How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

I'm not familiar with this theory. I have read that the emergence of the Zarubintsy culture is associated with an eastward migration of people belonging to the Pomeranian culture into territory occupied by people of the Milograd culture, and the subsequent mixture between those cultures, which lasted for quite a long time (W. W. Siedow, Седов В. В., Славяние верхнево Поднепровья и Подвинья). The Zarubintsy culture is considered by some scholars Proto-Slavic as it seems to correspond with archaic Slavic hydronymy (Третьяков П. Н., Памятники зарубинецкой культуры). Milograd culture is considered by many scholars Balto-Slavic (before its differentiation into Proto-Slavic, West Baltic and East Baltic) or West Baltic, but Siedow wrote: "В лингвистической литературе высказывались предположения о формировании праславянского на основе одного из окраинных западнобалтийских диалектов или, наоборот, о происхождении западнобалтийских диалектов от одной из групп праславянских говоров." Also Bernstein wrote: "Нет сомнения в том, что балто-славянская сообщность охватила прежде всего праславянский, прусский, ятвяжский язык". So Proto-Slavic and West-Baltic were more closely related than was Proto-Slavic with East Baltic (let's remind you that according to more recent theories, there was no such a thing as a unified Baltic, which later splint into West Baltic and East Baltic - but there was Balto-Slavic which split directly into three branches: West Baltic, Slavic and East Baltic). By the end of the 1st century AD the Zarubintsy culture - according to Siedow - was conquered by Sarmatians, but part of their population escaped northward as refugees and settled in Prussia (archaeological prove of this are supposed to be the type of fibulae which had been previously produced by the Zarubintsy culture, and which start to appear in Prussia in the 2nd century AD). Before that, the Lusatian culture fell to Scythians (see page 76 here: http://www.parzifal-ev.de/uploads/media/gimbutas.pdf), so most likely the Pomeranian culture - which evolved out of the Lusatian culture (see below) had some Scythian admixture as well.

https://archive.org/details/TheBalts

If we add also your info about contribution of Gubin culture (I guess it contributed more to southern part of that culture than to its northern part), then we have a picture of Proto-Slavs emerging from a mixture of the following archaeological cultures: Milograd (West Balts? or Balto-Slavs?), Pomeranian ("Lusatian" - whoever those Lusatians were - mixed with Scythians) and Gubin (Germano-Celtic Bastarnae?). This would mean that those four peoples contributed to the ethnogenesis of Slavs. So they would be ancestors of Slavs, not some later addition to Slavs. So even if Bastarnae (or maybe Celts who influenced them) originally carried I2a-Din, then still it was part of Slavs since the beginning of their ethnogenesis. A later addition to Slavs - on the other hand - would be Sarmatians, to which the Zarubintsy culture fell by the end of the 1st century AD (according to Siedow). When it comes to the Pomeranian culture:



But it evolved as the result of Scythian influence on the Lusatian culture (see Marija Gimbutas in the link above).

The study by Haak et. al. 2015 found R1a Z280 in an individual of the Lusatian culture from Halberstadt in Germany.

I quoted all the details about that Z280 individual here (what is interesting, that guy was probably a redhead):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post451553

R1a Z280 is today present in all Slavic and Baltic populations in frequencies between ca. 10% and ca. 50% of all males.

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

All of this suggests that Proto-Slavs evolved out of an interesting mix of Balts (or Balto-Slavs as they are also called - but Balto-Slavic language was rather more similar to modern Baltic languages than to modern Slavic), Lusatians (maybe they spoke some unknown Indo-European language - Venedic, if such a language existed - some scholars hypothesize the existence of Venedic languages as yet another branch of IE), the Bastarnae or Peucini (Germano-Celtic), Scythians and - the final addition - Sarmatians.

I am probably starting to sound like Germanophiles who see "Germanicness" everywhere. :grin:

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

As for the Balto-Slavic past. There are several theories about this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ies_Kromer.svg

The graph illustrates several models of Balto-Slavic interactions, trying to explain similarities between the two groups (Schleicher - common ancestral language separating into Baltic and Slavic; Endzelins - two separate languages which came under influence of each other at some point; Rozwadowski - common ancestry, then separation, followed by becoming close neighbours again; Meillet - prolonged close influences despite lack of common ancestry; Kromer - common ancestry with Baltia never constituting a linguistic unity, but East Baltic and West Baltic groups separating directly from Balto-Slavic). Rozwadowski's model is also interesting.

Currently the mostly commonly accepted model when it comes to differentiation of Baltic is this first suggested by Kromer in 2003 - namely that there was no unified Baltic language (from which later West Baltic and East Baltic emerged), but that Balto-Slavic (which, however, was more similar to Baltic than to Slavic) split directly into three parts - West Baltic (now extinct), Slavic and East Baltic.

Here the theories of Schleicher and Endzelins are outlined:



There is also no perfect agreement on when did the separation of Slavic and Baltic (or both Baltic groups) take place.

Proposed dates range from ca. 1500 BCE to ca. 500 BCE (3500 - 2500 years ago):

Atkinson - 1400 BCE
Novotná & Blažek - 1400–1340 BCE
Sergei Starostin - 1210 BCE
Chang et. al. - 600 BCE (http://www.linguisticsociety.org/fil...AlPreprint.pdf)

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



Or maybe something like this:

http://s7.postimg.org/rcznqxcgb/New_Model.png



Except that I2 is Non-Indo-European and Germanic people are Indo-European (despite Non-IE admixtures).

So it can only be Pre-Germanic rather than Germnaic. Or it can be Pre-Slavic.

I1 is also Pre-Germanic (it was probably absorbed by Proto-Germanic Indo-Europeans from LBK culture).

---

https://www.academia.edu/4835555/Gallo-Scythians

referred as Bastanae

https://www.academia.edu/4118437/Med...ravetz_Culture


Who Were The Bastarnae ?

Filed under: Archaeology, History, Numismatics — 1 Comment
March 26, 2014




https://balkancelts.files.wordpress....intr.jpg?w=640





‘…the Bastarnæ, the bravest nation of all’.

(Appianus, Mithridatic Wars 10:69)





The most enigmatic ‘barbarian’ people to appear in southeastern Europe in the late Iron Age are undoubtedly the Bastarnae (Βαστάρναι / Βαστέρναι).

While archaeological/numismatic evidence indicates that the Bastarnae tribes had reached the Danube Delta as early as the second half of the 4th c. BC, they first appear in historical sources in connection with the events of 179 BC as allies of Philip V of Macedonia in his war with Rome (Livy 40:5, 57-58), and remain a constant factor in the history of southeastern Europe for over 500 years. Due to the fact that archaeologists have failed to associate a particular archaeological culture with the Bastarnae, the ethnic origin of this people has hitherto remained shrouded in mystery, with a lack of clarity on whether they were initially of Scythian, Germanic or Celtic origin. However, as illustrated below, a chronological analysis of the ancient sources relating to the Bastarnae in general, and archaeological, numismatic and linguistic evidence from the territory of the Bastarnae Peucini tribe in particular, enables us to finally shed some light on this question.





https://balkancelts.files.wordpress..../pel.jpg?w=640
Bastarnae ‘Huşi-Vovrieşti type’ tetradrachms from the Celtic settlement at Pelczyska, Poland (2nd c. BC)
(see Balkancelts ‘The Celts in Poland’ article)






THE SOURCES


Later authors such as Dio Cassius (3rd c. AD – Dio LI.23.3, 24.2) and Zosimus (late 5th/early 6th c. AD – Zosimus I.34) define the Bastarnae as ‘Scythians’, and to a great extent this is true. By the late Roman period the Bastarnae tribes had been living in the region vaguely referred to as ‘Scythia’ for over half a millennium, and mixing with the local tribes (‘mixed marriages are giving them to some extent the vile appearance of the Sarmatians’ – Tac. Ger. 46). Thus, they were by this stage indeed Scythians, in the same way, for example, the Celtic Scordisci in Thrace are referred to in Roman sources as ‘Thracians’, having inhabited the region of Thrace for a number of centuries. However, as with the latter case, geographical situation by no means indicates ethnic origin.




https://balkancelts.files.wordpress....-wom.jpg?w=640
Facial Reconstruction of a Bastarnae woman found in Burial # 9 at the Celtic settlement in Pelczyska, Poland

(see Balkancelts ‘Face of a Stranger’ article’)





While sources such as Strabo (early 1st c. AD – see below), and Tacitus (circa 100 AD; Tac. Ger. 43), are often cited to support the view that the Bastarnae were of Germanic origin, in fact, a closer analysis of the testimony of both these sources reveals that neither is in fact certain about who the Bastarnae were. While Strabo informs us that the Bastarnae lived mixed with the Thracian and Celtic tribes in Thrace, both north and south of the river, he also admits, ‘I know neither the Bastarnae, nor the Sarmatae nor, in a word, any of the peoples who dwell above the Pontus’ (Strabo VII, 2:4). Tacitus states the following:

‘Peucini, quos quidam Bastarnas, vocunt sermon cultu, sede ac domiciliis ut Germani agunt’ (Tac. op cit.)

i.e. – he informs us, not that the Bastarnae were Germani, but that they were ‘similar to the Germani’. In this case one should bear in mind that many of the Celts who migrated into southeastern Europe and Asia-Minor from the end of the 4th c. BC onwards originated from the Belgae group of Celtic tribes (see also ‘Galatia’ article), who are described in ancient sources as being most like the Germani.

The other ancient authors are clear on the ethnic origin of the Bastarnae. The earliest source, Polybius (200-118 BC; XXIV 9,13) refers to them as Celtic (Galatians), while Livy (59 BC – 17 AD) tells us that they had the same customs and spoke the same language as the Celtic Scordisci, and also mentions close military and political ties between the Bastarnae and Scordisci (Livy 40:57). Plutarch (46 – 120 AD; Aem. 9.6) refers to them as ‘Gauls on the Danube who are called Bastarnae’.





THE BASTARNAE IN THRACE



It was in the wake of the aforementioned events of 179 BC that the Peucini, the southern branch of the Bastarnae, were drawn south of the Danube into Thrace. They were at this stage a powerful military and political force in southeastern Europe, which is illustrated by the enthusiasm that Philip V of Macedonia showed at the prospect of being allied to them:
‘The envoys whom he had sent to the Bastarnae to summon assistance had returned and brought back with them some young nobles, amongst them some of royal blood. One of these promised to give his sister in marriage to Philip’s son, and the king was quite elated at the prospect of an alliance with that nation’ (Livy 40:5).
Although Philip’s sudden death meant that the joint attack on Rome by the Macedonians and Bastarnae came to nothing, by this time a large group of the (Peucini) Bastarnae had already migrated into Thrace, and a group of 30,000 of them subsequently settled in Dardania; another larger group of Bastarnae returned eastwards and settled in the area of today’s eastern Bulgaria (Livy 40:58), where Bastarnae kingdoms were established in the Dobruja area. At the beginning of the 1st c. AD Strabo (VII, 3:2) mentions that the ethnic make-up of this area consisted of a complex mix of Thracians, Scythians, Celts and Bastarnae:
“the Bastarnae tribes are mingled with the Thracians, more indeed with those beyond the Ister (Danube), but also with those this side. And mingled with them are also the Celtic tribes…”.

A thriving ‘barbarian’ culture emerged in this area (southeastern Romania/northeastern Bulgaria) during the 2nd/ 1st c. BC, based on a symbiotic relationship between these various groups and the Greek Black Sea colonies – a culture which was brought to a brutal end in the mid 1st c. BC by the destructive rampage of the Getic leader Burebista, which also paved the way for the Roman conquest of the Dobruja.






https://balkancelts.files.wordpress....elis.jpg?w=640
Bronze issue of the (Peucini) Bastarnae king Aelis (s. Dobruja region, Bulgaria – c. 180-150 BC).
- Jugate heads of the Dioskouroi right, in wreathed caps / jugate horse heads right; monogram & ΠΕ (for Peucini) below

(see also ‘Balkancelts ‘Peucini’ article)





In summary, an analysis of the ancient sources would appear to indicate that the Bastarnae tribes were initially of Celtic (Belgic) origin. This is confirmed by numismatic, archaeological, and linguistic evidence from the territory of the Bastarnae Peucini tribe in n.e. Bulgaria, s.e. Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. One should also note that the first archaeological/numismatic evidence of the presence of the Bastarnae in s.e. Europe (2nd half of the 4th c. BC) corresponds chronologically with the Celtic migration into the region.
It would therefore appear, based on the available scientific data, that the elusive Bastarnae tribes were not some mysterious Germanic people who appeared in southeastern Europe during this period, but that they, like the Galatians, were tribes of the Belgae group who migrated into the area during the Celtic expansion at the end of the 4th / beginning of the 3rd c. BC. Scientific evidence from the Dobruja region (loc cit) further indicates that the original Celto-Germanic (Belgic) nature of this culture subsequently underwent a fundamental metamorphosis due to prolonged contact and co-existence with the Hellenistic and Scythian cultures, the resulting fusion of Celtic, Hellenistic and Scythian cultural elements culminating in a unique and distinct Bastarnae ethnicity by the Roman period.



In the later Roman period the policy of ethnic engineering further strengthened the Bastarnae presence south of the Danube. Under the Emperor Probus (276-82) 100,000 of them were settled in Thrace (Historia Augusta Probus 18), and shortly afterwards Emperor Diocletian (284-305) carried out another ‘massive’ transfer of the Bastarnae population to the south of the Danube (Eutropius IX.25; see Balkancelts ‘Ethnic Engineering’ article). Thus, the Bastarnae presence on the territory of today’s Bulgaria, already well established since the 2nd c. BC, was further reinforced by the policies of both Probus and Diocletian.

I am not offended,but if someone would study Romanian and South Slavic will find cognates that are not found in other Slavic or IE languages.
I found a very strange cognate,Sardinian,Serbo-Croatian and Romanian has it and maybe,also some Albanian dialect,about a product made from sheep or pig intestines.
I also read a study about how the bride is taken,from her parents home and that is almost identical to what is happening in Transylvania,Romania.
A study about Serbo-Croatian people customs (Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians,Croatians and Slovenians).
I have a personal theory that Bosnians,Serbians,Croatians are coming from Transylvania,they were Dacians occupied by Roman Empire and moved on South of Danube,when Roman Empire retired.
Who knows,maybe most closed language from today languages to Dacian language is Serbo-Croatian?
Montenegrins I think are Dacians from South of Danube.
The fact that Albanians,Montenegrins,Serbians,Croatians,Bosnians are about 90% or more Dinarids,as phenotype shows they did not received too much genetic input in last thousands of years.
At Romanians,only 33% are Dinarids.
However,I think in mountain villages,percentage increases.

Gyms,only Romanians from a part of South Romania were called "Vlachs".
From wikipedia:
"The word Vlach is ultimately of Germanic origin, from the word Walha, "foreigner", "stranger", a name used by ancient Germanic peoples to refer to Romance-speaking and (Romanized) Celtic neighbours"
See Welsh,Wallons also,as example.
But they were not calling themselves "Vlachs" foreign people were calling them like that,because of their Romance language.
They were calling themselves "Munteni".
Go get a clue,Olt,a major river in Romania,from which another group of Romanians are taking their name,Olteni,is a word of Celtic origin,cognate to Olten district from Switzerland.
What is telling that?
That the name is preserved at least from the time of Dacians.
There 7 large areas of folklore in Romania,Moldova being one of them,which covers Moldova from Romania,Bessarabia and Bukovine.
These people are called "moldoveni" no one ever called them "Vlachi" because their accent have a little of Eastern Slavic sonority.
They also had a lot of contact to Eastern Slavs (especially Ukrainians) and they are having very few J2 and E-V13,but having high I2-din and also about 20% or even more R1A.
You should know that the term in Romanian ,even old Romanian,for Germans is "nemtzi" cognate to Slavic "nemczi" which means strangers.
Also in both Serbo-Croatian and Romanian (old Romanian) Italians are called "Taliani" - in Serbo Croatian "Talieni" in Romanian - plural form.

Quote:

---

Please... Germanic peoples are linguistically Indo-Europeans, ethnically (or should I say genetically) they are mix of Indo-Europeans and proto-Europeans

---

You are not up-to-date with new findings. Germanic peoples are ethnically mostly Indo-Europeans.

Both light skin and lactase persistence in European populations were spread by Indo-European migrations:

"High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe":

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/89

http://link.springer.com/article/10....471-2148-10-89

Quote:

---

Here we investigate the frequency of an allele (-13910*T) associated with lactase persistence in a Neolithic Scandinavian population. From the 14 individuals originally examined, 10 yielded reliable results. We find that the T allele frequency was very low (5%) in this Middle Neolithic hunter-gatherer population, and that the frequency is dramatically different from the extant Swedish population (74%).

We conclude that this difference in frequency could not have arisen by genetic drift and is either due to selection or, more likely, replacement of hunter-gatherer populations by new immigrants.

---

The most probable reason for this, is the population replacement in Scandinavia - as revealed by genetic studies:

"Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians":

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...2901694-7?cc=y

Lactose tolerance was spread by Indo-Europeans, who were pastoralists and whose diet largely consisted of dairy (milk):

https://dnaexplained.files.wordpress...pg?w=584&h=383

Lactase persistence gene allows you to consume more dairy products and drink more milk.

That's what Proto-Indo-European pastoralists did.

So modern Scandinavians are descendants of Indo-European immigrants, not of prehistoric Scandinavians.

Archaeology only confirms this conclusion, that Scandinavia was colonized by IE immigrants:

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2015/02/...-for-indo.html

Quote:

---

“Two thousand years ago, we started having Kurgan graves in Scandinavia,” said Ellingvag. The commonalities between burial mounds in Norway and Scythian/Saka mounds in Kazakhstan are striking, he said. “[The Scythian people] had these ornaments, these animal ornaments, which are very, very important in Scandinavian art … and the ornaments are actually quite similar, which is striking, it’s very special.”

---

Lactase persistence is more common in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe today.

This is in agreement with recent findings that Northern Europeans have more of Indo-European ancestry.

By contrast Southern Europeans have more ancestry from Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers.

According to this map
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/366/1566/863
it actually looks like Germanic (or Germano Celtic?)/non-Germanic, rather than North/South in Europe. With Baltic states and East Slavs looking as yellow, as Spain and other South Euros. Not sure where exactly Poland borders are, it looks like part of it is drawn yellow too.

Indeed, LP frequency can vary from 15–54% in eastern and southern Europe to 62–86% in central and western Europe, and to as high as 89–96% in the British Isles and Scandinavia (from text in link above)

Percent of lactose intolerance in Southern Europe is much higher than in Eastern Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase...e#Distribution

Percent of Lactase Persistence (according to Bersaglieri 2004):

Sardinians (Italy) 7.1%
Tuscans (Italy) 6.3%
North Italians 35.7%
French (France) 43.1%
French Basques 66.7%
Orcadians 68.8%
Swedes and Finns 81.5%
Irish people 90.0%

Since Irish, Basques and Finnish people are not Germanic (or at least no more than Orcadians or Swedes), I don't see any correlation.

And Basques are a strange case, since their Y-DNA is Indo-European even though they speak a Non-Indo-European language.

BTW:

Quote:

---

Lactose intolerance is a little different. Before the genetics of lactose digestion were understood, the test for lactose tolerance/intolerance was rather artifical and involved drinking a measured amount of milk of a certain quality and seeing the effects. It had been noted that individuals varied considerably. Some could drink half a glass of milk happily whlist others got sick from the smallest amount. Others could of course consume large quantities of the stuff with no ill effects whatsoever. Whatever the merits of the tolerance/intolerance tests, it was a line, however artificial. So, whilst Bersaglieri's data show 92.9% of Sardinians are Lactase non persistent, Lactose intolerance tests show 86% of Sardinians to be Lactose intolerant.

---

Gentlemen, I have no personal stake in the matter at hand, but perhaps it's as well, in this as in all matters, to be a little more precise and not make generalizations that are not actually supported by the data? Haak et al:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-d...al_Fig_3_small.

So, while Corded Ware and other LN/EBA people in elite burials were mostly "Yamnaya Indo-European", northern Europeans today are about 50% Yamnaya, which is about half EHG and half "Armenian" like. Actually, I would maintain that their "Yamnaya" percentage is inflated even at 50%, but that's a topic for another thread.

As for the "Yamnaya Indo-Europeans" spreading some of the light pigmentation genes, Yamnaya Indo-Europeans from Samara were dark haired, dark eyed, and not particularly fair skinned (lots of SLC24A5, but very little SLC42A5 and some other light pigmentation genes.) I don't quite see how that particular group could have done much spreading of light pigmentation. It's of course true that Yamnaya people from more westerly areas or more northerly areas than Samara might have had a different and more "light" set of alleles, more similar perhaps to the Samara HG rather than to the Karelia HG. We'll have to wait and see. We may be seeing a series of localized founder effects.

Looking at the distribution of light pigmentation alleles in Genetiker's work (I make no personal assertions as to its 100% accuracy) to which Fire-Haired directed our attention, it seems that in terms of skin pigmentation SLC42A5has a "hot spot" in the SHG of Scandinavia (Motala) If this result is duplicated in the forthcoming paper, perhaps it spread from there by various processes and at various times? (Interesting that WHG should lack these alleles, and then they show up in a WHG/ANE hunter group, but mutations happen where they happen. Also interesting that this Motala group should have samples with alleles that correlate with fair hair and fair skin, and also code for the EDAR Mongoloid mutation (4/7). Ancient dna always surprises.)

See:
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015...storic-europe/

Lactase persistence is another issue. Yamnaya and EHG were lactose intolerant as were the Neolithic farmers. The gene first shows up in central Europe. This is the data from the genetiker site. Only the bold is the derived allele.
CM6, rs182549, ability to digest milk Alberstedt LN I0118 CC
Corded Ware LN I0103 CC
Esperstedt MN I0172 CC
LBK EN I0054 CC
Spain EN I0410 CC
Spain EN I0412 CC
Spain MN I0408 CC
Unetice EBA I0047 CC
Yamnaya I0231 CC
Yamnaya I0443 CC
MCM6, rs4988235, ability to digest milk
Alberstedt LN I0118 GG
Baalberge MN I0560 GG
Baalberge MN I0807 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0108 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0111 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0112 GA
Bell Beaker LN I0806 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0058 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0059 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0171 GG
Corded Ware LN I0103 GG
Corded Ware LN I0104 GG
Esperstedt MN I0172 GG
Halberstadt LBA I0099 GG
Karelia HG I0061 GG
LBK EN I0022 GG
LBK EN I0025 GG
LBK EN I0026 GG
LBK EN I0046 GG
LBK EN I0054 GG
LBK EN I0100 GG
LBK EN I0659 GG
LBK EN I0821 GG
Motala HG I0011 GG
Motala HG I0012 GG
Motala HG I0013 GG
Motala HG I0014 GG
Motala HG I0015 GG
Motala HG I0016 GG
Motala HG I0017 GG
Samara HG I0124 GG
Spain EN I0409 GG
Spain EN I0410 GG
Spain EN I0412 GG
Spain EN I0413 GG
Spain MN I0405 GG
Spain MN I0406 GG
Spain MN I0407 GG
Spain MN I0408 GG
Unetice EBA I0047 GG
Unetice EBA I0114 GG
Unetice EBA I0116 GG
Unetice EBA I0117 GG
Unetice EBA I0164 GA
Yamnaya I0231 GG
Yamnaya I0357 GG
Yamnaya I0370 GG
Yamnaya I0429 GG
Yamnaya I0438 GG
Yamnaya I0443 GG
Yamnaya I0444 GG

Quote:

---

You are not up-to-date with new findings. Germanic peoples are ethnically mostly Indo-Europeans.
Both light skin and lactase persistence in European populations were spread by Indo-European migrations:
"High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe":

---

Sorry, what I meant to say is that by haplogroups they are mix of Indo-Europeans and proto-Europeans, not by autosomal DNA...
I do not know much about lactose tolerance so I'm going to skip that part.
But part when you claim that light skin gene is of only Indo-European origin is a big lie. European light skin is of Neanderthal origin
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...asian-science/

"For example, the Neanderthal version of the skin gene POU2F3 is found in around 66 percent of East Asians, while the Neanderthal version of BNC2, which affects skin color, among other traits, is found in 70 percent of Europeans".

"Two studies published concurrently in Nature and Science on Wednesday suggest that while the Neanderthal contribution to our genomes was modest, it may have proved vitally important.

Some parts of non-African genomes are totally devoid of Neanderthal DNA, but other regions abound with it, including those containing genes that affect our skin and hair. This hints that the Neanderthal gene versions conferred some benefit, and were kept during evolution".

You can not survive for a long time in northern climate with dark skin... Neanderthals had light skin, and quite often they had light eyes and hair, and it is obvious that European genes for light pigmentation is of Neanderthal origin.

I will quote Peter Frost on hair and eye pigmentation:
"For others still, this color diversity arose through random factors: genetic drift, founder effects, relaxation of natural selection, etc. But these factors could not have produced such a wide variety of hair and eye hues in the 35,000 years that modern humans have inhabited Europe. The hair-color gene (MC1R) has at least 7 alleles that exist only in Europe and the same is probably true for the eye-color gene (OCA2). If we take the hypothesis of a relaxation of selection, nearly a million years would be needed to accumulate this amount of diversity. Moreover, it is odd that the same sort of diversification has evolved at two different genes whose only point in common is to color a facial feature".




But let's not go in off-topic further and further.


My point is that I2a1b Din was already common among proto-Germanic peoples, just like clades of some other haplogroups were, regardless of whether they are proto-European (Indo-Europeanized) or Indo-European.
Area where Isles, Disles and Dinaric split from I2a M423 does not match eastern Europe. Nor can its concentration gradient in Yugoslavia be explained with Slavic migration...

Quote:

---

But part when you claim that light skin gene is of only Indo-European origin is a big lie. European light skin is of Neanderthal origin

---

Sorry but Neanderthals lived across most of Eurasia, from the Altai Mountains (bones found recently) to Iberia. Maybe even in China.

But the 8000-year-old Loschbour hunter (from what is now Luxembourg) had dark skin, for example.

So apparently not everywhere people interbred with Neanderthals. There were only few instances of interbreeding.

Ancestors of Indo-Europeans and East Asians could interbreed with Neanderthals - ancestors of other Non-Indo-Europeans perhaps did not.

It is possible that only later Indo-Europeans spread Neanderthal genes from one corner of Eurasia to most of the continent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gyms

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

---

The article manipulates the many existing uncertainties towards an extreme direction,without taking a critical approach.
It is very convenient to choose the amnesia moments;and our hypocrisy does that quite often.

The Romans intensively exploited the province Dacia Traiana for its very rich deposits of gold,iron and salt.
Thus,the use of Latin became a necessity.

Some linguistic evidence

It is very hard for a language to preserve the peripheral words,because of the simplifying impulse.
These tendencies affect even the native speakers.
In the case of Latin,this simplification inevitably occured in the Imperial Age,due its tremendous expansion.
So, these apparently meaningless words can be used for tracking the "genuine"Romans.

Romanian has several,here's one of them:

bade(addressing formula to an elder man,elder brother,lover)
THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE- A COUPLE OF WORDS FROM A LAZIO DIALECT
bade-old man
bad-to grow old
Badea is a usual Romanian family name.

Also,several common words of Latin origin preserved only in the Transylvanian dialect:

nea(snow),Latin nix,nivis
pacurar(shepherd), from pecorarius
arina(sand),from arena
june(young man), from juvenis
ai(garlic),from alium

The province Dacia Traiana stretched along the Carpathians,so do the Romanians,this can't be coincidental.
Any person with a decent line of thought realizes the importance of this event in the Romanian ethnogenesis.Though, it clearly wasn't the only Romance imput.


Transylvania was a peripheral area within both Hunnic and Avar confederations,cause the steppe peoples preferred the lowlands,while the Gepids peaked in the northern parts.



P.S. You're obviously capable of changing the environment;not in this way,though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mihaitzateo

You should know that the term in Romanian ,even old Romanian,for Germans is "nemtzi" cognate to Slavic "nemczi" which means strangers..

---

"Nemczi" is more close to "mute".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diurpaneus

The article manipulates the many existing uncertainties towards an extreme direction,without taking a critical approach.
It is very convenient to choose the amnesia moments;and our hypocrisy does that quite often.

The Romans intensively exploited the province Dacia Traiana for its very rich deposits of gold,iron and salt.
Thus,the use of Latin became a necessity.

Some linguistic evidence

It is very hard for a language to preserve the peripheral words,because of the simplifying impulse.
These tendencies affect even the native speakers.
In the case of Latin,this simplification inevitably occured in the Imperial Age,due its tremendous expansion.
So, these apparently meaningless words can be used for tracking the "genuine"Romans.

Romanian has several,here's one of them:

bade(addressing formula to an elder man,elder brother,lover)
THE ONLY CORRESPONDENCE- A COUPLE OF WORDS FROM A LAZIO DIALECT
bade-old man
bad-to grow old
Badea is a usual Romanian family name.

Also,several common words of Latin origin preserved only in the Transylvanian dialect:

nea(snow),Latin nix,nivis
pacurar(shepherd), from pecorarius
arina(sand),from arena
june(young man), from juvenis
ai(garlic),from alium

The province Dacia Traiana stretched along the Carpathians,so do the Romanians,this can't be coincidental.
Any person with a decent line of thought realizes the importance of this event in the Romanian ethnogenesis.Though, it clearly wasn't the only Romance imput.


Transylvania was a peripheral area within both Hunnic and Avar confederations,cause the steppe peoples preferred the lowlands,while the Gepids peaked in the northern parts.



P.S. You're obviously capable of changing the environment;not in this way,though.

---

http://www.icr.ro/files/items/12669_...ian%20Boia.pdf

An anthropological paper about Croats:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf

Quote:

---

(...) Our results showed marked craniometrical similarities between early medieval Croat and medieval Polish series. Among all of the 39 analyzed European sites, the two exhibiting the greatest similarities were Nin, a site representing the nucleus of the early medieval Croat state (72), and Cedynia, a Polish site located approximately 75 km south of the Baltic Sea. Conversely, the 5 analyzed Iranian sites exhibited no similarity with the early medieval Croat sites and were all located in the diametrically opposite part of the scatter plot. These results suggest that early medieval Croats were of Slavic ancestry, and that early medieval Croats and Poles at one time shared a common homeland. Recent genetic analyses of the nonrecombining Y chromosome from 25 extant European and Middle Eastern populations support the Slavic affiliation of the Croats, and also indicate significant genetic similarities between modern Croats and Poles (1). (...)

---

As for Slavic expansion into the Balkans:

South Slavonic tribes were raiding Roman lands from their homeland north of the Danube river in what is now southern Romania since around the 490s, but they started to settle south of the Danube (in Balkans "proper") only since around 545. First settlements from ca. 545 - 550 were established in eastern Bosnia, Lower and Upper Moesia, and Little Scythia - including the regions of Ulmetum and Adina. Around the same time (ca. 550) first Slavic immigrants probably reached what is now Slovenia (they could be the same tribe which had besieged Durazzo in 547). Second wave of Slavs came to Slovenia after 568 (this time from the north, most probably from Moravia). According to John of Ephesus and Menander Protector another major wave of Slavs (Menander wrote that their strength was 100,000 but he didn't specify whether that included only warriors or all people) broke into Thrace and Thessaly as far as the Great Walls of Constantinople in period 577 - 580, and settled in vast areas. Sources mention that those Slavs were led by a war chief named Ardagast or Radogost (Ардагаст), and a king named Musokios. They could also reach as far as Greece "proper" already by ca. 580, when they sacked Athens, for which there is archaeological evidence (other sources indicate that Slavs started to settle in Attica and the Peloponnese only later, around 610). In 599 Pope Gregory I in a letter to Exarch of Italy wrote that Slavs had already seized most of Istria, and were penetrating into the Italian Peninsula. After mentioned invasions by Slavs, in 584 AD Byzantine Emperor Maurice sent emissaries to the Khagan of the Avars - Bayan I -, asking him for help against Slavs. The Avars initially worked as Byzantine allies against the Slavs. In 584 Ardagast with his Slavs besieged Constantinople but was repulsed by combined Byzantine-Avar forces, and later lost two more battles against Byzantine and Avar forces led by certain Comentiolus (the battle of Erginia River and the battle of Ansinon, near Hadrianopole). Comentiolus also pushed the Slavic settlers out of the region of Astica. In 585 the Byzantines-Avars decided to attack the original South Slavic lands across the Danube - forces under command of Priscus and Gentzon crossed the river at Dorostolon (present-day Silistra) and surprise-attacked the Slavs in their native territory (as most of their forces had long been campaigning in the Byzantine part of Balkans). They attacked at midnight and defeated the Slavs, Ardagast fell on a tree stump and was almost captured, luckily he was near a river and eluded the attackers. But later alliances switched - the Avars abandoned their Byzantine allies and instead started to cooperate with the Slavs, having subordinated some of their tribes (most notably the southern branch of Dudlebes), and having signed alliances with other tribes. So the conquest and colonization of most of the Balkans by the Slavs could be completed with Avar help in the early 600s. Avars were not very numerous but they were excellent horsemen, while Slavs comprised all of the infantry and crews of the navy, as well as some of the horsemen too.

But despite repeated attempts the Slavs-Avars never managed to capture two heavily fortified coastal cities - Constantinople and Thessalonica.

Croats and Serbs is another story. They came to the Balkans much later, in the 2nd half of the 7th century, invited by the Byzantines to fight against Avars and South Slavic tribes (ancestors of modern Bosniaks, Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bulgarians) in Dalmatia. Croats and Serbs were originally West Slavs. Slovenes emerged from two waves of Slavic immigration - one from the east (South Slavs) and one West Slavic - from the north - but which came earlier than Serbo-Croatian speakers. Before coming to the Balkans, Croats had established their tribal state somewhere around the Carpathian Mountains. It was called White Croatia. Ancestors of Serbs on the other hand, migrated in two directions - one wave settled in Germany (those became Sorbs), one in the Balkans.

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

Chronological differentiation of Slavic languages (Starostin 2004):

Dates along the X axis represent time since Common Slavic, while dates within the tree represent years:

Serbian could as well be named Serbo-Croatian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbo-Croatian

http://images66.fotosik.pl/696/fddec0302c0c8ab9.jpg

According to this diagram, Common Slavic started to differentiate itself already between 130 AD and 270 AD.

This only supports written sources (Jordanes, Procopius, etc.) which say that Slavs were divided into several nations already in the 6th century.

So Slavs were not culturally monolithic by that time, and there already existed several distinct Slavic dialects / languages.

Polish language started to differentiate from Czecho-Slovak already around 780 AD according to this data.

Some groups of Slavic people also penetrated into Italy through Istria.

That was reported for example by Pope Gregory I in his letter (dated 599 AD) to Exarch of Italy:

"(...) It deeply afflicts and disquiets me the Slavic nation that menace us. It afflicts me from what I already suffer from you, it disquiets me because they have already started to penetrate into the Italic Peninsula through Istria. (...)" - Pope Gregory I

Also later there were Slavic raids against Italy, and some settlements were established in Italy by Slavic pirates coming across the Adriatic Sea.

Some episodes are mentioned for example in "Historia Langobardorum" written by Paul the Deacon in the 8th century AD:

"Historia Langobardorum", Book 4, chapter XLIV:

Quote:

---

Then on the death of Arichis, who had held the dukedom fifty years, Aio, his son, was made leader of the Samnites, [1] and still Radoald and Grimoald [2] obeyed him in all things as their elder brother and lord. When this Aio had already governed the dukedom of Beneventum a year and five months, the Slavs came with a great number of ships and set up their camp not far from the city of Sipontum (Siponto). They made hidden pit-falls around their camp and when Aio came upon them in the absence of Raduald and Grimoald and attempted to conquer them, his horse fell into one of these pit-falls, the Slavs rushed upon him and he was killed with a number of others.

---

"Historia Langobardorum", Book 6, chapter XXIV:

Quote:

---

When Ado who we said was caretaker [1] had died at Forum Julii, Ferdulf, a man tricky and conceited, who came from the territories of Liguria, obtained the dukedom. Because he wanted to have the glory of a victory over the Slavs, he brought great misfortune upon himself and the people of Forum Julii. He gave sums of money to certain Slavs to send upon his request an army of Slavs into this province, and it was accordingly done. But that was the cause of great disaster in this province of Forum Julii. The freebooters of the Slavs fell upon the flocks and upon the shepherds of the sheep that pastured in their neighborhoods and drove away the booty taken from them. The ruler of that place, whom they called in their own language "sculdahis," [2] a man of noble birth and strong in courage and capacity, followed them, but nevertheless he could not overtake the freebooters. Duke Ferdulf met him as he was returning thence and when he asked him what had become of these robbers, Argait, for that was his name, answered that they had escaped. Then Ferdulf in rage thus spoke to him: "When could you do anything bravely, you whose name, Argait, comes from the word coward," [3] and Argait, provoked by great anger, since he was a brave man, answered as follows: "May God so will that you and I, duke Ferdulf, may not depart from this life until others know which of us is the greater coward." When they had spoken to each other in turn, these words, in the vulgar tongue [4] it happened not many days afterwards, that the army of the Slavs, for whose coming duke Ferdulf had given his sums of money, now arrived in great strength. And when they had set their camp upon the very top of a mountain and it was hard to approach them from almost any side, duke Ferdulf, coming upon them with his army, began to go around that mountain in order that he could attack them by more level places. Then Argait of whom we have spoken thus said to Ferdulf: "Remember, duke Ferdulf, that you said I was lazy and useless and that you called me in our common speech a coward, but now may the anger of God come upon him who shall be the last of us to attack those Slavs," and saying these words, he turned his horse where the ascent was difficult on account of the steepness of the mountain, and began to attack the fortified camp of the Slavs. Ferdulf, being ashamed not to attack the Slavs himself, through the same difficult places, followed him through those steep and hard and pathless spots, and his army too, considering it base not to follow their leader, began also to press on after him. Consequently the Slavs, seeing that they were coming upon them through steep places, prepared themselves manfully, and fighting against them more with stones and axes [1] than with arms they threw them nearly all from their horses and killed them. And thus they obtained their victory, not by their own strength, but by chance. There all the nobility of the Friulans perished. There duke Ferdulf fell and there too he who had provoked him was killed. And there so great a number of brave men were vanquished by the wickedness and thoughtlessness of dissension as could, with unity and wholesome counsel, overthrow many thousands of their enemies.

---

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

One of most important Italian bases of ethnically Slavic pirates and settlers in Central Italy was Bari.

There were also some Slavic settlements in Calabria - Slavic language was spoken there until the 12th century.

Among Muslim invaders of Southern Italy and Sicily, there were also Slavic mercenaries and people of ethnic Slavic descent:

Quote:

---

(...) In the third decade of the 10th century, due to Byzantine threat, came from Tripoli Emir Masud the Slav (Masud Sāqlābi) - of Slavic descent - and together with his druzhina he captured the strategically important castle of Santa Agata. From the same period we have information about Slavic settlements on Sicily - one of them was called Sclafani - and about the district of Palermo called Hārat as-Sāqāliba. Also bases of Slavic pirates existed on that island - those could be pirates from the South Slavic tribe of Narentines, who during their pirate raids plundered even the coasts of Spain. Last information about Slavs in that region is from the 12th century. (...)

---

Romanian and South Slavs are a lot more closed from a cultural point of view,I mean folk customs,folk songs,traditional foods ,traditional drinks and so on,than South Slavs are to East Slavs or to West Slavs.
Serbo-Croatians are Dacian people speaking heavy Slavic influenced language,they also have stronger Italic influence,than Romanians,especially Serbians,Montenegrins,Romanians are not so pure Dacians,are more mixed people,but also culturally Dacian people.
Transilvania,Serbia,Croatia,Montenegro,Bosnia have traditional drink a distilled drink,made from prunes,while Ukrainians,Russians,Belarusians,Poles have vodka.
Bulgarians also have traditional drink wine,besides Rakja.
All these people,Bulgarians,Serbians,Montenegrins,Croatians, Bosnians and Romanians likes a lot forests and mountains,they do not like steppes or plains,as it is the case with Russians or Ukrainians or Poles,who are planes/steppes dwelling people.
You do not find weird that the capital of Bulgaria,Sofia,the capital of Montenegro,Podgorica,the capital of Bosnia,Sarajevo,the capital of Serbia,Belgrade,the capital of Croatia,Zagreb are located very closed to mountains?
What about Moscow,Kiev,Warsaw?These are located in the plains.
Old capital of Romania,Targoviste,was also very closed to the mountains,20-30km north of Targoviste are some mountains.
Dacians people were mountain loving people.

if you take pictures from Cluj and from Zagreb,you would not say are taken in different towns.
Did anyone took any tests of the R1A from Croatia to see is a Slavic clade ?
I doubt.
While Bosnia,Serbia,have not so significant percentages of R1A and Montenegro have very low percentages of R1A,5% or lower.

How can Serbo-Croatians be "Dacian" if they came from the area of present-day Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Above I quoted an anthropological paper which says that Early Medieval Croatian skulls were identical with Early Medieval Polish skulls.

Romanians also have a lot of Slavic influence, especially in southern Romania. Later they became Vlachicized linguistically.

Quote:

---

Did anyone took any tests of the R1A from Croatia to see is a Slavic clade ?

---

Croats have a lot of R1a and it is mostly M458 and Z280. Serbs have less of R1a and it is more diverse. Serbs are more genetically mixed.

Sorbs in East Germany have common ancestors with Serbs in the Balkans. And Sorbs in East Germany also happen to have quite a lot of I2a-Din.

Quote:

---

What about Moscow,Kiev,Warsaw?These are located in the plains.

---

For most of Polish history, Cracow was the capital of Poland. And Cracow is near the mountains.

Warsaw became the capital of Poland only during the 1600s. Also several other cities were capitals of Poland for brief periods of time.

Quote:

---

while Ukrainians,Russians,Belarusians,Poles have vodka.

---

Poland has always been the battleground between beer, vodka and wine. Vodka took the upper hand in Communist times.

Quote:

---

if you take pictures from Cluj and from Zagreb,you would not say are taken in different towns.

---

That's because both cities were influenced by German (or Central European in general) cultural patterns.

Quote:

---

While Bosnia,Serbia,have not so significant percentages of R1A

---

They do - both have between 15% and 20% R1a (I forgot exact numbers, but I can check later). These are significant percentages.

I have voted for paleolithic continuity.

Paleolithic continuity is now least probable because of the young age of I2a-Din (according to new estimates).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

Paleolithic continuity is now least probable because of the young age of I2a-Din (according to new estimates).

---

So, your hypotesis for the spread in the Balkans is?I'm really interesting to that for some reasons.

I think that it came with Slavs, but maybe not only with Slavs.

First of all, linking haplogroups to particular ethnicities is always uncertain.

After all, the same haplogroup can be shared by several ethnic groups.

Thanks to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

An anthropological paper about Croats:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf

---

This proves nothing. Croatia was settled by both Goths and Slavs, and northern parts are very strong in R1a. Also if they got their skulls from town settlements it is more probable that they are Slavic.

I already posted what Coon said of modern Montenegrins and Croatian Herzegovinians, how they in almost all characteristics differ from your typical Slav, and how closest relatives to them (anthropologically) live in northern Germany and parts of Denmark.

Now let's see what he says about Serbians (that got influenced a lot by migrations from mountain regions):
"The modern Serbs, like the rest of the Yugoslavs, fall more into the Dinaric racial classification than any other. Not as tall as the inhabitants of the mountain chain itself, they attain a national stature mean of about 168 cm., which varies somewhat regionally, reaching the figure of 170 cm. and over as one approaches Bosnia and Montenegro. The bodily build of the Serbs, as with most other southern Slavic peoples, is neither thick-set nor lean as a rule, but of moderate European proportions. A relative sitting height mean of 52.8 and a relative span of 102, emphasize the relative length of leg and shortness of arm. These are the proportions that one finds in southern Germany, rather than in northern Slavic countries

Quote:

---

how they in almost all characteristics differ from your typical Slav

---

I posted a link to an anthropological paper which says that East Germanic tribes (Goths, Vandals, etc.) were very similar anthropologically to North Slavic peoples.

This might be the result of common ancestry (Balto-Slavo-Germanic branch of IE languages) and lack of mixing with pre-IE inhabitants of Scandinavia.

Quote:

---

losest relatives to them (anthropologically) live in northern Germany and parts of Denmark.

---

Vandals and Goths had nothing to do with northern Germany and parts of Denmark.

Anthropological data shows that West Germanic =/= North Germanic =/= East Germanic. All those Germanic-speaking groups were different from each other.

Quote:

---

This proves nothing.

---

This proves that original Croats (those who established Nin - which was the cradle of Croatian realm - and expanded from there) were anthropologically like Poles. It is of course possible that those original Croats later conquered and absorbed some other peoples (like for example those remnants of Goths if you insist).

Quote:

---

Now let's see what he says about Serbians

---

DNA data shows that Serbs are less genetically Slavic than Croats. First of all Serbs have much less R1a than Croats, and also less I2a-Din.

They probably assimilated a lot of pre-barbarian (be it pre-Slavic, pre-Germanic or pre-whatever - but pre-barbarian) inhabitants of the Balkans.

The same applies to Bulgarians who have a very high diversity of various Y-DNA haplogroups, with predominant E1b1b.

Y-DNA haplogroups of Bulgarians (Eupedia + Underhill for R1a):

E1b1b - 23,5%
I2a - 20%
R1a - 17% (according to Underhill 17,6%, including 16,4% of Z280 and M458 combined - but Z280 more numerous)
R1b - 11%
J2 - 11%
G - 5%
I1 - 4%
J1 - 3%
I2b - 2%
T - 1,5%
Q - 0,5%
N - 0,5%
others - 1%

If we assume that all of Z280 & M458 + all of I2a is Slavic while nothing is Slavic from other haplogroups, then Bulgarians are still just 36% Slavic.

What did Coon write about Bulgarians - did he claim that they are mostly Slavic ???

Quote:

---

These are the proportions that one finds in southern Germany, rather than in northern Slavic countries

---

Southern Germany is mostly Non-Germanic. Predominant genetic ancestry in Southern Germany is Italo-Celtic (as well as Neolithic farmers).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clintCG

This proves nothing. Croatia was settled by both Goths and Slavs, and northern parts are very strong in R1a. Also if they got their skulls from town settlements it is more probable that they are Slavic.

I already posted what Coon said of modern Montenegrins and Croatian Herzegovinians, how they in almost all characteristics differ from your typical Slav, and how closest relatives to them (anthropologically) live in northern Germany and parts of Denmark.

Now let's see what he says about Serbians (that got influenced a lot by migrations from mountain regions):
"The modern Serbs, like the rest of the Yugoslavs, fall more into the Dinaric racial classification than any other. Not as tall as the inhabitants of the mountain chain itself, they attain a national stature mean of about 168 cm., which varies somewhat regionally, reaching the figure of 170 cm. and over as one approaches Bosnia and Montenegro. The bodily build of the Serbs, as with most other southern Slavic peoples, is neither thick-set nor lean as a rule, but of moderate European proportions. A relative sitting height mean of 52.8 and a relative span of 102, emphasize the relative length of leg and shortness of arm. These are the proportions that one finds in southern Germany, rather than in northern Slavic countries

---

Slavs settled South Germany!
:)

They did settle some parts of South Germany, but their presence was of course much stronger in East and North Germany.

As for Slavs in South Germany (in Bavaria / Bayern) - there is a good German publication about them (written in German):

Hans Losert, "Moinvinidi, Radanzvinidi und Nabavinida. Geschichte und Archäologie der Slawen in Bayern", 2009.

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

Those particular Slavic tribes which settled in Bavaria aren't well-known today because they were Christianized very early on (compared to other Slavic tribes) and were among first West Slavic groups which got Germanized. Slavs in Franconia (today north-eastern Bavaria) became part of the Frankish state at some point after 740 and became Christianized by Charlemagne around year 800, when he ordered to construct 14 churches for them. Those Slavic tribes were called Moinwinidi and Radanzwinidi (and also Nabavinida) and they lived along the rivers Main and Regnitz, as Charlemagne's document from year 794 AD reveals:

"(...) in terra Sclavorum, qui sedent inter Moinum et Radentiam fluvios, qui vocantur Moinwinidi et Radanzwinidi."

In English:

"(...) in the land of Slavs, who live between rivers Main and Regnitz, who are called Moinwinidi and Radanzwinidi."

Assimilation of those Slavs in Bavaria lasted several centuries. In year 1162 we still have Slavic names among them (for example certain guys Dragan and Gleische from Effelder near Coburg); in 1233 in Herzogtum Meranien we have a certain important guy Konrad Slavir. Slapansgereute (Schlappenreuth) near Bamberg is a settlement founded by Slapan, who was Slavic. His descendants can be traced in sources until the 15th century. According to historian Erwin Herrmann the family of Walpoten from Franconia was also Slavic - their castles have names of Slavic origin (Trebgast, Zwernitz). Medieval von Slawendorf family were also Franconian Slavs. Slavic population of Slawendorf (later called Altenstadt, today part of Bayeruth) preserved their language until the 14th century, as there are 14th century documents which say about Slavic inhabitants there. Near Weichenwasserlos there is a toponym Grotze suggesting existence of a Slavic castle. This Grotze is surrounded by settlements with names of Slavic origin - Granitz auf der Dobrich, Dobdansdorf in den Tibitzen, in der Peusteritz. Graitzstein, Greyczberg near Staffelstein, Marktgraitz, Teunz are other former Slavic castles in the region. German summary of the article about those Slavic tribes by Jerzy Strzelczyk:

http://s9.postimg.org/qxyj9j8pr/Slavs_in_Franconia.png

http://s9.postimg.org/qxyj9j8pr/Slavs_in_Franconia.png

The following was the approximate maximum extent of Slavic early westward expansion and compact (large-scale) settlement - which was around year 850 AD: Starting from the north-west, compact Slavic settlement (not including some individual, dispersed Slavic communities which had migrated even farther west but lived in ethnically mixed areas in which Slavs were never majority) encompassed the following westernmost regions: Fehrman island, Wagrien (Wagria), outskirts of Hamburg, Lauenburg region, Lüneburger Heide, Wolfsburg region, Magdeburg region. South of Magdeburg the boundary of ethnic Slavic territory can be drawn as a meridional line extending up to Erfurt and the eastern part of the Thüringer Wald. From the Thüringer Wald the boundary was a line extending in south-western direction up to the River Main and the outskirts of Bamberg. From Bamberg the 9th century Slavic-Germanic ethnic boundary sharply turned towards Austrian Linz, and then once again turned meridionally, extending up to the Alpine city of Liezen at the River Enns. In the Alps groups of Slavs migrated through mountain valleys up to eastern Tirol and the Upper Drava River. There was also large-scale Slavic settlement in the Julian Alps, in area north-west of Udine, and in what is today the Provincia di Gorizia of Italy. Slavic westward colonization did cross the Saale River, in the following area: from the southern outskirts of Magdeburg, through the area of Erfurt, and up to the Thüringer Wald and the Main River near Bamberg - situation in year ca. 850 AD was roughly like this:

http://s27.postimg.org/diabe9q2r/Sla..._the_Saale.png

http://s27.postimg.org/diabe9q2r/Sla..._the_Saale.png

One group of Slavs migrated even as far as the Rhine - but in that area they were just a Slavic drop in a sea of other ethnicities.

There was also a time - from year 804 to year 809 - when Slavs, united with Charlemagne, fought against Saxons. At that time Slavs captured the region of future Hamburg (at that time it did not yet exist, as it was built by Charlemagne in 808-809) and all lands of Northern Saxons - known as Nordalbingia. I'm not sure if significant numbers of Slavs actually settled there, but some did (read below). During those 5 years Slavs had access to the North Sea. In 880 Slavs captured Hamburg in cooperation with the Danes. And in 983 Slavs (the Obotrites under king Mstivoj) once again captured and destroyed Hamburg, this time on their own.

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

Timeline of the early phase of history of Slavs in Germany, from the beginning of historical record until the death of Charlemagne:

⦁ 512 - the Heruli migrate from middle Danube to North Germany and encounter territories already inhabited by Slavs on their way there (Procopius)
⦁ 6th century - Slavic settlement at Prague numbers over 600 houses: http://www.archaeobotany.org/downloa...ct_whv2010.pdf
⦁ ca. 550 - Slavs start migrating into what is now East Germany
⦁ 595 - Slavs (probably ancestors of Slovenes or / and Croats) fight against Frankish-dependent Bavarian duke Tassilo in modern Austria and Bohemia
⦁ 596 - Slavs, probably allied with the Avars, defeat the Bavarians under Tassilo, killing 2,000 of them
⦁ 610 - battle of Aguntum (4 km to the east of present-day Lienz), Bavarians finally stop Slavic westward expansion in this region (Paul the Deacon)
⦁ 620s - a major war between Slavs and Avars (who had previously been allies)
⦁ 624 - a smuggler of weapons from the Frankish Empire, Samo (born near Sens at the Yonne river in central France), who had previously been illegally smuggling across the border and selling weapons to Slavs, enters Slavic lands, joins Slavs in their fight against the Avars, and due to his merits in battle, united Slavic tribes elect him their king (source: Fredegar's chronicle). Samo was probably a Gallo-Roman.
⦁ 630 - Walluk, duke of Carantanians (northern Slovenes), joins Samo's Federation.
⦁ 631 - Slavic Federation defeats the Frankish Empire in the battle of Wogastisburg
⦁ 631 - after the victory at Wogastisburg Slavic armies invade and plunder Thuringia
⦁ 632 - Dervan, duke of Surbi (Sorbs) joins the Slavic Federation under king Samo
⦁ 636 - Dervan is killed in one of battles against Randulf, governor of Thuringia
⦁ 661 - the federation disintegrates into many realms again after Samo's death. According to Fredegar's chronicle Samo had 12 Slavic wifes, 22 sons and 15 daughters.
⦁ 772 - Charlemagne invades Southern Saxons
⦁ 777 - conquest of Southern Saxons is completed
⦁ 780 - first Frankish contact with the Obodrites at the Middle Elbe
⦁ 782 - Sorbs raid and plunder Thuringia and Frankish-controlled Saxony
⦁ 782 - Saxon uprising against Franks under Widukind. Obodrites side with Franks
⦁ 785 - uprising squashed, Widukind surrenders and adopts Christianity in Attigny
⦁ 789 - Wieczan (Witzan) becomes the supreme duke (rex / princeps) of Obodrites
⦁ 789 - Obodrites mentioned as "old good allies" of Charlemagne (against Saxons)
⦁ 789 - Wieczan asks Charlemagne for assistance against his troublesome eastern neighbours, the Holy Union of the Veleti, under supreme duke Drogowit.
⦁ 789 - Charlemagne, allied with Frisians, Sorbs and Obodrites (under duke Wieczan), invades Veleti. Frankish army crosses the Elbe near modern Wolmirstadt. Allied forces besiege Brenna, the main stronghold of Veleti duke Drogowit. Seeing that resistance is pointless, Drogowit negotiates peace. Veleti pay a single tribute to Charlemagne. Charlemagne satisfied with tribute returns back to Francia.
⦁ 795 - Obodrite duke Wieczan (dux Witzan), ally of Franks against Nordalbingians (northernmost Saxon tribe, who remain independent from Frankish rule).
⦁ 795 - at the Elbe near Bardowick Nordalbingians ambush Obodrites, killing Wieczan
⦁ ca. 796 - Drozko elected new rex / princeps of the Obodrites. Drozko has a son named Czedrog (Chedrog). Drozko continues pro-Frankish policies of Wieczan and Charlemagne is his ally. Danes, Northern Saxons and Veleti are his enemies.
⦁ 795-798 - in revenge for Wieczan's death, Charlemagne raids Nordalbingians and carries out first forcible population transfers and deportations of Saxons.
⦁ 798 - battle of Swentana (Bornhöved) between Obodrites under Drozko and Nordalbingians (at the same time Charlemagne's army is near Minden, raiding Ostphalia). Obodrites win. About 3 - 4 thousand Saxons perish.
⦁ 799 - son of Charlemagne mediates in conflict between Obodrites and Veleti
⦁ 804 - conquest of Nordalbingians by Franks (with Veleti help) is completed, forcible deportation of over 10,000 Nordalbingian men, with families, to Gaul.
⦁ 804 - in Hollenstedt at the Elbe Drozko is crowned King by Charlemagne, he is also awarded Nordalbingia, which becomes part of the Slavic Obodrite realm (sources: Ann. Regni Francorum a 804, Chron. Moiss a 804). Archaeological evidence of Slavic settlements and pottery in Nordalbingia discovered in Hamburg and in Domplatz, dated to 8th-9th centuries (R. Schindler connects these with Drozko's reign).
⦁ ca. 805 - Charlemagne fortifies Frankish-Slavic border (limes sorabicus and limes saxonicus) and establishes permanent military posts along it. He introduces capitulare duplex in 805 - a kind of embargo for export of weaponry to Slavic lands (including even his allied Obodrites). Several places are chosen for trade with Slavs.
⦁ 805 - Franks invade the Sorbian-Lusatian tribe of the Glomaci
⦁ 805 - duke Lecho of the Bohemians (Czechs) dies in battle against Charlemagne
⦁ 806 - Sorbs (Siurbs) agree to pay tribute to Charlemgne after their duke - Miliduch (Milidouch / Milito) - is killed in a battle against Franks near modern Halle.
⦁ 808 - Drozko, king of the Obodrites. Godelaib, one of their minor dukes.
⦁ 808 - the Danes under duke Godfred (his realm is in Jutland), allied with the Veleti, invade the Obodrite realm (Jutland had previously become a refuge for Saxon refugees during Frankish-Obodrite invasions of Nordalbingia). Danes and Veleti manage to capture several Obodrite strongholds in the process.
⦁ 808 - at least two out of member-tribes of the Obodrite realm, Smolincy and Linianie, betray and unite with Danish-Veleti army. King Drozko is forced to abandon his realm and escapes to Francia. Godelaib is captured and executed. Godfred annexes Nordalbingia, two other Obodrite provinces - Obodrsko and Wagria - pay tribute.
⦁ 808-809 - Veleti wage offensive war against Obodrites and then against Franks
⦁ 808 - Charlemagne sends his son to crush the Veleti and Obodrite traitors, but he is defeated and has to retreat. Godfred proposes peace to Charlemagne, negotiations take place in Bandenflut at the Stör River, but they fail and war continues on.
⦁ 809 - Drozko returns from exile to his country. He signs truce with Danes in exchange for giving them one of his sons (maybe Chedrog) as a hostage. He allies with Saxons against Veleti and these Obotrite trines which seceded from his realm. Allied Obodrite loyalists and Saxons besiege a stronghold of Smolincy at Connoburg. The stronghold is captured and destroyed, power over rebellious tribes is restored.
⦁ 809 - Godfred violates the truce and invades Obodrites, he demolishes Slavic coastal town at Rerik (near modern Wismar), and deports local merchants to Haithabu (Hedeby), Denmark. Drozko is killed by Danish assassins at Rerik.
⦁ 809 - after the death of Drozko Charlemagne deprives the Obodrites of Nordalbingia and incorporates it to his Empire. The land is depopulated due to war, disease and deportations, so he brings in new settlers from entire Empire. Charlemagne establishes three new castles to strengthen the defence of his borders: first is at Eselfeld at the Stör River, second is at Hamburg, third is at Hochbucki near Lenzen at the Elbe.
⦁ 810 - Veleti attack the Frankish Empire and destroy their new castle at Hochbucki
⦁ 812 - Franks and Obodrites (under their new grand duke, Slavomir) in retaliation invade Veleti territories and manage to force them to pay a tribute.
⦁ 813 - coronation of Louis I by Charlemagne in Aachen.
⦁ 814 - death of Charlemagne, Louis I takes power in the Empire. Those of Slavic tribes which had been paying tribute to Charlemagne, stop paying it.

Next thing we will find out is that the Viking raids are linked to Slavic expansion and that in fact that so called R1A Norse is Slavic .
Slavic people went and conquered Norway and Denmark and Sweden,settled there,learned Norse language and after,started to raid in Great Britain,France and so on.
:)

Events of the Slavic expansion that I described above all took place between years 490 and 814 (the death of Charlemagne).

The Viking voyages started later than events that I described - after 792, when Scandinavians figured out the technology of long-distance sea travel.

Scandinavian R1a is mostly Z284, which has the highest frequency in Norway and most likely came to Scandinavia with the Battle-Axe culture.

It is likely that R1a Z284 was present in Scandinavia even before R1b migrated there. So no, I do not link it with Slavic expansion.

Quote:

---

Slavic people went and conquered Norway and Denmark and Sweden,settled there,learned Norse language and after,started to raid in Great Britain,France and so on.

---

As a matter of fact historical sources (including Medieval chroniclers Orderic Vitalis, Saxo Grammaticus and Adam von Bremen) mention that Slavic warriors - including Obotrites, Veleti and Poles - participated in Danish invasions of Great Britain. That's because the kingdom of Denmark and the kingdom of Poland were good allies in the Middle Ages. The Obotrites were also Danish allies during some periods, but if you read the timeline I posted above, then you will see that politics in the region was complicated and alliances frequently changed. There was no "Germanic solidarity" or "Slavic solidarity", as Slavic realms often fought as allies of Germanic realms against other Germanic-Slavic alliances. Religion was more important than language or ethnicity. Poland was Christian and fought against Pagan Slavs west of it.

English "Historia Ecclesiastica" written by Orderic Vitalis, says that in 1069 Sveyn Estridsen's Danish army which invaded England was supported by Poles and Veleti. And "Gesta Danorum" by Saxo Grammaticus wrote that Harald Bluetooth's army included a lot of Slavic mercenaries. Also Cnut the Great's army which invaded England in 1015 included Polish troops - given to him by his ally, Polish king Boleslav I. This is even mentioned by wikipedia (source: Lawson, Cnut, p. 49):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_th...est_of_England

If these facts - mentioned by reliable sources - aren't known to the general British public, then it must be due to their Anglocentric ignorance and chauvinism.

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

Poland and Denmark had an alliance in the 11th century (for example German chronicler Thietmar - who was hostile to both Poland and Denmark - mentioned that). Polish reinforcements supported Denmark in its campaigns. According to Medieval sources such as "Historia Ecclesiastica" by Orderic Vitalis, Adam of Bremen, "Chronicon Thietmari" by Thietmar, "Gesta Danorum" by Saxo, "Cnutonis regis gesta sive enconium Emmae reginae" by a monk from Saint Bertin, "Jomsvikinga Saga", and other sources, Polish troops participated in Danish invasions of Britain. According to Orderic Vitalis the Poles (Poleni) as well as the Veleti (Veleti) participated in Svein Estridsen's invasion of England in 1069. Cnut the Great when he invaded England in 1015-1016 also had Polish reinforcements. Finally Harald Bluetooth employed Slavic mercenaries - according to "Gesta Danorum" - but Saxo doesn't mention if there were Poles among them. Also Helmold's "Chronica Slavorum" mentions Poles being used as mercenaries by other armies. In year 1000 Emperor Otto I got 300 Polish Loricati (armoured cavalry) from Polish king Boleslav I.

Denmark and Poland have a long tradition of being good allies. Not only against Germany, but also against Sweden.

So stop your Pan-Germanic rubbish and look at the reality. Germans were enemies of Denmark. They Germanized most of Schleswig - which was originally Danish land. First capital of Denmark - Hedeby - is now located in Germany. City of Schleswig - another historical capital of Denmark - is also in Germany.

In the Early Middle Ages ethnically Danish people lived as far south as the Bay of Kiel and the mouth of the Eider River.

Later German "Drag nach Norden" pushed the ethnic Danes farther north, just like they tried to push the ethnic Poles as far east as possible.

As a person of Polish-Lithuanian, Slavic and Baltic ancestry, I consider Germans historical enemies of my people. But not the Danes.

So I'm not anti-Germanic, because the Danes were not my ancestor's enemies. Only the Germans - or actually die Deutschen (their proper name).

Quote:

---

Vandals and Goths had nothing to do with northern Germany and parts of Denmark.

Anthropological data shows that West Germanic =/= North Germanic =/= East Germanic. All those Germanic-speaking groups were different from each other.

---

Of course, but South Slav=East Slav=West Slav always... please.
I don't expect Slavs to bring typically Germanic phenotypes... or maybe I am wrong?

Quote:

---

This proves that original Croats (those who established Nin - which was the cradle of Croatian realm - and expanded from there) were anthropologically like Poles. It is of course possible that those original Croats later conquered and absorbed some other peoples (like for example those remnants of Goths if you insist).

---

Nations today are modern construct, as difference between, for example, Herzegovina and Zagorje Croats, is huge.
Croats "expanded" from Nin? Interesting. Not even 10% of Croats are descended from medieval town population.
How would you explain that modern Croats (Herzegovina-lower Dalmatia especially) and other Slavs are so different? Why don't main Croatian phenotypes apear in other Slavs, and vice versa?

By the way- on skulls you can not examine pigmentation, nor you can examine various facial characteristics you can examine on living descendants. Those data was just raw measurements. I am quite sure medieval German and medieval Pole would get as much of matching as they got with Croats...

When you have living descendats, you get whole another story.

And about non-town residents of Middle ages here.
Our non-town population show continuity all the way from middle ages to our modern population. With medieval skulls from Ćipur we have the same nordo-cromagnoid "Borreby" type, and enormous skull size, brachycephaly and high byzogmatic breadth- traits non-existent among other Slavs of that period (Ivanović Božina M. "Antropogeneza i adaptacija Crnogoraca", Glasnik Antropološkog društva Jugoslavije, 1999.; Petar Vlahović: Dinarski tip i njegovi varijeteti u Crnoj Gori).

So we have continuity in phenotype from Middle Ages to modern times in our populations. But we don't have same continuity among Dalmatian Croats, who differ from medieval town Slavic populations.

Quote:

---

What did Coon write about Bulgarians - did he claim that they are mostly Slavic ???

---

I think his opinion was that they were Slavic with strong foreign influences:

Quote:

---

Bulgaria was once Thracian country; a few centuries after its Romanization, it was submerged by a Slavic invasion, the advance guard of the movement which brought Slavic speech into Serbia. This Slavic invasion, which resulted in a permanent settlement of the country, was followed by a further invasion of still heathen Ugrian tribes under Turkish leadership, similar to the movement which brought the ancestors of the Magyars to Hungary. The subsequent history of Bulgaria was the opposite to that of Hungary; the Bulgars, who had left their eastern Russian home before the rise of the Bolgar Empire, kept their Ugrian name, but gave up their language, in favor of the speech of their Slavic predecessors. Whereas the Magyars became Catholics, the Bulgars adopted Orthodox Christianity The next invaders of Bulgaria of importance were the Ottoman Turks, who took over the fertile Danubian farm lands, and settled large colonies of Asiatic Turks on them. Sporadic invasions of Tatars from South Russia mingled themselves with this Turkish body. At the time of the Russian conquest of the Caucasus, many Moslem Cherkesses fled to Bulgaria to avoid submission to Christians.


Since the war, many of the Turkish peasants have left Bulgaria, and many of the Cherkesses as well. There are still islands of these people throughout the country, but especially in the eastern lowlands, and there are minor colonies of Greeks, of Tatars, and of Rumanians. To the west, the Bulgarians occupy the greater part of Yugoslavian Macedonia, and border in this neighborhood on the Albanians. To the south, they extend to the head of the Aegean, where their settlements are interspersed with those of Turks and Greeks. Most of the Bulgarians are still Orthodox Christians, but a large minority, especially in Macedonia, is Moslem.

---

Their cephalic index is closer to Slavic standards than C.I of Yugoslavs:

Quote:

---

The mean cephalic index of over 5000 Bulgarian soldiers is 79.6; this varies within the kingdom of Bulgaria from 80.8 in the north, to 79.9 in the southwest, and 78.2 in the south. Christian Bulgars of Macedonia have a mean of 83.3, in the region of Monastir this rises to 85; Moslem Bulgars are less brachycephalic, with a mean of 80.5, while in the neighborhood of Salonika small local samples of Bulgars are actually dolichocephalic, with a mean of 76.4, and in the neighborhood of Adrianople in Turkish Thrace, the mean is only 78.3. Bulgarian йmigrйs in the Crimea have a mean of 78.7.


Thus within the Bulgarian people there is a strong tendency toward dolichocephaly, strong enough to impress mesocephaly upon the nation as a whole. The strongest expression of this tendency is found in the southern part of the kingdom, and beyond Bulgarian territory proper. True brachycephals are found only among the Macedonian Bulgars who live in close contact with Albanians.

---

Quote:

---

The basic element is the Atlanto-Mediterranean, which probably goes back to the Neolithic; the Neo-Danubian is probably of both Slavic and Ugrian introduction, although some of it may be older; the Nordic may be of several origins, including Thracian; the Dinaric is simply the result of Bulgarian admixture with local elements in Macedonia; the Turkic is found mostly in eastern Bulgaria, and then among townsmen and shepherds rather than among agriculturalists. Of these varied elements, the first two are the most important, and the first more than the second. The presence of a strongly entrenched Atlanto-Mediterranean population of Neolithic date in all of the lowland Balkans south and east of the Iron Gate is becoming increasingly evident. In Bulgaria it is geographically most concentrated along the southern ethnic periphery, and among Bulgarian colonies abroad, as in the Crimea.

---

Quote:

---

I think his opinion was that they were Slavic with strong foreign influences

---

So he was wrong because modern DNA studies show that they are only 1/3 Slavic in terms of Y-DNA. Maybe more in terms of mtDNA, but it has to be proven.

BTW - read what I wrote above, I am not Pan-Slavic or Anti-Germanic, Goths can be my friends, but stop claiming your stupid Pan-Germanic solidarity.

Pan-Germanism is a 19th century invention (just like Pan-Slavism, by the way). There are great differences between different Germanic peoples (not only in haplogroup frequencies) and also there was no such thing as Germanic solidarity historically. Look at what I wrote above, Denmark and Poland (later Denmark and Poland-Lithuania) were best allies. They historically shared the same enemies - the Holy Roman Empire, Pagan Slavic tribes, Sweden and Prussia-Brandenburg.

If you claim Gothic heritage - O.K., claim it - but don't be pathetic and don't say that Germans are your brothers. No, look at history to see who is your brother, and not at language etc. Slavic Russia for example is the second most dangerous hhistorical enemy of Poles, just after "Germanic" (allegedly) Germany.

Concetration gradient of I2a Din in Yugoslavia still remains unexplained (except with Gothic theory).

I2a Din has TMRCA somewhere in eastern Poland around course of Vistula 2500 years ago (Gothic homeland). According to Nordtvedt, today concentration of I2a Din was caused by mass expansions around 2000 years ago. As we know, there was no Slavic expansions at that time, but around same time Goths started arriving to eastern Europe. Then they moved to Balkans, part that was subdued by Huns stayed.
And then we know that in time of Slavic conquest they "magically dissapeared" from Balkans (having never relocated to Italy- only warriors went there).

Also place where I2a1b M423 split into "Isles", "Disles" and "Dinaric" does not match eastern Europe. It matches eastern Germany/western Poland more.

Please apply some logic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

I think his opinion was that they were Slavic with strong foreign influencesS

So he was wrong because modern DNA studies show that they are only 1/3 Slavic in terms of Y-DNA. Maybe more in terms of mtDNA, but it has to be proven.

BTW - read what I wrote above, I am not Pan-Slavic or Anti-Germanic, Goths can be my friends, but stop claiming your stupid Pan-Germanic solidarity.

Pan-Germanism is a 19th century invention (just like Pan-Slavism, by the way). There are great differences between Germanic peoples and also there was no such thing as Germanic solidarity historically. Look what I wrote above, Denmark and Poland (later Denmark and Poland-Lithuania) were best allies. They historically shared the same enemies - the Holy Roman Empire, Pagan Slavic tribes, Sweden and Prussia-Brandenburg.

If you claim Gothic heritage - O.K., claim it - but don't be pathetic and don't say that Germans are your brothers. No, look at history to see who is your brother, and not at language etc.

---

That is my interpretation, but if you re-read it you will see that he counts most of them as Atlanto-Mediterannean Pre-Slavic population, some as Slavic and minor parts as Turkic.

WTF man? Where did I claim that Germans are brothers? Or that any of Germanic peoples are my brothers? Why are you trying to turn this in discussion of nationalistic character?
Pan-Germanic solidarity? Where did I mention that in my posts?

If I talk about friends of my nation- we barely ever had any.

Quote:

---

If I talk about friends of my nation- we barely ever had any.

---

Croatian poet Ivan Gundulic considered Poland-Lithuania to be the best friend of Christian peoples of the Balkans in their struggle against the Turks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gunduli%C4%87#Osman

Montenegrins were also under Ottoman occupation. Poles-Lithuanians together with Austrians-Hungarians helped to liberate you from that occupation.

Quote:

---

Please apply some logic...

---

There cannot really be any logic in such a discussion. These are all speculations, only some more and some less probable.

Do you remember how not such a long time ago R1b was claimed to be the result of Paleolithic continuity in Western Europe ???

After that, they claimed that R1b expanded with early Neolithic farmers.

All of that was totally wrong, as it turns out. We now have ancient DNA samples and new TMRCA and age estimates.

So maybe let's wait for more ancient DNA samples with I2a-Din ???

I already wrote that in 2014 in Poland they started a large-scale research project on ancient DNA. By 2019 there will be results.

If they find I2a-Din in Gothic archaeological sites from the Iron Age in Poland, then I will perhaps admit that you were right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomenable

Croatian writer Ivan Gundulic considered Poland-Lithuania to be the best friend of Christian peoples of the Balkans in their struggle against the Turks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Gunduli%C4%87

Montenegrins were also under Ottoman occupation. Poles-Lithuanians together with Austrians-Hungarians helped to liberate you from that occupation.

---

Hah. We were not under Ottoman occupation. OK, northern part called Sandzak was, but it occupies small part. Town centres (except Cetinje) were also. But our clan lands were independent. No one "liberated us". We fought for 500 years, living in old clan system, isolated from rest of Europe. We could have become "privileged slaves" like other Balkanites, but we didn't. As Czech Josef Holeček says in "Černá Hora" , example where handful of men stood their ground for 500 years against incomprably larger enemy does not exist in history. (Reccommended also on that topic from him: Junácké kresby černohorské)

Poles-Lithuanians together with Austrians-Hungarians never did anything to help us. Anything. Only ones that sometimes helped were Russians. We were thankful for their help so we declared war on Japan in 1905. It officially lasted until 2006 :)

In fact whenever we conquered some piece of Ottoman land in 19th century those "European diplomats" always demanded from us to return it to Turkey. Slime.

But I do not know why did you feel such a strong urge to turn this in nationalistic discussion in first place?

OK, so you were proudly hiding your asses in remote mountainous caves located out of Ottoman sight.

(reminds me of Romanian nationalists and their claim about Dacians surviving 1000 years hidden in caves and not mixing with all the invading hordes)

Very nice. But who cares ??? BTW - did you mention nationalism, or is it just dripping from your posts ???

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

Also - please read my previous post (#875).

Nortvedt is of Scandinavian origin.
So I do not know how reliable is what he says about I2-din.
Would be really nice that I2-din is of Gothic origin but than,where are the Gothic words ?
Besides,if you read that book about Goths,Gothica,written by Jordanes is told that Goths came from Sweden,but compared to Swedes they are not that tall.
If you take average male height in Serbians,Croats,Bosnians,Montenegrins is higher than those of male Swedes.
I know that Serbo-Croatian have a few Gothic origin words and also some weird cognates to today Scandinavian languages,like how you are saying chair:
stolica on croatian,stol on swedish.

We were always raising rebbelions in surrounding areas, like Herzegovina

In fact, when they repelled one Turkish attack in 16th century, Montenegrins marched into Bosnia and raised siege of Jajce to rescue Hungarian garrison that was closely hemmed in by Turks. (Stephen Clissold, A short history of Yugoslavia from Early times to 1966, part IV, chapter 3, "the elective Vladikas")

Marching into Ottoman area to rescue other Europeans is far from "hiding asses in mountains".

So you better STFU on things you don't know anything about.

@mihaitzateo no pseudo-history here please.