Who were Vandals?

[Tomenable]

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? 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]

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?

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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') — 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 δὲ τόν δε τὸν τρόπον: οὔτε ἀποθνήσκειν ἑωυτοὺς νομίζουσι ἰέναι τε τὸν ἀπολλύμενον παρὰ Σάλμοξιν δαίμονα:

With 'z' in Plato

ἀλλὰ Ζάλμοξις, ἔφη, λέγει ὁ ἡμέτερος βασιλεύς, θεὸς ὤν, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἄνευ κεφαλῆς οὐ δεῖ ἐπιχειρεῖν ἰᾶσθαι οὐδὲ κεφαλὴν ἄνευ σώματος

Onomastics is borderline pseudoscience.

 

[Taranis]

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') — 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?

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

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]

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]

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]

Taranis@
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]

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]

What were the main differences between East Germanic vs other Germanic languages?

 

[Milan]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Angela]

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/threa...tion-thru-Paleogenomics?highlight=Lombard+dna

 

[Gilgamesh]

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%

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml