Veneti / Venedi / Wends (OFFTOPIC Y-DNA Haplogroups R1b-U152/S28)

Taranis said:
My opinion is that Jordanes is not particularly reliable, because his early history of the Goths is interwoven with bits from Greek mythology, amongst other, utterly implausible statements, some which may be based on a confusion between the Getae and the Goths. Also to my knowledge, the (old) Prussians are not mentioned in any of the old sources, but in his Geography, Ptolemy mentions two other Baltic tribes, namely the Galindians and the Sudovians.
Click to expand...

I agree about Jordanes
to my personal view Jordanes uses imagination to connect some geographical and historical data, there are parts that are reliable and parts that are not.
Jordanes alone is not a good base for search , but if you compare Jordanes with others then you can certify sources.

Now about Getae or Gets with Goths
Historically we have connection from Strabo
Strabo names Getae tribes like Βησιοι (Visi) with Balkans wich we all know that later were the Visigoths (Visigetaes?)
we know that in Roman times times, Germanic or para-germanic speaking tribes are mention to live in the North-East parts of Balkans even to East Europe.
Even in Duridanov's work, no matter he wants to connect the Thracian with modern Slavic, the vocabulary connection is obviously a link among minor asian languages and Germanic and part of it exist 'mutated' in modern Greek (Germanic or para-Germanic words that exist in Modern Greek is unexplained historically)
Personally I believe that Getae are the Fathers of the Goths which moved West as Visi Ostro (Austr-Gets or Ostria-Gets) and become fully Germanized much later.
Getae leave their lands either due to Roman empire decline, either as Strong armies or mercenairies, either due to the pressure of the incoming Hun-Turkic-Avar population in East-Central Europe.


it is obvious historically, (might even in genetics) that in decline of Roman empire Germanic or para-Germanic or Thracian tribes moved West which later assimilated and today most of them exist with other names or even as other ethnicities (Visigoths in Spain and Vandals in Tynesia)
 
I don't think Vistula Venedi left anything written to come to this conclusion. I guess if Venedi were talking in any of Italics, that would be quickly recognized by Roman travelers, traders, historians or generals who came in contact with them.[/QUOTE]

I confess I did not check the avalaiblity of this affirmation I have in mind - maybe it was as sometimes an attempt to link toponymy to a given culture and a time, that can be a sport and not too well supported by reality - I remember somones found (or believed have found) links between "lusacian" rivers names and illyrian language... perhaps it is dead science nowaday ??? as other conclusion of the 30's 50's -
Sergent seams saying old venetian (veneti) and northern languages of Croatia wasakin to a kind of italic- Iam not sure he said it was a middle position language between italic and illyrian, but I have no mean to verify it -
 
zanipolo said:
first off, which is poland Venedi language akin to North east italy veneti ?

next - In Feb 2012 isogg released a new marker for thr R1a1a group , this was L1029. The polish historians and others claim that this marker along with M-458 is the venedi marker ( others say Lugii tribe marker) . The current discussion is that the venedi marker is R1a M458+ L1029+ and a negative L206 ( slavic marker)

the site below has indicated the people this marker matches for all of europe
http://www.semargl.me/ru/dna/ydna/item-snp/1234/

the SNP indicating no L206 or a neagtive L206 show this as non-slavic . Apparantly you cannot have a postive L1029 and a postive L206

The marker first appeared around 700BC which matches the lusitan culture

ISOGG call it R1a1a1g1c L1029
Click to expand...



I do not see any clear link between Lusacian and the Y-R1a-1029+ that seams by the way more common than the "slavic" 1029- in this research / this 1029+ seams to me very broadly spred in Europe (Scandinavia, Gemany, Baltic and North-Slavic region, Italy even ...
nothing is opposed to its presence in and during Lusacian Culture: this last was at the fringes of more than an ethny according to someones, and if the first impulses seam came from Central Europe, with a previous non-incineration BUT inhumation phase (under tumuli) the presence of an autochtonous population is very possible - I am not sure at all the Y-R1a was the intrusive and dynamic element, rather a substrate one - so this SNP echoes some local 'corded' descendants people to me (effectively possible ancestors of baltic speaking future peoples -
the problem of veneti/Venedi/Wend reality is still there - were they for the most autochtones descendants or for the most celtic or italic centum I-E intrusive descendants - are the italy Veneti came from Baltis shores or Baltic Veneti came from Italy (I prefer saying: from a future Pannonia-N-Croatia region? I have not already the answer.
 
zanipolo said:
Bor's chapter, "Similarity of the Slovene, Latvian, and Breton Words."5 The reviewer has also carried out the homework for this independently,6 inducing him to inevitable concurrence with Bor's results. The significance of Bor's discovery of a layer of Slavic loanwords in Breton cannot bc overstated. Their presence clarifies the comments of Julius Caesar's De Bello Gallico. "The Veneti are by far the strongest tribe on this coast .. They possess the most powerful fleet with which they sail as far as Britain. . ."7 Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Ptolemy, and Casius Dio also refer to the Veneti in Gaul (Armorica). Bor's recovery of these Slavic lexical loans in Breton necessitates our reexamination of certain aspects of universally accepted academic theory as exemplified by the following definition: VENETI ... A Celtic people in the northwest of Gallia Celtica ... In the winter of 57 B.C., they took up arms against the Romans, and in 56 were decisively defeated in a naval engagement."8 Bor has clearly established the existence of Slavic loans in Breton and this fact strongly suggests that prior to the arrival in Armorica of the Brythonic (Insular P-Celtic) speaking refugees fleeing the Saxon invasions of South Britain


I agree with you that these affirmations are very amazing and that some scholars are governed by curious aims -
on another way, I am breton speaker and I would be very glad to see the arguments in favor of breton loans to slavic or baltic languages - it is to say: BRETON words nEVER found in irish gaelic or in welsh AND SHOWING A BALTIC OR SLAVIC STREAM INTO BRETON LANGUAGE, apart the evident links between all the I-E languages... or maybe I have misunderstood some phrases?
good night
Click to expand...
 
Regarding LeBrok,

I think there's two different issues here: the first is the ethnic identity of the relevant archaeological cultures that predate those that are clearly identifiable because they effectively occur in historic periods (ie. the Przeworsk Culture): the Lusatian Culture and the Pomeranian Culture. The idea that the Lusatian Culture was somehow "Celtic" (or otherwise, speaking a Centum language) is sensible in so far as that the culture is an outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, and that other successor cultures of Urnfield (the Hallstatt and Golasecca cultures) are usually thought to have been Celtic. As for the identity of the succeeding Pomeranian Culture, it's hard to say in my opinion: I do not think that it was Germanic because it has no real links/continuity with the Nordic Bronze Age or the Jastorf Culture (which are usually thought to represent the Proto-Germanic peoples), unlike it's successors, which fall into the historic period.

The second is the question about the Baltic Veneti themselves: what do we know about them? Very little. The main sources are indeed Tacitus and Ptolemy. Tacitus, as I mentioned before, mentions them as one of the three tribes (the other two being the Bastarnae and the Fenni) that he places at the eastern edge of Germania. Some details about the Veneti can be inferred by their comparison with these other tribes:

- Tacitus says that the Bastarnae speak a Germanic language, from which we can infer that the other two (the Veneti and the Fenni) do not.

- Tacitus describes the Veneti as culturally somewhat similar to the Sarmatians, but living in fixed houses like the Germanic peoples (unlike the nomadic Sarmatians).

Beyond that, we have very little, and I find an ethnic ascription based on this highly speculative in any case. Is it possible that there was a link with the earlier Pomeranian or Lusatian Cultures? Perhaps. Can we prove it? I do not see how.
 
I add the H.HUBERT linkage of some Lusacian rivers or toponymic names to a supposed illyrian language takes a new youth when we consider as scholars do now that "illyrian" previous texts was indeed a mixture of para-italic-venetic (present day N-Yougoslavia-S-Italy) texts with true (more southern) illyrian texts - it could prove the link Lusace-S-Italic and even the link italic-venetic-urnfields in Lusace Culture: all the way, Lusace region knew a tumuli-inhumations culture before the incineration-Urnfield culture: all of them came from South in W-Poland, apparently - maybe 2 waves or only one (celtic?) with later acculturation (italic mod of U-F?) - I do not know -
I have no more the "Les Celtes" of H. Hubert and I would be glad to check the link: Lusacian >< rivers names because it could change the stream: rivers take commonly names from previous populations: it could prove that Veneti of Italy-Pannonia came from North-Central Europe if not from Baltic Europe - it echoes the B. Sergent's hypothesis about a late proto-italic-proto-slavic contacts after proto-celtic><proto-italic separation someplace in Europe! these proto-italic languages could have been closer to future venetic languages: all bets -
 
sorry: for para-italic-venetic I thought: N-Yougoslavia-NE Italy
 
MOESAN said:
I do not see any clear link between Lusacian and the Y-R1a-1029+ that seams by the way more common than the "slavic" 1029- in this research / this 1029+ seams to me very broadly spred in Europe (Scandinavia, Gemany, Baltic and North-Slavic region, Italy even ...
nothing is opposed to its presence in and during Lusacian Culture: this last was at the fringes of more than an ethny according to someones, and if the first impulses seam came from Central Europe, with a previous non-incineration BUT inhumation phase (under tumuli) the presence of an autochtonous population is very possible - I am not sure at all the Y-R1a was the intrusive and dynamic element, rather a substrate one - so this SNP echoes some local 'corded' descendants people to me (effectively possible ancestors of baltic speaking future peoples -
the problem of veneti/Venedi/Wend reality is still there - were they for the most autochtones descendants or for the most celtic or italic centum I-E intrusive descendants - are the italy Veneti came from Baltis shores or Baltic Veneti came from Italy (I prefer saying: from a future Pannonia-N-Croatia region? I have not already the answer.
Click to expand...

I cannot comment on the genetics because its only a february 2012 find.
In regards to the 3 "veneti", the oldest known archeological finds which are dated
1 - Adriatic Veneti 1025 BC
2- Baltic Veneti 380 BC
3 - Armorica Veneti 100BC

I find it more pausible that the adriatic veneti are not linked with the baltic veneti and the only know link is through the amber trade. This trade is IMO only a trade based on a relay system, where the aestii traded to the venedi who traded it to the goths, then they to the Osi, then they to illyrians then to the adriatic veneti.
But finds also have a trade route for jutland amber from Denmark down the elbe to eventually to the adriatic veneti.

There is no genetic link between the adriatic and baltic veneti .

I gave my to scenarios of the adriatic venetic and both scenarios indicated a starting place of western pannonia around 1250BC - where did they arrive from ? - either anatolia or thuringia
 
Taranis said:
Regarding LeBrok,

I think there's two different issues here: the first is the ethnic identity of the relevant archaeological cultures that predate those that are clearly identifiable because they effectively occur in historic periods (ie. the Przeworsk Culture): the Lusatian Culture and the Pomeranian Culture. The idea that the Lusatian Culture was somehow "Celtic" (or otherwise, speaking a Centum language) is sensible in so far as that the culture is an outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, and that other successor cultures of Urnfield (the Hallstatt and Golasecca cultures) are usually thought to have been Celtic. As for the identity of the succeeding Pomeranian Culture, it's hard to say in my opinion: I do not think that it was Germanic because it has no real links/continuity with the Nordic Bronze Age or the Jastorf Culture (which are usually thought to represent the Proto-Germanic peoples), unlike it's successors, which fall into the historic period.

The second is the question about the Baltic Veneti themselves: what do we know about them? Very little. The main sources are indeed Tacitus and Ptolemy. Tacitus, as I mentioned before, mentions them as one of the three tribes (the other two being the Bastarnae and the Fenni) that he places at the eastern edge of Germania. Some details about the Veneti can be inferred by their comparison with these other tribes:

- Tacitus says that the Bastarnae speak a Germanic language, from which we can infer that the other two (the Veneti and the Fenni) do not.

- Tacitus describes the Veneti as culturally somewhat similar to the Sarmatians, but living in fixed houses like the Germanic peoples (unlike the nomadic Sarmatians).

Beyond that, we have very little, and I find an ethnic ascription based on this highly speculative in any case. Is it possible that there was a link with the earlier Pomeranian or Lusatian Cultures? Perhaps. Can we prove it? I do not see how.
Click to expand...

i agree with this except that according to the book (2004) the spring of the goths, it states that pommeranian culture was Gothic.


Since Pytheas is the only historian to visit the baltic and he sailed from denmark to estonia. I see there might be a confusion with tacitus and ptolemy on how they interpreted Pytheas. pytheas wrote the names of peoples from east to west even though he sailed west to east ( he must of noted them on his return journey) , he also noted NO armorica veneti prior to reaching the baltic sea.
Pytheas sailed about 150 years prior to Tacitus script.
Pytheas says that the Gutones, a people of Germany, inhabit the shores of an estuary of the Ocean called Mentonomon, their territory extending a distance of six thousand stadia; that, at one day's sail from this territory, is the Isle of Abalus, upon the shores of which, amber is thrown up by the waves in spring, it being an excretion of the sea in a concrete form; as, also, that the inhabitants use this amber by way of fuel, and sell it to their neighbours, the Teutones.

he states
Elattova de eunh vemetai, paoa men ton Ouistoulan potamon. Upo touj Ouenedaj, Guuwnej. Eita Finnoi. Eita Boulanej. Uf ouj Foougondiwvej. Eita Auaohnoi, paoa thn cefalhn tou Ouistoula potamou.

translated
Beyond the Venedi are Guthones. Then the Finns. Then the Boulanes. Beyond them are the Frugundians. Then the Avarens, near the head of the Vistula river". Hence his statement "beyond the Venedi, are Guthones" is correct. Venedi were the ancient people living near Vindau, in Latvia; and the Guthones living alongside Venedi surely could be no other people but the inhabitants of old Lithuania.

If this is true then the original goths would have been a baltic people who became germanized after colonizing southern sweden and gotland.
Note- they did find gothic graves in Osel island of latvia
 
piero said:
Zanipolo, this map above about R1a1a1g2d subclade is really very interesting. In my book La dea veneta - Dal Baltico alla Bretagna - CIERRE, sorry in Italian language, there is a similar map I did before this one. My map is concerning Veneti / Wends / Venedy migrations along Amber ways (I mean Ponto-baltic way and East Alps way) on historical and archaeological basis.
In opinion of academic language professors in Venice, Ca' Foscari University, there are many peoples in Europe with a venetic name simply because of the i.e. root *wen and they think that there are NOT ethnic or cultural links between all this population sharing the name. I'm not of the same opinion and I found the same "finger prints" on ceramic vessels, both in Adriatic Veneti and in Lusatian culture (Poland or Ukraine). Archaeologists argue that "finger print" are everywhere in cultures, so I'm looking for a genetic prove about European Venetic names link. The big problem for Veneti haplogroups is that ancient Veneti burn the dead in the fire of pyre so is impossible to have DNA samples because high temperature destroys DNA.
Click to expand...

All I can give you for answer is the names like Βενετια Venetia exist in Greek and Byzantine girl names and means blue eye girl,
in Justinianus times we find the Veneti as the Blue athletic club, (Hooligans of the Blue team)
the word Venice in Greek Βενετια means Blue city.
so except the IE root of venedi maybe we should check about about a 'blue' culture? eye colour or a typical dress etc
 
well every body here is stuck with the theory that Goths are not Getae,

it seems like Goths are the Getae a para-Germanic tribe which later became fully Germanic

except the Visii who become Visigoths
except the ostria-Getae who become Auster-Goths or Ostrogoths
we also have the Wends
lets see
W in Germanic languages sometimes is sounded like V like westfallen Weiss West etc
if i put the V instead of w i Get Vends but some analyze it as Veneti - Venice
but could it be another?
now lets see a common sound the Wand -Vand and lets use another IE ending the -eli - ελοι instead of -eti
then we get the Vandeli ->Vandals
now lets see if Historically can be truth

Przeworsk culture

I just wonder Przeworsk culture in extended to Vistula river
Przeworsk culture could it be the Vandals culture?
I mean we see the connection of what Pytheas writes and we know where Vandals staring point is,
there is also a theory that connects Slavs with Wends
But in Ptolemy their name is not Wends but Ouenedai Ουενεδαι
Ouen -wuen - wienn?

now lets see some
according History except Geate like Visi and Ostro in Balkans another para-Germanic tribe like the Bastarnae is known from ancient Greeks as allies of Makedonia Diadochi
Bastarnae are considered to be connected with Zarubintsy culture next to prezeworsk culture and seems both are a middle culture among Pommeranian, Danubian La Tene, and Dacian-Getan

Now back to Veneti, in Swedish language Vandals they are named as Vend-els *Wend-els similar in Danish etc

now the Vandalic Language is still under discuss,
But if we notice that Zarubintsy culture was a para-Germanic as VisiGoths etc then we surely have a linguistic family that Herodotus described as Thracian Dialect, The Getan, a not Clear Germanic, that is lost, Spoken even at Crimea and only its west parts 'survived' in Deutsh-en Gothic (Dacian Getic?) but surely took their changes over time and asimilation
 
Yetos, it's pretty clear that the Getae and the Goths were very distinct people. Sources like Pliny and Strabo place them consistently along the Danube as well as the shore of the Black Sea (notably, the so-called "Tyragetae"), and there's no reason to assume that they were Germanic in any way. In contrast, the Goths ("Gothones" or "Guthones") were placed by Ptolemy along the east bank of the Vistula river. Tacitus also places the Goths clearly somewhere in the eastern periphery of Germania, which matches that location. The only person to ever draw a connection between the Getae and the Goths was Jordanes, which, for the reasons I previously described, cannot be treated as a particularly reliable source.

I have to add that I find it a little remarkable that this keeps popping up. If one uses sources other than Jordanes, it's pretty clear that there is no connection.
 
yetos,
I agree with taranis, I think the getae are thracian living in the northern eastern part of thracian people and directly noth of the where the germanic bastanae...
The gepids and the goths are related, both around the vistula river
 
Moesan,
The only genetic marker which fits the Adriatic, Armorica and Baltic Veneti areas is I1 M253 ( although I have not checked the subclades)
this marker in polish sites is referred to the royal Masovian marker. It is also in denmark, sweden and Norway.
Masovia ( mazovia) only became polish in 1070AD when the pushed out the west-baltic prussians. Thats as far as the poles got until the teutonic knights arrived 200 years later to conquer the baltic prussians after more than 60 years of warfare.

In my opinion it is a nordic marker - unsure who, vandal, goth or ???
 
Yetos said:
All I can give you for answer is the names like Βενετια Venetia exist in Greek and Byzantine girl names and means blue eye girl,
in Justinianus times we find the Veneti as the Blue athletic club, (Hooligans of the Blue team)
the word Venice in Greek Βενετια means Blue city.
so except the IE root of venedi maybe we should check about about a 'blue' culture? eye colour or a typical dress etc
Click to expand...

you forgot about, the adriatic veneti
-they got the Blue quarter in Byzantine, while the genoese got the White
-The current "national" colours of the Veneti are Blue and gold
 
zanipolo said:
you forgot about, the adriatic veneti
-they got the Blue quarter in Byzantine, while the genoese got the White
-The current "national" colours of the Veneti are Blue and gold
Click to expand...

my purpose is to give an alternative, or an extra field of search,
not to certify a target of search,
I might be wrong, but I might be wright,
 
zanipolo said:
yetos,
I agree with taranis, I think the getae are thracian living in the northern eastern part of thracian people and directly noth of the where the germanic bastanae...
The gepids and the goths are related, both around the vistula river
Click to expand...

My view is that Thracian is the mother of All Baltic Germanic and with Scythian and Turkic mother of Slavic,
I believe that Germanic is an evolution of Gothic, who are evolution of Getan who are evolution of Thracian,
It is not only the similar sounds of national and tribal names, but also the Historical moves of Germanic and para Germanic tribes to west, all about the same times, like they were after something, or runaway from something.
 
Yetos said:
My view is that Thracian is the mother of All Baltic Germanic and with Scythian and Turkic mother of Slavic,
I believe that Germanic is an evolution of Gothic, who are evolution of Getan who are evolution of Thracian,
It is not only the similar sounds of national and tribal names, but also the Historical moves of Germanic and para Germanic tribes to west, all about the same times, like they were after something, or runaway from something.
Click to expand...

:43:

What? Yetos, no offense to you, but I do not understand in the slightest how, after being here for such a relatively long time, and with substantial exposure (both here and likely elsewhere) to information about genetics, about languages and about archaeology, you could believe such completely outlandish ideas that have no footing in reality. Because it stands in complete opposition to the picture that archaeology, genetics, linguistics, and indeed historical sources of Antiquity tell us.
 
Taranis said:
:43:

What? Yetos, no offense to you, but I do not understand in the slightest how, after being here for such a relatively long time, and with substantial exposure (both here and likely elsewhere) to information about genetics, about languages and about archaeology, you could believe such completely outlandish ideas that have no footing in reality. Because it stands in complete opposition to the picture that archaeology, genetics, linguistics, and indeed historical sources of Antiquity tell us.
Click to expand...

1) Maybe because I believe in the agricultural Hypothsesis?
2) How many evidences we have that modern Germanic is not an evolution of an older language? like Greek Celtic Italian etc
3) how certain we are that Kurgan burial was not an agricultural founded by Anatolians

at least, make your self a break, and think
if IE came from the East according the Kurgan,
then they left marks and also they carried knowledge with them,
So where Thracians came from? East or South?
cause if the answer is South, then surely you must agree with me,
But if the answer is East, then surely Germanic Languages are new to West Europe and their homeland is Baltic Pomerania and zarubintsy
 
Yetos said:
1) Maybe because I believe in the agricultural Hypothsesis?
2) How many evidences we have that modern Germanic is not an evolution of an older language? like Greek Celtic Italian etc
3) how certain we are that Kurgan burial was not an agricultural founded by Anatolians

at least, make your self a break, and think
if IE came from the East according the Kurgan,
then they left marks and also they carried knowledge with them,
So where Thracians came from? East or South?
cause if the answer is South, then surely you must agree with me,
Click to expand...

Yetos, you're completely confusing things there:

1) You probably mean the Anatolian Hypothesis. It is completely irrelevant in this context. The Anatolian Hypothesis assumes that the Indo-European languages spread during the Neolithic with the spread of agriculture. In no way the Anatolian Hypothesis invalidates the idea of a Proto-Germanic homeland, it merely assumes that the original branching of the Indo-European languages was earlier. The consequence, of course, in the genetic context, would be that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were bearers of Haplogroup G2, and not R1a or R1b, and that Ötzi very likely would have already been a speaker of an Indo-European language. But, this thread, and this discussion about the Veneti is completely irrelevant to this discussion about the origin of the Indo-Europeans because we are talking about the iron age, thousands of years later (regardless of the question wether the Kurgan hypothesis or the Anatolian hypothesis is correct). We are talking about events that occured simultaneously to Greek or Roman written history.

2) You're assuming that Thracian (a Satem languages) somehow "transmuted" (against what in linguistics is deemed possible, since sound laws have no memories) into Proto-Germanic (a Centum language) and then made in a massive migration (which archaeology never recorded) from the mouth of the Danube to northern Germany and Scandinavia. Don't you see how impossible it is what you are proposing?

3) this question is completely irrelevant. No matter what scenario on the origin of the Indo-Europeans is correct, it doesn't change that the Jastorf Culture or the Nordic Bronze Age are the most likely candidates for the speakers of Proto-Germanic.

But if the answer is East, then surely Germanic Languages are new to West Europe and their homeland is Baltic Pomerania and zarubintsy
Click to expand...

For your information, the Zarubintsy Culture existed simultaneous to the time as the wars between Rome and Carthage occured. Rome's first encounter with Germanic tribes was in the late 2nd century BC (the Cimbri and Teutones), and then more intensely during the Gallic Wars (mid 1st century BC).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 145014 times.

Back
Top