Slavic, for that matter) names.

Sorry, I really find it a lot more plausible to assume that they were Celtic or Celtic-influenced than to assume that they were Proto-Slavic and their town names were Celticized for no apparent reason.


The Przeworsl culture is not East Germanic it is mostly proto-Slavic with East Germanic admixture.

Sorry, I disagree. There is no (unambiguous) Slavic evidence in the area in Antiquity. If there were Proto-Slavs there before the East Germanic peoples arrived, we would see Proto-Slavic borrowings into the Gothic language, something for which there is no evidence. The Proto-Slavs, without a doubt, did probably live quite a bit farther to the east in Antiquity.

I think it's clear that the East Germanic peoples were a relatively recent admixture, but I don't think that there were Proto-Slavic peoples (or otherwise speakers of Satem languages) in that area before they arrived.

GloomyGonzales
28-08-11, 15:38
Honestly, I don't see why Ptolemy would celticize names. I agree that the name is certainly corrupted (if the original town names were Celtic, then it would have been "Carrodunon" and "Lugidunon"), but I don't see how and why a Greek cartographer would Celticize Germanic (or Slavic, for that matter) names.

Ptolemy never visited these cities so that he should find out about them from some other people. The Celts lived to the South from Lugii (Vandals) and of no doubts they could know about these cities and called them in their own celtisized way. Thus it’s reasonable to presume that Ptolemy found out about these cities from Celtic traders(mercenaries) and that’s why Ptolemy gave them celtisized names.

The burials associated with the Przeworsk culture are predominantly typical Slavic and only a few of them are typical Germanic. So that we can make a conclusion that Lugii were predominantly proto-Slavs(Slavs) with some East Germanic admixture.


Sorry, I disagree. There is no (unambiguous) Slavic evidence in the area in Antiquity. If there were Proto-Slavs there before the East Germanic peoples arrived, we would see Proto-Slavic borrowings into the Gothic language, something for which there is no evidence. The Proto-Slavs, without a doubt, did probably live quite a bit farther to the east in Antiquity.

I think it's clear that the East Germanic peoples were a relatively recent admixture, but I don't think that there were Proto-Slavic peoples (or otherwise speakers of Satem languages) in that area before they arrived.[/QUOTE]

Taranis
28-08-11, 15:59
Ptolemy never visited these cities so that he should find out about them from some other people. The Celts lived to the South from Lugii (Vandals) and of no doubts they could know about these cities and called them in their own celtisized way. Thus it’s reasonable to presume that Ptolemy found out about these cities from Celtic traders(mercenaries) and that’s why Ptolemy gave them celtisized names.

That is very unlikely. You have to consider the timing here: by the time that Ptolemy wrote his geography (2nd century AD), Celtic presence north of the Danube was rather vestigial as Germanic tribes had already migrated as far south as the Danube (bear in mind that the Marcomanni invaded Bohemia in the 1st century BC). Conversely, Roman presence extended towards the Danube. Yes, it is true that Celtic tribes lived south of the Lugii, but for the greater part, this was in earlier times. The only reason why there should be Celtic names recorded is really that there is an underlying Celtic substrate in an area that became recently Germanic.


The burials associated with the Przeworsk culture are predominantly typical Slavic and only a few of them are typical Germanic. So that we can make a conclusion that Lugii were predominantly proto-Slavs(Slavs) with some East Germanic admixture

Could you explain to me what exactly is "typically Slavic" about these burying rites? I would also like to point out that you seem to make a wrong assumption regarding "typical Germanic". Of course the East Germanic peoples were distinct from the other Germanic peoples. This is very clear if you look at the Gothic language: the East Germanic languages were the most divergent branch of Germanic.

Also, I would like to reiterate that if Proto-Slavic was spoken in the area before, we should see Proto-Slavic borrowings into the Gothic language (ie, words that obey to Proto-Slavic sound laws but do not obey to Germanic sound laws). There is no evidence of this.

Shetop
28-08-11, 18:01
@Taranis

I see your knowledge from history is very wide and deep. I also agree with you Slavs didn't inhabit today's Poland (and other West Slavic countries) in antiquity. I think I read somewhere that children in Polish schools are taught precisely that version of history.

I have a question for you - do you have an opinion WHERE FROM did West Slavs come to their lands, that is - what is the original homeland of West Slavs.

GloomyGonzales
28-08-11, 19:43
Taranis, let's try another approach. Let’s assume that Vandals were Germanic people then we should expect to see traces of Germanic people (I1 and U106) in the regions where they settled. We know that Vandals had kingdoms in South Spain (Andalusia) and in North Africa so we should find I1 and U106 at these regions. According to Maciamo’s maps for I1 and U106 these hypos don’t present in these regions. Why?
Now let’s assume that Vandals were proto-Slavic people (R1a and I2a). If we look at Maciamo’s maps for I2a and R1a we can find presence of I2a and R1a both in South Spain and in North Africa. So we can make a conclusion that Vandals were most likely I2a and R1a people that match more the idea that Vandals were proto-Slavic people.

Taranis
28-08-11, 20:35
@Taranis

I see your knowledge from history is very wide and deep. I also agree with you Slavs didn't inhabit today's Poland (and other West Slavic countries) in antiquity. I think I read somewhere that children in Polish schools are taught precisely that version of history.

Thank you, I try my best. :smile:

Yes, I heard this before. It seems kind of weird and a tad hard to believe, but I partially think that this has to do with Poland's troubled relationship with Germany. On the other hand, neither the medieval Germans who settled on the area of what is today Poland nor the modern-day Germans have all that much to do with the East Germanics, or with the inhabitants who were in the area before them.


I have a question for you - do you have an opinion WHERE FROM did West Slavs come to their lands, that is - what is the original homeland of West Slavs.

Let me say this: the question should be where did the Slavs as whole come from as a whole? A tough question, and truth be told I haven't formulated a satisfying answer yet for myself. One issue should be considered, however: the difference between the various branches of Slavic may have come into existence from the underlying substrates - in the case of the West Slavic languages, this would have been the Germanic languages. This doesn't seem too unlikely considering the (East) Germanic peoples probably didn't wholly migrate out of their previous areas during the Migration Period, and the remaining population became Slavicized subsequently. Consider this: at the start of the Medieval Ages, Slavic tribes inhabited not only modern-day Poland, but as far west as along the lower Elbe (areas previously inhabited by the Langobards and the Suebi) and even in the eastern parts of what is today Schleswig-Holstein.


Taranis, let's try another approach. Let’s assume that Vandals were Germanic people then we should expect to see traces of Germanic people (I1 and U106) in the regions where they settled. We know that Vandals had kingdoms in South Spain (Andalusia) and in North Africa so we should find I1 and U106 at these regions. According to Maciamo’s maps for I1 and U106 these hypos don’t present in these regions. Why?

Actually, with the Germanic peoples you can expect an admixture of U106, I1, I2b and R1a. And well,, there is I1 on the Iberian penninsula. You are right about U106, but I will get to that later...


Now let’s assume that Vandals were proto-Slavic people (R1a and I2a). If we look at Maciamo’s maps for I2a and R1a we can find presence of I2a and R1a both in South Spain and in North Africa. So we can make a conclusion that Vandals were most likely I2a and R1a people that match more the idea that Vandals were proto-Slavic people.

Truth be told, I find the idea that R1a is Slavic or Proto-Slavic quite a bit of a misconception. R1a is known to have been in Europe since the Copper Age (a time which predates the emergence of Proto-Slavic by a very long time!), and it's distributed in rather high concentrations in a large number of areas, for instance Scandinavia, the Baltics, Greece and even Finland, which obviously speaks a non-Indo-European language.

Regarding Iberian R1a, this topic came up in the past on several occasions and I have actually come to the conclusion that Germanic influence can not (wholly) explain Iberian R1a, specifically because one the highest concentrations of R1a are actually in Cantrabria, a region which should probably have the least Germanic influence in Iberia. You have a similar case in France in the Auvergne, which has also the highest concentrations of R1a in France, which should equally have amongst the least Germanic influence in France. This is why I think that there is a small Celtic component to R1a as well, which matches the expansions of Hallstatt/La-Tene from Central Europe into these areas.

Now, back to Iberia, there is also higher R1a concentrations in Valencia / eastern Andalusia, but they don't match Gothic settlements either, and I personally suspect they are more likely of Greek/Roman in origin.

Regarding I2a, you seem to be unaware of the fact that most I2a on the Balkans and in Eastern Europe is part of the subclade I2a2, wheras virtually all Iberian I2a is actually part of the subclade I2a1, which appears to be indigenous (well, at least native since Neolithic times) to Western Europe and has the highest concentrations in Sardinia and amongst the Basques.

Also, to conclude, you must ask yourself something else: how likely is it that the Vandals left a decisive genetic impact in modern-day Tunisia? Not very big. First off, their kingdom in North Africa was rather short-lived and lasted only about a century before being destroyed by the Byzantines. Secondly, a massive pandemic depopulated the Mediterranean only after a decade after that war (the Plague of Justinian), and third, about a century later, the Umayyad Caliphate invaded North Africa and destroyed Carthage, the former capital city of the Vandals, which is why Tunis, which is even today the capital city of Tunisia, became the administrative center of the region. As a result, most Vandal men, or their descendants, would have been killed in one way or another.

Bodin
28-08-11, 22:43
Typical Slavic burrials are ones with no artefacts , and with burning of dead ones. Przeworsk culture use cremation but with rich artefacts and some time inhumation ( like Germans).
About land of origins of Slavs :
In attempt to localise the linguistic Urheimat, linguists have employed place names, especially hydronyms, as indirect evidence. According to one interpretation of the onomastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomastics) evidence, the most ancient recognizably Slavic hydronyms are to be found in northern and western Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) and southern Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus). In fact, proto-Slavic has very well-developed terminology for inland bodies of water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_of_water) (lakes, river, swamps), as well as the flora and fauna indigenous to the temperate forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_broadleaf_and_mixed_forests) zone. In contrast, inherited Common Slavic vocabulary does not include detailed terminology for physical surface features peculiar of the mountains or the steppe, nor any relating to the sea, to coastal features, littoral flora or fauna, or salt water fishes.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#cite_note-16) Therefore, supporters of this line of reasoning view this area as the Urheimat of the Slavs.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#cite_note-harvtxt.7CCurta.7C2001.7Cp.3D7-4) Others, adopting a different methodology, note that the Common Slavic words for beech, larch and yew were foreign (Germanic) in origin, whilst that for hornbeam was native. Hence they argued that the original Slavic homeland was devoid of beech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beech), larch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larch) and yew (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxus_baccata), but was plentiful in hornbeam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornbeam). On the basis of the modern distribution of those trees (and assuming geo-botanical stability over the past two thousand years), some believe the Slavic urheimat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat) was within the Pripet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinsk_Marshes) marshes, in Polesie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polesia).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Slavs#cite_note-17)
Although linguists cannot agree exactly where it first developed, the evidence shows that proto-Slavic remained archaic for over a millennium, suggesting that it developed in a relatively confined region and was spoken by a relatively compact body of peoples. Its spread has been dated to have begun in the 4th century, evidenced by increasing dialectical divergence and the acquisition of Germanic and Sarmatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatians) loanwords
And Przeworsk was betwen Odra , Vistula , Tisa and Dniester
Przeworks culture was disapear in IV century during Hunic invasions , and one century later( V century) it has been replased by Prague- Korchak culture , that is clearly Slavic . New culture Iron work was more primitive then Przeworsk , so there is posibility that aeria was completly empty for some time before ariving of Slavs ( there is also archeological void in that time ).
Why Vandals would have to be Germanic R1b ( U106 ) , couldnt they be Celtic R1b ( U152/ S28 or even L21/S116) ? Or if they realy old like Tacitus say maybe G2a?

Bodin
30-08-11, 06:51
But nobody actually give me an answer on question which haplogroups would Vandals carry with them ?

zanipolo
30-08-11, 09:16
Recently I read , that the Vandals where originally from modern Holstein just above the Venedi of mecklenburg. they where forced to migrate and went to the satring area of the oder, while the venedi travelled along the coast.

Whatever DNA that the angles, cimbri, saxons and holstein frisians are , I guess that is waht the vandals are, because they are from bascially the same starting area

zanipolo
30-08-11, 09:20
Recently I read , that the Vandals where originally from modern Holstein just above the Venedi of mecklenburg. they where forced to migrate and went to the starting area of the oder, while the venedi travelled along the coast.

Whatever DNA that the angles, cimbri, saxons and holstein frisians are , I guess that is waht the vandals are, because they are from bascially the same starting area

Bodin
30-08-11, 10:05
I also remember I readed something like that . So it would be biger percent of R1b -U106 with lower percents of I1 and I2b , with some of haplogroups they encountered in aeria around Vistula when they get there - some more R1b and maybe some Baltic R1a.

Asturrulumbo
02-09-11, 02:33
About the Lugii (and perhaps to a lesser extent the rest of the region), they may well have been Celts (or closely related to them), or at least have a (Para-)Celtic substrate. They lived in the lands of the former Lusatian Culture. The Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, in its article about the Urnfield Culture (where pre-proto-celtic was probably spoken), states that "...The culture is divided into many regional groups, the most substantial being the Lusatian (lausitz) group or culture that occupied Poland, east Germany, the former Czechoslovakia and the western Ukraine."

Bodin
02-09-11, 22:36
Me to believe they were Celts , I already menion that conecting them with Celtic god Lug.
Thanksfor joining debate

Taranis
03-09-11, 13:08
But nobody actually give me an answer on question which haplogroups would Vandals carry with them ?

Actually, yes:

The typically Germanic admixture is R1a, I1, I2b, R1b-U106. If the bearers of the Lusatian Culture were carriers of R1b-U152, then it is plausible that the Vandals would have an admixture of that as well.

Bodin
03-09-11, 14:45
Actually, yes:

The typically Germanic admixture is R1a, I1, I2b, R1b-U106. If the bearers of the Lusatian Culture were carriers of R1b-U152, then it is plausible that the Vandals would have an admixture of that as well.
Ok thanks . It also means they carried more Lusatian genes , because there is no I1 or I2b in Andalusia ( or it is less than 0,25% ) , and there is no of it in North Africa .
Thanks for answer

Bodin
03-09-11, 14:47
And Lusatians were most probably not only R1b but also strong R1a - Baltic .

Taranis
03-09-11, 14:52
Ok thanks . It also means they carried more Lusatian genes , because there is no I1 or I2b in Andalusia ( or it is less than 0,25% ) , and there is no of it in North Africa .
Thanks for answer

As I mentioned before, the likelihood that the Vandals left a very small genetic impact is very high. I elaborated this in an earlier post:


Also, to conclude, you must ask yourself something else: how likely is it that the Vandals left a decisive genetic impact in modern-day Tunisia? Not very big. First off, their kingdom in North Africa was rather short-lived and lasted only about a century before being destroyed by the Byzantines. Secondly, a massive pandemic depopulated the Mediterranean only after a decade after that war (the Plague of Justinian), and third, about a century later, the Umayyad Caliphate invaded North Africa and destroyed Carthage, the former capital city of the Vandals, which is why Tunis, which is even today the capital city of Tunisia, became the administrative center of the region. As a result, most Vandal men, or their descendants, would have been killed in one way or another.


And Lusatians were most probably not only R1b but also strong R1a - Baltic .

Yes, obviously there was older R1a in the area, dating back from the much earlier Corded Ware Culture (which was very likely the original source of R1a in Central/Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia).

Bodin
04-09-11, 20:04
Yes they probably left small genetic impact , but it is imposible they left none genetic impact
Thanks for answer

Taranis
04-09-11, 20:12
Yes they probably left small genetic impact , but it is imposible they left none genetic impact
Thanks for answer

Yes, but the likelihood that any Vandal Y-DNA in North Africa and Iberia (especially the former!) is basically just "background noise" is very high.

Bodin
05-09-11, 23:51
Yes we agreed . Thanks for answering

hawklutz
20-12-11, 17:02
There were two kinds of impulses which created the Przeworsk culture: the southern one - Silesian celts and the northern one - Germanics from northern Denmark (Bornholm). The latter borrowed a lot from celts - military technics, religious practices, etc. Mention should be also made of the local dwellers Pomeranian culture, who for a very long time lived side by side with celts and germanics and changed their cultural practices only at a developed stage of Przeworsk culture (there were also found signs of Przeworsk-Pomeranian co-habitation on 9 out of 47 sites).
If to talk about haplogroups, then, in my opinion, these would look as follows:I1, I2b, R1b for the celto-germanic part. R1a1a1g, and especially R1a1a1g2 for the Pomeranian part.
P.S.
By the way, are there any R1a1a1g in Spain or Portugal?

Menus
03-03-12, 03:53
Vandals are sometimes described as barbbaric people but they actualy had developed quite large culture.

James_Rippee
13-08-16, 07:11
Actually, yes:

The typically Germanic admixture is R1a, I1, I2b, R1b-U106. If the bearers of the Lusatian Culture were carriers of R1b-U152, then it is plausible that the Vandals would have an admixture of that as well.

I am a little new to this but are you telling me that Germans were a mixture of haplo group U? I am unfamiliar with that haplo group. Isn't that a latter mutation?

Hauteville
13-08-16, 10:03
Vandals were eastern Germanic, about haplogroups surely some I, some R1 and I guess some T and Q were carried by them.

Angela
13-08-16, 15:35
I am a little new to this but are you telling me that Germans were a mixture of haplo group U? I am unfamiliar with that haplo group. Isn't that a latter mutation?

There's no haplogroup "U" in the yDna listed by Taranis. It's haplogroup R1b-U106: a subclade of R1b.

Sloven-Vened
08-09-16, 12:30
Vandals are Slavic-German ethnic group
Ethymology of word "Vandal" is Wend (=Vened, Venet). Ethymology is Slavic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends)
Vandals, translation of Russian wikipedia (http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%92%D 0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B)

Vandals hated political catholic christian religion, therefore they demolished churches

Taranis
08-09-16, 14:42
Vandals are Slavic ethnic group
Ethymology of word "Vandal" is Wend (=Vened, Venet).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wends)
Vandals, translation of Russian wikipedia (http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%92%D 0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B)

Vandals hated political catholic christian religion, therefore they demolished churches

Sorry, but what little evidence we have of their language shows that the Vandals were Germanic. Their personal names are overtly Germanic: Geiseric ('spear chieftain' - see English 'gar', and surnames such as "Friedrich" or "Dietrich") and Hilderic ('battle chieftain' - see Brunnhilde from the Nibelungenlied). If the personal names were Germanic, and Procopius for instance claims that they spoke "Gothic" (i.e. a language identical to that of the Goths), what should they have been else but Germanic?

Further on, despite what the Russian-language Wikipedia article claims, although the Vandals were Christians themselves, but they followed another strain of Christianity called Arianism (after its founder, Arius). They were not Orthodox because the difference between Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church did not exist yet at that point.

PS: are you by any chance an adherent of this idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory)?

Milan
08-09-16, 15:25
Sorry, but what little evidence we have of their language shows that the Vandals were Germanic. Their personal names are overtly Germanic: Geiseric ('spear chieftain' - see English 'gar', and surnames such as "Friedrich" or "Dietrich") and Hilderic ('battle cheaftain' - see Brunnhilde from the Nibelungenlied). If the personal names were Germanic, and Procopius for instance claims that they spoke "Gothic" (i.e. a language identical to that of the Goths), what should they have been else but Germanic?

Further on, despite what the Russian-language Wikipedia article claims, although the Vandals were Christians themselves, but they followed another strain of Christianity called Arianism (after its founder, Arius). They were not Orthodox because the difference between Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church did not exist yet at that point.

PS: are you by any chance an adherent of this idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory)?
I am an adherent to the "idea" that the "Goths" were the Getae people known since antiquity by that name,Jordanes himself give them Thracian history,Thracian gods etc,further more they were known that are Getae(Thracians) by every author until the 17th century,the book was known as Getica,no Gothica,De origine actibusque Getarum,become known as separate Germanic Goths in the 17th century see Gothicism.There is couple of books mostly by Bulgarian/Romanian researchers on the subject,about the confusion.
This belong to separate thread,anyone is willing to open i can cooperate.

DuPidh
08-09-16, 16:30
Vandals were eastern Germanic, about haplogroups surely some I, some R1 and I guess some T and Q were carried by them.

Culturally the Vandals were Germanic's, but ethnically they overlapped with Slavs, Romanians, Balts. So ethnically they might have been mixed with Germanic slight majority. Their brutality and destruction is not any different from modern Germanic tribes. Remember the scale of destruction in the European soil from WW1 and WW2 from Germans.

Hauteville
08-09-16, 16:49
Culturally the Vandals were Germanic's, but ethnically they overlapped with Slavs, Romanians, Balts. So ethnically they might have been mixed with Germanic slight majority. Their brutality and destruction is not any different from modern Germanic tribes. Remember the scale of destruction in the European soil from WW1 and WW2 from Germans.

Which sources you have?The Vandals were the only Germanic people who counquered Sardinia and in the island there is zero Slav and Baltic dna but a small percentage of Germanic haplogroups yes.

Sloven-Vened
08-09-16, 17:15
PS: are you by any chance an adherent of this idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory
This article is only about Slovenes.

Russian archeologist akademik Sedov is most important archeologist in Russia. Vandals have German-Slavic origin (http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%92%D 0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B)

LeBrok
08-09-16, 17:23
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory
This article is only about Slovenes.

Russian archeologist akademik Sedov is most important archeologist in Russland. Vandals have German-Slavic origin (http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%92%D 0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B) Possibly. We can only speculate on it till we have their DNA, and DNA of involved ethnic groups of this era. The only sure things now is that they spoke Germanic language and that they were Christians. Pretty unusual for a Slavic group till 9th century, wouldn't you say?

Tomenable
08-09-16, 18:27
The Vandals were the only Germanic people who counquered Sardinia and in the island there is zero Slav and Baltic dna

The bolded part is not true.

In fact, typically Slavic haplogroups are more numerous in Sardinia than typically Germanic ones.

Among 1204 Sardinians, there were over a dozen samples of typically Slavic and Baltic Y-DNA:

2 x I2a1b-M423
5 x R1a-M458>PF7521
1 x R1a-M458>L1029
3 x R1a-Z280>Y1396
1 x R1a-Z280>YP372
1 x R1a-Z280>CTS4648

As for Y-DNA most commonly associated with Germanic people, there were only four samples:

2 x R1b-U106
2 x I1-M253

There are also 5 samples of haplogroups associated with Central Asian populations in Sardinia:

4 x R1a-Z93
1 x Q1a3c-L527

And I2a2a-M223 which has no strong ethnic association but isn't common in Southern Europe:

10 x I2a2a-M223

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

Other Y-DNA included 128 samples of R1b-U152 associated with Italic & Celtic ancestry - consistent with the long period of Roman rule in Sardinia - as well as 25 samples of P312*, 2 of DF13>L513, 4 of Celtiberian & Celtic DF27 and 2 of Insular Celtic L21:

128 x R1b-U152
25 x R1b-P312*
4 x R1b-DF27
2 x R1b-L21
2 x R1b-DF13>L513

There were also 22 samples of basal clades of R1b (including 19 of Eastern R1b - so called ht35 - and 3 of basal L151):

R1b-L151* - 3
R1b-L23* - 9
R1b-M269* - 10

Finally, the remaining 989 Sardinians among those 1204 had typically European Neolithic and Non-European Y-DNA:

465 x I2a1a
11 x I2c
131 x G2a
126 x E1b1b1
6 x E1a1
98 x J2
63 x J1c
29 x R1b-V88
10 x R2a1
28 x T
8 x L
7 x F3
7 x A1b1b2b

Tomenable
08-09-16, 18:48
Their personal names are overtly Germanic: Geiseric ('spear chieftain' - see English 'gar', and surnames such as "Friedrich" or "Dietrich") and Hilderic ('battle cheaftain' - see Brunnhilde from the Nibelungenlied).

You mentioned some the most Germanic-sounding names that appears among them - Geiseric, Hilderic.

But there are also Non-Germanic-sounding Vandal names, from African and Iberian inscriptions, such as:

Crecemirus, Damiro, Godemiro, Gramila, Gualamira, Gualamirus, Gudileuva, Lubinus, Miro, Odisclus, Onemirus, Radagajs, Rademirus, Ragimiru, Ranisclus, Ricimer, Salamirus, Sueredus, Suimirus, Sinthiliuba, Sundemirus, Suniemirus, Swintila, Victemirus, Vistisclo, Vistremiro, Vitisclus, Svevlad, Visislaus, Vitislaus, Wisimar, Miesiclaus, Radagaisus, Valamir

These are some of the least Germanic-sounding names that appear in various inscriptions and chronicles.

Tomenable
08-09-16, 19:08
Actually, yes:

The typically Germanic admixture is R1a, I1, I2b, R1b-U106.

R1a is by no means "typically Germanic".

There is a huge scarcity of R1a among "purely" Germanic nations, except for Scandinavia (but there it is R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664 rather than R1a-Z280 or R1a-M458 - which are totally different clades, that have not been found in Corded Ware culture and according to TMRCA age estimates, expanded much later).

R1a of Germans is mostly from assimilated Slavs, and it correlates very strongly with historical distribution of Slavs (see my map):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32728-My-map-of-haplogroup-R1a-in-Germany-and-Austria?p=488616&viewfull=1#post488616

In the past R1a used to be associated with Indo-Europeization of entire Europe. But currently we know that Western Europe was Indo-Europeanized by R1b who migrated from the Steppe. R1a - subclades of which tend to be much younger (according to TMRCA age estimates) - is mostly due to much later Slavic migrations.

% of R1a in West Germanic nations which - unlike Germany and Austria - don't have much of Slavic admixture:

England - 4,5% (according to Eupedia)
Flanders - 4,3% (sample size: 695 men)
Brabant - 4,0% (sample size: 74 men)

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

In a large sample of 1830 English men who lived ca. year 1700 (on average), there were 72 (ca. 4%) with R1a.

Out of these 72, just 37 could be assigned to particular subclades, while 35 did not test for enough SNPs so far:

R1a-Z284 (Scandinavian branch) = 17 people:

R-CTS4179 - 5 - Francis Harker b. 1773; E. Leeminge b. 1611; T. Marsden b. 1667; Benjamin Wilson b. 1637; William Russell b. 1605
R-L448 - 3 - Benjamin Ferguson b. 1766; Richard Kidd b. 1679; William b. 1671
R-YP386 - 2 - James Cottle b. 1817; William Mugford b. 1789
R-YP355 - 2 - William Boulton b. 1885; Christopher Tolchard b. 1524
R-CTS2243 - 1 - Edward Newman b. 1803
R-CTS8277 - 2 - Robert Bridberry b. 1630; William Heath b. 1587
R-S4458 - 1 - Robert Fooke b. 1697
R-Z287 - 1 - James Holliman b. 1785

R1a-L664 (Western European branch) = 8 people:

R-L664 - 7 - Harry Francis Fox b. 1849; Thomas Judd b. 1608; William Lane; Lt. William Palmer b. 1610; William Tapley Waymouth b. 1811; John Pike 1573; Christopher Robinsonne b. 1636
R-CTS5768 - 1 - Edmund Drake b. 1480 (ancestor of famous Francis Drake)

R1a-Z280 (Balto-Slavic branch) = 5 people:

R-Z280 - 2 - John Fenimore b. 1480; Thomas Winsor b. 1788
R-CTS3402 - 1 - Trott
R-FGC2555 - 1 - John Hollister d. 1596
R-S24902 - 1 - Thomas Yeo b. 1700

R1a-M458 (Slavic branch) = 2 people:

R-L1029 - 1 - Batt b. 1505;
R-YP445 - 1 - John Shanner b. 1776

R1a-CTS6 (Jewish subclade of R1a-Z93) = 1 person:

R-CTS8448 - 1 - Moses Phillips b. 1787

R1a-Z93 (Indo-Iranian branch) = 4 people:

R-Z93 - 1 - John Mason b. 1650
R-Z94 - 3 - John Gibson b. 1721; William Grant b. 1643; John Lett b. 1750

Undetermined R1a-Z283 (European branches) = 3 people:

R-Z283 - 2 - William Bambrook b. 1756; Thomas Coverdale b. 1726
R-Z282 - 1 - Edward Starbuck b. 1584

Undetermined branches of R1a = 32 people:

R-SRY10831 - 5
R-M17 - 3
R-M198 - 21
R-M417 - 2
R1a - 1

Reginald (Reynold) Ap Adams, b. 1242
John Ingram, b. 1350
Alex Alvord, b. 1627
John Bickford, b. 1603
Richard Boak, b. 1780
Thomas John Bruff, b. 1648
William Carpenter, b. 1605
John Croome, b. 1784
Thomas Dowland, b. 1781
Samuel Elliott
Thomas Gadsby, b. 1802
William Goulden/Golding, b. 1680
Philip Harris b. 1722
Edward Jenkins b. 1617
Jeremiah Lee b. 1790
Ralph Leeming b. 1738
Thomas Manson, b. 1700
George Maris, b. 1632
Richard Myllward, b. 1545
John Parsons, b. 1766
Edward Rowell, b. 1705
Henry Rust, b. 1631
John Scarcliffe, d. 1661
William Sillett, b. 1789
Giles Slocum, b. 1623
William Southmead of Wray
Robert Walkland, b. 1676
Henry Wall, b. 1650
John Williams, b. 1563
NN from Birmingham
NN from Waddington
NN from Lancashire

Tomenable
08-09-16, 19:38
1) Distribution of haplogroup R1a in Germany & Austria (black dots = sampling locations):

https://s13.postimg.io/7p2j8pnat/R1a_Germany_Austria.png

2) R1a in Germany & Austria compared to areas of Early Medieval Slavic settlement:

http://oi68.tinypic.com/6enpso.jpg

Two interesting observations regarding my map:

1) Percent of R1a correlates with % of Slavic toponyms on a local scale (for example in the region of Greifswald there is a scarcity of Slavic toponyms - only 11,88% Slavic vs. 88,12% Germanic toponyms - and 19,2% of R1a; by contrast in the region of Rostock there is a large percent of Slavic toponyms - including Rostock itself - and % of R1a is nearly 2 times higher than in Greifswald - 32,4%).

2) Samples with the highest % of R1a are the ones from the South-Eastern (not North-Eastern) part of East Germany:

- Chemnitz in Saxony (ca. 40% of R1a),
- Dessau in Saxony-Anhalt (ca. 43% of R1a)
- Brandenburg an der Havel (ca. 50% of R1a),
- Lusatia (ethnic Sorbs: ca. 65% of R1a)

- in Austria: Graz in Styria (ca. 43% of R1a)

Tomenable
08-09-16, 19:43
By the way - before the end of 2016, some new samples of ancient Y-DNA from Poland will be published.

So we will learn several things, I guess.

But I don't think that there will be many samples from Przeworsk culture, since they practiced cremation.

However, there will be numerous samples from Wielbark culture (which is often associated with Goths).

And I already know one Wielbark Y-DNA.

Sile
08-09-16, 20:20
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory
This article is only about Slovenes.

Russian archeologist akademik Sedov is most important archeologist in Russia. Vandals have German-Slavic origin (http://translate.google.sk/translate?hl=sk&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%92%D 0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B)

The Venetic theory for being slovenian is now dead

The theory has also gained support in some nationalist circles. However, the theory has been challenged by certain writers,[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-Skrbis-4):145 and it has been rejected by both mainstream linguists[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-Lencek-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-Priestly-2) and historians.[5]

The Slovenians latest theory states they have illyrian markers as part of their ethnicity


The Venedi of the baltic are of West-baltic origin
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-5)

The Veneti of the Adriatic are of Euganei people who are indigenous to North-East italy

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-5)

Taranis
08-09-16, 20:27
R1a is by no means "typically Germanic".

There is a huge scarcity of R1a among "purely" Germanic nations, except for Scandinavia (but there it is R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664 rather than R1a-Z280 or R1a-M458 - which are totally different clades, that have not been found in Corded Ware culture and according to TMRCA age estimates, expanded much later).

First, I would like to say that I wrote that post back in 2011. That makes a big difference to me. Second, I would like to say that the assumption that R1a is somehow associated with Germanic peoples was reasonable then, and it is reasonable now. As you are aware, R1a was present in Central Europe with the Corded Ware (Eulau, see Haak et al.) and Urnfield Cultures (Lichtenstein cave, see Schweitzer et al.). Although I'm amiss where in the R1a tree they fall, it is evidence that R1a was present in what is today Germany substantially earlier.


You mentioned some the most Germanic-sounding names that appears among them - Geiseric, Hilderic..

I picked those two precisely because the Germanic etymology is readily comprehensible. But, in any casee can agree that they are Germanic names, and as I said, Procopius claimed that they spoke 'Gothic'. We have attested two forms of Gothic: The 'biblical' Gothic, from that 300s translation of the New Testament into Gothic. and the much younger Crimean Gothic, Busbecq's account. Both are unanimously Germanic languages. I do not see any potential for controversy here.



But there are also Non-Germanic-sounding Vandal names, from African and Iberian inscriptions, such as:

Crecemirus, Damiro, Godemiro, Gramila, Gualamira, Gualamirus, Gudileuva, Lubinus, Miro, Odisclus, Onemirus, Radagajs, Rademirus, Ragimiru, Ranisclus, Ricimer, Salamirus, Sueredus, Suimirus, Sinthiliuba, Sundemirus, Suniemirus, Swintila, Victemirus, Vistisclo, Vistremiro, Vitisclus, Svevlad, Visislaus, Vitislaus, Wisimar, Miesiclaus, Radagaisus, Valamir

These are some of the least Germanic-sounding names that appear in various inscriptions and chronicles.

This probably belongs into a separate thread, but I'd like to pinpoint you to something: some of these are decidedly through Latin/Romance transmission (especially the cases where *w > *gw, compare how "William" and "Guillaume" fit together). Hence "Gualamirus" and "Valamir" are just renderings of the same name. Radagaisus is a variant of the English name "Roger" (or "Rüdiger" in German, 'famous spear'). Bear in mind that unlike West Germanic and North Germanic, the East Germanic languages did not obey to the *z > *r rhotacism.

Tomenable
08-09-16, 20:48
Taranis,


As you are aware, R1a was present in Central Europe with the Corded Ware

Firstly, Corded Ware was not yet Germanic. The earliest Proto-Germanic culture was either the Nordic Bronze Age or Jastorf. It is possible that the Nordic Bronze Age developed from one of Corded Ware (or more precisely - Battle Axe) groups. We have a hint which one was that - there is one sample of R1b-U106 from a Battle Axe burial in Southern Sweden (RISE98 sample).

RISE98 is the oldest R1b-U106 discovered so far. Then we have two U106-s from Roman-era Eburacum.

And you might expect some new samples of R1b-U106 before the end of this year.

Secondly, Western Corded Ware R1a was most probably neither M458+ nor Z280+. None of these two SNPs has been confirmed so far in CWC samples (and keep in mind that Z280 and M458 make up the vast majority of European R1a today). It seems that most of Western Corded Ware R1a were nowadays extinct or rare lineages such as M417* - M417(xZ645), some M417+, some Z645+. There was also one sample of M198*. Finally, the presence of CTS4385+ (Eulau), L664+ (RISE446 from Bergheinfeld) and Z284+ (RISE61 from Zealand) has been confirmed. But these lineages are only a rather small minority of German and Austrian R1a today.

CTS4385 and L664 used to be called "Old European" branches in the past. But now they can be securely associated with Corded Ware westward expansion towards the Rhine. These branches are scattered all over Western Europe and Central Europe today, but their frequencies tend to be low everywhere. There are no populations with high frequency of these lineages.


and Urnfield Cultures (Lichtenstein cave

These were only tested to R1a1+ level, probably due to low quality of samples. There is no evidence that they were Z280+ or M458+.


Although I'm amiss where in the R1a tree they fall

See above. Most of them were either basal, extinct, or rare (today) subclades. Neither has been confirmed as Z280+ or M458+. So it seems that demographic explosion of Z280+ and M458+ lineages of R1a took place later than the Early Bronze Age.

Modern R1a in Germany and Austria (as well as in Eastern Europe) is overwhelmingly of either M458+ or Z280+ variety.

The oldest sample of confirmed M458 that we have so far, is from a Medieval Slavic burial from the island of Usedom. There are also some M458-s from Early Medieval Poland, but they haven't yet been published (they will be published soon). However, this doesn't tell us much about the origins of M458. Identifying M458 in Iron Age or Bronze Age samples - that would be great.

Tomenable
08-09-16, 21:04
I've found a book by Herbert Schutz who apparently thinks that Wielbark culture was a Germanic-Slavic mix:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=r-DLX9PPEFoC&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false

Check "Map 12. The Slavs" - he associates Wielbark and Cernjachov cultures with Slavs, but on what basis?

===================
Coming back to Corded Ware:


it is evidence that R1a was present in what is today Germany substantially earlier.

Yes but as I wrote, those were not "modern" (common today) subclades. It seems that Bell Beaker populations expanded into Corded Ware territories from the west, and either replaced or otherwise outnumbered those previous Corded Ware male populations. One exception were parts of Scandinavia (especially Norway) where Corded Ware population remained dominant.

BTW, CWC people probably never had high population density, as they were largely nomadic.

Perhaps Beaker Folks could achieve higher densities because they switched to farming earlier.

Sloven-Vened
08-09-16, 21:38
Remember the scale of destruction in the European soil from WW1 and WW2 from Germans.
Yes, it is true. Franks (they were Germans) were extremely violent when bloody militarily christianize Slavs. Franks done genocide on Slavs



The only sure things now is that they spoke Germanic language and that they were Christians. Pretty unusual for a Slavic group till 9th century, wouldn't you say? It is true. Slavs had very advanced, progressive ezoteric spiritualty (no animal sacrifice, no idols). They hated priminive pagan bloodly dogmatic cult of christianity. Saint Stephen done genocide on Slavs at chriastianisation prosess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_I_of_Hungary

The crusade against the Slavs, click to link (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sk&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%9A%D 1%80%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0 %BF%D0%BE%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1% 82%D0%B8%D0%B2_%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B D)

Sloven-Vened
08-09-16, 21:45
Reacion to Tomenable posts:
Austria
Greater half of people in Austria has typical Slavic (no German) last names!!! It is very interesting!!! It is realy true!!!!
Official is Austria german country with german language, without Slavic ethnic imigrant minority

Sloven-Vened
08-09-16, 22:31
The Venetic theory for being slovenian is now dead
The theory has also gained support in some nationalist circles. However, the theory has been challenged by certain writers,[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-Skrbis-4):145 and it has been rejected by both mainstream linguists[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-Lencek-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-Priestly-2) and historians.[5]
The Slovenians latest theory states they have illyrian markers as part of their ethnicity
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory#cite_note-5)
Sorry, you dont understand me. Sloven is not the same as Slovenian! It is difficult linguistic theory. Sloven = Slav (in simple). You do not understand Slovakian language, it is difficult for you.

Click you to this link, please. History of Slavs before 6. century support hungarian and german archeologists
The biggest myths about Slavs (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32756-The-biggest-myths-about-Slavs)

Sile
08-09-16, 23:01
Sorry, you dont understand me. Sloven is not the same as Slovenian! It is difficult linguistic theory. Sloven = Slav (in simple). You do not understand Slovakian language, it is difficult for you.

Click you to this link, please. History of Slavs before 6. century support hungarian and german archeologists
The biggest myths about Slavs (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32756-The-biggest-myths-about-Slavs)

I understand you................very well

you talk about Veneds being slavs, when they are and have never been slavs............they are balts in origin .......they are part of the flad-bed culture, the cairns culture and others. None of these are slavic in origin

Artmar
08-09-16, 23:20
Taranis,



Firstly, Corded Ware was not yet Germanic. The earliest Proto-Germanic culture was either the Nordic Bronze Age or Jastorf. It is possible that the Nordic Bronze Age developed from one of Corded Ware (or more precisely - Battle Axe) groups. We have a hint which one was that - there is one sample of R1b-U106 from a Battle Axe burial in Southern Sweden (RISE98 sample).

Actually, you should remember the discussion on Anthrogenica where it was proven than U106 wasn't buried in Battle-Axe rite - only on burial site used previously by Battle-Axe people. That's a SIGNIFICANT difference. Guy wasn't Battle-Axe but he possibly belonged to people who pushed CWC groups further north.

Tomenable
09-09-16, 17:29
Actually, you should remember the discussion on Anthrogenica where it was proven than U106 wasn't buried in Battle-Axe rite - only on burial site used previously by Battle-Axe people. That's a SIGNIFICANT difference. Guy wasn't Battle-Axe but he possibly belonged to people who pushed CWC groups further north.

I don't remember. Thanks for pointing this out. What was the title of that thread where it was discussed?


Guy wasn't Battle-Axe but he possibly belonged to people who pushed CWC groups further north.

But what people were those? :thinking:After all, no any U106 has been found in Bell Beaker remains so far.

I think that it is possible that some R1b lineages came together with majority R1a as Corded Ware. BTW - a few days ago Balanovsky has announced that he discovered a new branch of R1b-L23 - GG400, a brother subclade to L51 and Z2103. So now we have not just two, but three main branches of L23, namely: L23>L51, L23>Z2103 and L23>GG400. The last one seems to be concentrated in Eastern Europe (probably a large part of basal or unresolved L23* from FTDNA Polish Project will turn out to be L23>GG400).

See the link: https://ep70.eventpilot.us/web/page.php?page=IntHtml&project=ASHG16&id=160121213

IMO there could be both a small minority of R1a in Bell Beaker, and a small minority of R1b in Corded Ware.

Another typically Eastern European branch of Non-Western R1b is L23>Z2103>Y5587 (so called "EE Type").

Milan
17-09-16, 11:59
Sorry, but what little evidence we have of their language shows that the Vandals were Germanic. Their personal names are overtly Germanic: Geiseric ('spear chieftain' - see English 'gar', and surnames such as "Friedrich" or "Dietrich") and Hilderic ('battle chieftain' - see Brunnhilde from the Nibelungenlied). If the personal names were Germanic, and Procopius for instance claims that they spoke "Gothic" (i.e. a language identical to that of the Goths), what should they have been else but Germanic?

Further on, despite what the Russian-language Wikipedia article claims, although the Vandals were Christians themselves, but they followed another strain of Christianity called Arianism (after its founder, Arius). They were not Orthodox because the difference between Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church did not exist yet at that point.

PS: are you by any chance an adherent of this idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venetic_theory)?
I think that you are selective on Procopius there,elsewhere in Gothic wars he made distinction between Germans and Goths,ok that can be because at that time this name was applied to people from Germania.
The name he give is Gizeric instead Geiseric,his father was Godigisclus but apparently again translated as Godigisel,how?
Nowhere does he mention they spoke the same language with Germans,important thing on the history of the Goths is Jordanes himself who was of Gothic descent,so apparently he didn't knew what he wrote,when he mention that Zalmoxis is the god of the Getae/Goths in his Getica,mentioned ever since Herodotus as god of the Getae,he is dubbed fictious for those things today? while we take other information that first mythical homeland of Goths is Scandza,which we came to identify with Scandinavia,his entiry history is based on the Getae,he likewise mention one more Gothic word,that is their writtten laws the "Belagines" , were given to the Goths by Dicineus / Dekaineos, the Dacian-Getic legislator, Zalmoxian priest at the time of Burebista,so can you please translate the word "belagines" for me in common Gothic-Germanic or whatever language in more meaningfull way to understand.
“Rome should have no longer any Getic peril to fear; for they say that the Goths are of the Getic race.” – Procopius. Bello Gothico

Taranis
17-09-16, 14:52
I think that you are selective on Procopius there,elsewhere in Gothic wars he made distinction between Germans and Goths,ok that can be because at that time this name was applied to people from Germania.
The name he give is Gizeric instead Geiseric,his father was Godigisclus but apparently again translated as Godigisel,how?
Nowhere does he mention they spoke the same language with Germans,important thing on the history of the Goths is Jordanes himself who was of Gothic descent,so apparently he didn't knew what he wrote,when he mention that Zalmoxis is the god of the Getae/Goths in his Getica,mentioned ever since Herodotus as god of the Getae,he is dubbed fictious for those things today? while we take other information that first mythical homeland of Goths is Scandza,which we came to identify with Scandinavia,his entiry history is based on the Getae,he likewise mention one more Gothic word,that is their writtten laws the "Belagines" , were given to the Goths by Dicineus / Dekaineos, the Dacian-Getic legislator, Zalmoxian priest at the time of Burebista,so can you please translate the word "belagines" for me in common Gothic-Germanic or whatever language in more meaningfull way to understand.
“Rome should have no longer any Getic peril to fear; for they say that the Goths are of the Getic race.” – Procopius. Bello Gothico


"Gothic" and "Getic" are not the same. Like I said before, we have two attested varieties of Gothic, 'biblical' Gothic (from the 300s) and Crimean Gothic (from the late 1500s). Both languages are unanimously Germanic, but the key point is that they are East Germanic languages that do not share the commonalities that the two other branches, North Germanic and West Germanic, have (z > r rhotacism, development of the Germanic umlaut). In contrast, Getae were Dacians. As you gave the example of "Zalmoxis", Dacian was beyond any doubt a Satem language: the *zalm- element is thought to be a cognate with English 'helmet' and German 'Helm', note how the Indo-European root started with a 'palatalizable' velar *ḱ-. Notice how *ḱ- became palatalized in the Satem languages, but de-palatalized to *k in the Centum languages (and then later shifted to *h in Proto-Germanic, thanks to Grimm's Law).

Milan
17-09-16, 16:09
"Gothic" and "Getic" are not the same. Like I said before, we have two attested varieties of Gothic, 'biblical' Gothic (from the 300s) and Crimean Gothic (from the late 1500s). Both languages are unanimously Germanic, but the key point is that they are East Germanic languages that do not share the commonalities that the two other branches, North Germanic and West Germanic, have (z > r rhotacism, development of the Germanic umlaut). In contrast, Getae were Dacians. As you gave the example of "Zalmoxis", Dacian was beyond any doubt a Satem language: the *zalm- element is thought to be a cognate with English 'helmet' and German 'Helm', note how the Indo-European root started with a 'palatalizable' velar *ḱ-. Notice how *ḱ- became palatalized in the Satem languages, but de-palatalized to *k in the Centum languages (and then later shifted to *h in Proto-Germanic, thanks to Grimm's Law).
I understand that,but the historians considered this people to be one and the same,their names varieties of one and same.
Here is again Procopius because if i quote Jordanes we should read Thracian(Getae) history altogether.
"There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic".
Jordanes,Isidore of Seville, Orosius, Philostorgius, Procopius,Yeronim Claudius etc thought the same.

Historians didn't made distinction between them,we in more modern times started to make it however.
I won't go into further discussion,thanks anyway i understand and agree with you.

A. Papadimitriou
17-09-16, 17:35
I've noticed that it was quite common to label a tribe 'Germanic' based on very few -if any- actual evidence, sometimes based on pseudoetymologies. The same is true about some 'Iranic' tribes.

Taranis
17-09-16, 17:43
I've noticed that it was quite common to label a tribe 'Germanic' based on very few -if any- actual evidence, sometimes based on pseudoetymologies. The same is true about some 'Iranic' tribes.

As the proverb goes, 'if it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, you might as well call it a duck'. The ethnic/linguistic affiliation of a lot of historic ethnic groups is a difficult issue, but usually we do have a set of ethnic names, personal names, place names, deity names (there's an entire sub-field of linguistics that deals with this, which is called onomastics). I concede the issue is less clear-cut with nomadic peoples (due to the absence of fixed settlements). But if the sources all speak the same language, pun intended, then there can be little doubt about the identification.

The ancient historians/geographers were horrible ethnographers, that is for sure, and because of this you need to read between the lines.

A. Papadimitriou
17-09-16, 18:17
I wouldn't say that Biblical Gothic isn't Germanic, of course.

Concerning Zalmoxis, z in Attic Greek was 'sd'/ 'zd' supposedly (that's what I have been taught) or 'dz' in earlier forms of Greek. It would be Zdalmoxis then, or Dzalmoxis, I guess.



Ζεύς ('Zeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus)') — Archaic /d͡zeús/, Attic /sdeús/ [zdeǔs], late Koine /zefs/ (supposedly)


(I would like to ask a linguist if Z could have been 'dj' or 'dʒ' l originally ike in educate -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_consonant_clusters #Yod-coalescence)

In Herodotus it's Salmoxis, though.

ἀθανατίζουσι (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29qanati%2Fzousi&la=greek&can=a%29qanati%2Fzousi0) δὲ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=de%5C&la=greek&can=de%5C0&prior=a)qanati/zousi) τόν δε (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%2Fnde&la=greek&can=to%2Fnde0&prior=de) τὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5Cn&la=greek&can=to%5Cn0&prior=to/nde) τρόπον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tro%2Fpon&la=greek&can=tro%2Fpon0&prior=to\n): οὔτε (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ou%29%2Fte&la=greek&can=ou%29%2Fte0&prior=tro/pon) ἀποθνήσκειν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29poqnh%2Fskein&la=greek&can=a%29poqnh%2Fskein0&prior=ou)/te) ἑωυτοὺς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%28wutou%5Cs&la=greek&can=e%28wutou%5Cs0&prior=a)poqnh/skein) νομίζουσι (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=nomi%2Fzousi&la=greek&can=nomi%2Fzousi0&prior=e(wutou\s) ἰέναι (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%29e%2Fnai&la=greek&can=i%29e%2Fnai0&prior=nomi/zousi) τε (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=te&la=greek&can=te0&prior=i)e/nai) τὸν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=to%5Cn&la=greek&can=to%5Cn1&prior=te) ἀπολλύμενον (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29pollu%2Fmenon&la=greek&can=a%29pollu%2Fmenon0&prior=to\n) παρὰ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=para%5C&la=greek&can=para%5C0&prior=a)pollu/menon) Σάλμοξιν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*sa%2Flmocin&la=greek&can=*sa%2Flmocin0&prior=para) δαίμονα (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dai%2Fmona&la=greek&can=dai%2Fmona0&prior=*sa/lmocin):

With 'z' in Plato

ἀλλὰ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29lla%5C&la=greek&can=a%29lla%5C0&prior=le/goien) Ζάλμοξις (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=*za%2Flmocis&la=greek&can=*za%2Flmocis0&prior=a)lla), ἔφη (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29%2Ffh&la=greek&can=e%29%2Ffh0&prior=*za/lmocis), λέγει (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=le%2Fgei&la=greek&can=le%2Fgei0&prior=e)/fh) ὁ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%28&la=greek&can=o%281&prior=le/gei) ἡμέτερος (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=h%28me%2Fteros&la=greek&can=h%28me%2Fteros0&prior=o() βασιλεύς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=basileu%2Fs&la=greek&can=basileu%2Fs0&prior=h(me/teros), θεὸς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=qeo%5Cs&la=greek&can=qeo%5Cs0&prior=basileu/s) ὤν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=w%29%2Fn&la=greek&can=w%29%2Fn0&prior=qeo\s), ὅτι (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%28%2Fti&la=greek&can=o%28%2Fti0&prior=]) ὥσπερ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=w%28%2Fsper&la=greek&can=w%28%2Fsper0&prior=o(/ti) ὀφθαλμοὺς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=o%29fqalmou%5Cs&la=greek&can=o%29fqalmou%5Cs0&prior=w(/sper) ἄνευ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29%2Fneu&la=greek&can=a%29%2Fneu0&prior=o)fqalmou\s) κεφαλῆς (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kefalh%3Ds&la=greek&can=kefalh%3Ds0&prior=a)/neu) οὐ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ou%29&la=greek&can=ou%290&prior=kefalh=s) δεῖ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=dei%3D&la=greek&can=dei%3D0&prior=ou)) ἐπιχειρεῖν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29pixeirei%3Dn&la=greek&can=e%29pixeirei%3Dn0&prior=dei=) ἰᾶσθαι (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=i%29a%3Dsqai&la=greek&can=i%29a%3Dsqai0&prior=e)pixeirei=n) οὐδὲ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ou%29de%5C&la=greek&can=ou%29de%5C0&prior=i)a=sqai) κεφαλὴν (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=kefalh%5Cn&la=greek&can=kefalh%5Cn0&prior=ou)de) ἄνευ (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=a%29%2Fneu&la=greek&can=a%29%2Fneu1&prior=kefalh\n) σώματος (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=sw%2Fmatos&la=greek&can=sw%2Fmatos0&prior=a)/neu)

Onomastics is borderline pseudoscience.

Taranis
17-09-16, 18:40
I wouldn't say that Biblical Gothic isn't Germanic, of course.

Concerning Zalmoxis, z in Attic Greek was 'sd'/ 'zd' supposedly (that's what I have been taught) or 'dz' in earlier forms of Greek. It would be Zdalmoxis then, or Dzalmoxis, I guess.



Ζεύς ('Zeus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus)') — Archaic /d͡zeús/, Attic /sdeús/ [zdeǔs], late Koine /zefs/ (supposedly)


(I would like to ask a linguist if it could have been 'dj' or 'dʒ' like in educate -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonological_history_of_English_consonant_clusters #Yod-coalescence)

The problem with the usage of the letter Zeta in Archaic Greek is that in native Greek words, it seems to have represented either /dz/ or /zd/. However, the point is here that we know that Zeta (and Latin 'z' too) represented all kinds of foreign phonemes not found natively in Greek. A famous example is the city of Ashdod, spelled in Hebrew 'Ašdōd (אשדוד), which is rendered as Azōtos (Αζωτος). Here, the Greek letter Zeta approximates the phomene /ʃd/ as /zd/. I would not be surprised in the slightest of the sound in "Zalmoxis" was actually something like /tʃ/, /ts/, /ʂ/, /ʈʂ/ or even /tɕ/ - which were all phonemes that ancient Greek lacked.


Onomastics is borderline pseudoscience.

And linguistics as a whole is wholly a pseudoscience? :-p

A. Papadimitriou
17-09-16, 19:04
Too many agendas, in general and too much creativity.

I have an example, I just found while googling:


According to Herodotos (Histories 4.94), some Getae also gave Zalmoxis the name Gebeleizis or Beleizis, which Kretschmer has related to the same Indo-European root, *gʾhem-el- ("earth"), that he traced in Zamolxis. Given that Herodotus spoke about a thundering god, Wilhelm Tomaschek corrected the name to Zibeleizis, meaning "thunder sender" (compare the Lithuanian žaibas, "thunderbolt," which has no clear etymology). More recently, Cicerone Poghirc (1983) has proposed, for reasons of textual criticism, the reading Nebeleizis, meaning "god of the [stormy] sky" (compare the Slavic nebo, "sky," and the Greek nephele, "cloud"). …

I like the last one because it reminds me the Greek Νεφεληγερέτης, although all of them were more creative than they should have been. And those are probably some of the moderate ones.

Milan
18-09-16, 11:59
Too many agendas, in general and too much creativity.

I have an example, I just found while googling:


I like the last one because it reminds me the Greek Νεφεληγερέτης, although all of them were more creative than they should have been. And those are probably some of the moderate ones.
Very true.

Milan
18-09-16, 13:09
I wouldn't say that Biblical Gothic isn't Germanic, of course.


There were two at least Bulgarian historians i know about Asen Chilingirov and Julija Dimitrova,writing on Getae and Goths recently.


According to Julija,haven't read the book entirely a Longobardic runes are used in the "Biblcal Gothic",Chilingirov say that the paper is altogether a forgery of 16th,17th century,see Gothicism among Germanic nobility,this is Codex Argentus,Biblical Gothic;

Milan
18-09-16, 13:27
[email protected]
Is it there attested Gothic language on inscription on church or something similar from their age in Spain,Italy? is weird to me if they haven't left a trace if we have just a paper of Bible,located somewhere in Sweden now.

Taranis
18-09-16, 13:27
There were two at least Bulgarian historians i know about Asen Chilingirov and Julija Dimitrova,writing on Getae and Goths recently.

According to Julija,haven't read the book entirely a Longobardic runes are used in the "Biblcal Gothic",Chilingirov say that the paper is altogether a forgery of 16th,17th century,see Gothicism among Germanic nobility,this is Codex Argentus,Biblical Gothic;


Sorry, but to claim that biblical Gothic is a forgery means basically entering the realm of cranks/conspiracy theorists. The script used in the Gothic bible translation are no "Langobardic runes", but they're the Gothic alphabet, which is essentially a mixture of Greek, Latin and Runic alphabet (for example the Gothic "o" seems to be derived from both Greek Omega Ω and Runic "o"). I won't say that people in earlier centuries didn't invent conlangs (because they very much did), but its very clear that Gothic is an authentic Germanic language (albeit one not closely related with the living branches, as I've described before), and to claim it was 'invented in the 16th/17th century by romantic German nobles' is just delusional.

If you ask me, the assertation "Getae and Goths were one and the same, [and were Slavic altogether?]" are just overt ethnocentric nationalist fantasies as well as wishful thinking on the side of the authors that have no factual basis.

arvistro
18-09-16, 13:32
What were the main differences between East Germanic vs other Germanic languages?

Milan
18-09-16, 13:33
Sorry, but to claim that biblical Gothic is a forgery means basically entering the realm of cranks/conspiracy theorists. The script used in the Gothic bible translation are no "Langobardic runes", but they're the Gothic alphabet, which is essentially a mixture of Greek, Latin and Runic alphabet (for example the Gothic "o" seems to be derived from both Greek Omega Ω and Runic "o"). I won't say that people in earlier centuries didn't invent conlangs (because they very much did), but its very clear that Gothic is an authentic Germanic language (albeit one not closely related with the living branches, as I've described before), and to claim it was 'invented in the 16th/17th century by romantic German nobles' is just delusional.

If you ask me, the assertation "Getae and Goths were one and the same, [and were Slavic altogether?]" are just overt ethnocentric nationalist fantasies as well as wishful thinking on the side of the authors that have no factual basis.
Haven't read them thought just because of that,just heard the basics what they claim,also i don't know what "ethnicity" they claim on them.Edit; To add that they are probably independent historians,don't want to say that are Bulgarian academia which perhaps have different opinions.

vigilante777
02-05-18, 06:01
The major problem in this thread, aside from the fact that it does not talk about Vandal genetics at all, is that many people here are confusing history/archaeology with politics/national mythology. It's all fine and well to say that the Venedi and the Veneti were the same people, as long as you back that up with peer reviewed scientific articles that support your opinion. I see quite a few nationalists here who refuse to provide evidence, and if they do, choose to provide non peer reviewed nationalist sources. Could you please leave your emotions and feelings for a moment while we attempt to discuss a matter that should, as everyone alive today literally has the same connection to these people as human beings are so intensely interrelated, have no bearing on an individual identity or ethnicity?

vigilante777
02-05-18, 06:06
All I wanted to see was some aDNA results, as I read a post here that mentioned "Vandal" DNA from sardinia. Was this in fact ancient DNA studied in an academic setting, or rather popular DNA results from living populations? I can find no article referencing aDNA in Sardinia, so my gut is resting on the latter.

Sile
02-05-18, 07:24
The major problem in this thread, aside from the fact that it does not talk about Vandal genetics at all, is that many people here are confusing history/archaeology with politics/national mythology. It's all fine and well to say that the Venedi and the Veneti were the same people, as long as you back that up with peer reviewed scientific articles that support your opinion. I see quite a few nationalists here who refuse to provide evidence, and if they do, choose to provide non peer reviewed nationalist sources. Could you please leave your emotions and feelings for a moment while we attempt to discuss a matter that should, as everyone alive today literally has the same connection to these people as human beings are so intensely interrelated, have no bearing on an individual identity or ethnicity?

Vandals where any germans under the Vindili confederation

https://s20.postimg.cc/88d7g7ibh/anc_Ger.jpg (https://postimg.cc/image/ka8lacrjt/)

Angela
02-05-18, 14:59
This is a very old thread. A lot has changed since then.

The Veneti and the Venedi are not the same people.

It's impossible to talk about the genetics of either with any specificity because we have no ancient dna samples for them. We have it for the Lombards, so perhaps that's a bit of a clue for all the original "Germanic" tribes.

See:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35488-Understanding-6th-Cent-Barbarian-Social-Organization-Migration-thru-Paleogenomics?highlight=Lombard+dna