How Old Prussian were the East Prussian Germans?

What migration of Slavs? Where from? Weren't post-Scythian or proto-Slavic tribes living on the territory of modern Poland for ages?

this is the late bronze-age



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

do not talk about linguistic slavs as being slavs, because they are not genetic slavs. IF linguistic means they are slavs , then we are both English because we are communicating to each other in English.
 
Prussians where predominantly ancient Slavic Russians migrated to Poland and then acquiring certain minor Germanic or Baltic elements, with the Slavic element forever heavily dominating.
 
Prussians where predominantly ancient Slavic Russians migrated to Poland and then acquiring certain minor Germanic or Baltic elements, with the Slavic element forever heavily dominating.

russians are not slav..........they are only slav by language, which count for zero in genetics
 
I believe Russians are Slavs considering patrilineally they are 50% R1a.....that fits in just well with other high R1a nations such as Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine etc....but I may be wrong......? : ) to me they are Slavs genetically, culturally and even linguistically.
 
I believe Russians are Slavs considering patrilineally they are 50% R1a.....that fits in just well with other high R1a nations such as Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine etc....but I may be wrong......? : ) to me they are Slavs genetically, culturally and even linguistically.

what....no marker belongs to no ethnicity.

are we all english on this forum coz we speak english?

by your way of thinking if you where to speak slav you would be a slav......makes no sense.
 
no not if you speak a Slavic tongue, that's false, as linguistic influence from one culture to another is common occurrence throughout history, usually the victor in any given circumstance imposes cultural elements or linguistic ones upon a dominated culture. But if you are R1a patrilineally, that's a very good sign of Slavic genetic influence! : )
 
no not if you speak a Slavic tongue, that's false, as linguistic influence from one culture to another is common occurrence throughout history, usually the victor in any given circumstance imposes cultural elements or linguistic ones upon a dominated culture. But if you are R1a patrilineally, that's a very good sign of Slavic genetic influence! : )

its not ethnicity...the roman conquered most of europe...where they all romans after learning Latin?

R1a came from R1 which came from R.....R1b cam from the same R.........are we all slav

your method makes no sense for genetic history, .....slavs are more than just R1a,
-these other slavs who are R1b or E or I etc also means these markers are slav markers too, going by your methods .......is this what you are saying?
 
Yes but R1a and R1b split off a long time ago and took different time periods/migratory routes into Europe. This is what differentiates them, the split and the different final movement/ destination. Those other Slavs you mention that have R1b or E or I, they , paternally, have a different point of origin and arrival/ migration route to where they are now, they are not "Slavs" per say, genetically speaking.
 
Yes but R1a and R1b split off a long time ago and took different time periods/migratory routes into Europe. This is what differentiates them, the split and the different final movement/ destination. Those other Slavs you mention that have R1b or E or I, they , paternally, have a different point of origin and arrival/ migration route to where they are now, they are not "Slavs" per say, genetically speaking.

I do not know why you make this illogical argument, there is no sound logic in wht you say. R1a was before the creation of any slav, any german, any gaul, any greek, any "everything" . R1a is in many many different ethnic people.

NO marker belongs to any nation, culture, ethnicity, language etc etc...........its fact, that's how it is.

Now some ..........alleles, SNP could have a majority of one ethnicity, but that's another story
 
this is the late bronze-age



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

do not talk about linguistic slavs as being slavs, because they are not genetic slavs. IF linguistic means they are slavs , then we are both English because we are communicating to each other in English.


I have no idea why you would cite this map as a proof that Slavs existed in bronze age. Do we have any written document from around 1000 BC stating the location and existence of Slavs? Perhaps it would be different if they've talked about Proto-Slavs or Balto-Slavs, and in very unspecified location.

Furthermore, we have this map, that describes the area of, what they call, Baltic Culture. We have not slightest clue if this culture have anything to do with today's Balts, do we? Are yo sure that this Baltic culture has any continuity with Baltic tribes of iron age?

And yes, the language is a part of a culture. On other hand genetics can't describe Slavs exactly either. It is all in realm of statistics and self designation. I believe we had this conversation some time ago. You want to be a Venet, but are you really? Or maybe you are, because you really want to be?
I don't really care,... lol. But this is life, blurry lines, unspecified borders, incomplete definitions, lots of blending and grey areas. And everything is in flax of constant changes, that blurs things even further.
 
There's also R1a in northern India, it arrived there via central Asian Slavs...R1a ( Slavs) also pushed into Europe, coming from the east, long after R1b men that had already penetrated deep into Europe at this time. These Slavs pushed into east-central Europe, reaching as far as Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland etc. and bringing their genes and culture with them from the steppes of Russia and Ukraine....these R1a men, eventually developed into the Slavs we know today. How is that incorrect? I'm trying to solidify a link between a genetically homogenous/similar group of men and the stretch of territory they would eventually inhabit. "Slav" is just an indicatory name for these genetically homogenous men that share the same paternal migratory story and thus haplogroup and that spread themselves at different frequencies over certain territories over time. Since you refer to "Slavs" as being an abusive "generalization", I will now refer to these men as the men of R1a
 
I have no idea why you would cite this map as a proof that Slavs existed in bronze age. Do we have any written document from around 1000 BC stating the location and existence of Slavs? Perhaps it would be different if they've talked about Proto-Slavs or Balto-Slavs, and in very unspecified location.

Furthermore, we have this map, that describes the area of, what they call, Baltic Culture. We have not slightest clue if this culture have anything to do with today's Balts, do we? Are yo sure that this Baltic culture has any continuity with Baltic tribes of iron age?

And yes, the language is a part of a culture. On other hand genetics can't describe Slavs exactly either. It is all in realm of statistics and self designation. I believe we had this conversation some time ago. You want to be a Venet, but are you really? Or maybe you are, because you really want to be?
I don't really care,... lol. But this is life, blurry lines, unspecified borders, incomplete definitions, lots of blending and grey areas. And everything is in flax of constant changes, that blurs things even further.


first of all, do not be ignorant as you supplied the map years ago - clearly this map irritates the Poles. Oh well,

2- we have spoken in private and I do not converse with super-nationalistic people as there is no point to the conversation.

3 - you want to say something to me, u know my email

I care little about your nationalistic views that you have as well....lol. WWII is over , move ahead.

If u have an issue with the map, then its supported by russians, but not by other slavs

Language is part of culture, but not part of genetics.......understand the not!
 
There's also R1a in northern India, it arrived there via central Asian Slavs...

There is no evidence for slavs in central asia except the recent Russian migrations and R1a history is much more complex.
 
Wether they where culturally Slavs or not, they where R1a and must have possessed aryan features and blue eyes, they came from the Russian steppes of Central Asia and affected linguistically and culturally to a certain degree, northern Indians in particular have about 30% R1a. It's not R1b, its not southern continental Indian R2, its straight-up R1a. India's southern peninsula and lower social castes are higher in R2 ( the sinhalese of sri lanka have 40% R2 whereas it ususlly doesnt pass 20% even on the southern indian continent) whereas some regions of northern India have up to 50% R1a that mixed in with local matrilineal lineages such as mtdna M subclades for example, which Certain of them are especially prominent across the Indian peninsula. There are also notable frequencies of R1a in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Pashtun of Afghanistan, TajiksTajiks and several other central Asian regions....it was brought here by R1a men but they mixed in with local mtdna haplogroups that differ from European ones.
 
Last edited:
first of all, do not be ignorant as you supplied the map years ago - clearly this map irritates the Poles. Oh well,

2- we have spoken in private and I do not converse with super-nationalistic people as there is no point to the conversation.

3 - you want to say something to me, u know my email

I care little about your nationalistic views that you have as well....lol. WWII is over , move ahead.

If u have an issue with the map, then its supported by russians, but not by other slavs

Language is part of culture, but not part of genetics.......understand the not!

I'm claiming that there were no Slavs in Bronze Age, and you are telling me that I have nationalistic agenda???!!! Your logic always amazes me.
 
at sparkey

I would rather avoid dublin's post or opinions and actual discussion is moving off the topic
Knowing Aistian/Aestian/Baltic tribes being in the area for over 5000 years, I have no doubt about spread of the DNA to other regions, however real Prussian DNA had remained present in great numbers (especially in EastP) until 1947.
I am doubtful as actual DNA specimen is that genuine Prussian, knowing that German/Christian occupation wiped out native language and tradition in majority as in written/confirmed factors to the nation in the area.
Would you be able to provide anymore details about it please? (source, test sample origin)
 
I would rather avoid dublin's post or opinions and actual discussion is moving off the topic
Knowing Aistian/Aestian/Baltic tribes being in the area for over 5000 years, I have no doubt about spread of the DNA to other regions, however real Prussian DNA had remained present in great numbers (especially in EastP) until 1947.
I am doubtful as actual DNA specimen is that genuine Prussian, knowing that German/Christian occupation wiped out native language and tradition in majority as in written/confirmed factors to the nation in the area.
Would you be able to provide anymore details about it please? (source, test sample origin)

I'm a bit confused about your particular worry. Are you saying that you doubt OldP, and you suspect that it would be closer to EastP if it was a more reliable sample? Implying that Old Prussian influence on the East Prussian Germans is much higher than the ~49% I get?

My source for "genuine Prussian" (OldP) is the Prussian and Yatviagian Native DNA Project. So, it's basically people who claim to be "genuine Prussian." I agree that this is my least reliable sample, and I wouldn't be surprised if my percentage is a bit too small as a result. But the high N and low I1, to me, indicates that it's probably not too far off. Those numbers square with other Balts, despite the fact that many samples in that project come from Poland.
 
Thanks!
(unfortunately I am not a member of family tree DNA), hence I get to see header only.
As regarding sample as who says who one is... so called German Prussian is no more 50%( by probability of occupation and assimilation, through centuries) real Prussian as test sample is meant to be... perhaps I am wrong, but having Latvian DNA altered with influx of R1b (Slavic) through similar timescale is present there greatly.
So yes, I believe, as for German Prussian- one, for real Prussian completely different result is expected.
As to WestP and EastP expectancy of being real representative Prussian meaning discounting both Slavic from Poland and German from Teutonic intermixes.
Thanks for the answers none the less!
 
What is this formula you used? (HG higher % - lower %) * 100 / higher % = % shift in HG.

But this doesn't work when you have several HGs to compare. You would need to adjust to size of HGs.

Simple average is wrong. If you have one population with 4% of certain HG and another with 0% then distance is 100%.

But this is a relatively minor HG so you need to adjust your average to this fact, somehow.

On previous page you simply added up % for each of 4 HGs, and divided by 4. Not a good method.
 
What is this formula you used? (HG higher % - lower %)*100 / higher % = % shift in HG.

I posted the formula: |(NGer% - EastP%)|/(|(OldP% - EastP%)|+|NGer% - EastP%|)

The average was just an average of the four, you're right.

But this doesn't work when you have several HGs to compare. You would need to adjust to size of HGs.

Simple average is wrong. For example if you have one population with 4% of certain HG and another with 0% then distance is 100%.

But this is a relatively minor HG so you need to adjust your average to this fact, somehow.

On previous page you simply added up % for each of 4 HGs, and divided by 4. Not a good method.

The percentages are the percentage of Old Prussian contribution in East Prussian Germans suggested by each haplogroup independently. I left out minor haplogroups because they were more likely to be statistically unreliable, especially with the small sample size of EastP.

With that, if I adjust the average to account for relative percentage, I get an average of 47%. Drops a little from the 49% unadjusted average, but doesn't change the analysis really. Feel free to try out a different formula yourself.
 

This thread has been viewed 175863 times.

Back
Top