Theory: I1 originally from Paloithic Cro magnon central Europe not Scandinavia

[Sile]

Did he specifically point out the Baltic coast?
Than that would be modern-day Pomerania;
an area Pytheas (4th cen BC) ascribed to the Teutones and Gutones

teutones are in Jutland , never seen them mentioned in Pomerania

Latin name for the Baltic Sea — Mare Balticum. the name 'Aistians', taken from the Roman historian Tacitus, who in the book Germania (98 A.D.) mentioned gentes Aestiorum, residing on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea. The eastern Balts the Neuri, first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th century B.C. (unfortunately, the question of their nationality is not settled beyond doubt). Moving through the centuries, the two Prussian tribes known to Ptolemy in the second century A.D., the Sudovians and Galindians; the Curonians noted in the Scandinavian sagas of the 7th century; Prussians, whose name appears in the 9th century in the writings of the so-called Bavarian Geographer; Semigallians in 870 A.D.; Lithuanians and Lettigallians in the 11th century; and, finally, Galindians (Goljad'), mentioned in Russian sources in 1058 and 1147 as living to the west of Moscow.

I see no Teutones, maybe you can link me where its stated.

 

[Nobody1]

teutones are in Jutland , never seen them mentioned in Pomerania

Latin name for the Baltic Sea — Mare Balticum. the name 'Aistians', taken from the Roman historian Tacitus, who in the book Germania (98 A.D.) mentioned gentes Aestiorum, residing on the eastern shore of the Baltic Sea. The eastern Balts the Neuri, first mentioned by Herodotus in the 5th century B.C. (unfortunately, the question of their nationality is not settled beyond doubt). Moving through the centuries, the two Prussian tribes known to Ptolemy in the second century A.D., the Sudovians and Galindians; the Curonians noted in the Scandinavian sagas of the 7th century; Prussians, whose name appears in the 9th century in the writings of the so-called Bavarian Geographer; Semigallians in 870 A.D.; Lithuanians and Lettigallians in the 11th century; and, finally, Galindians (Goljad'), mentioned in Russian sources in 1058 and 1147 as living to the west of Moscow.

I see no Teutones, maybe you can link me where its stated.

Is this a text from Pytheas?

 

[tjlowery87]

That’s my best estimate right now.

- - - -
Kenneth Nordtvedt

See:
"Tree for I1xL22xZ58"
"Tree for I1 Z58+ Z60-"
"Tree for I1 Z60+"
"Tree for I1 L22+"
"Tree for M223 x Z161"
"Tree for M223+ Z161+"
"Tree and Map for haplogroup I"
"The I1 modalities"
"The M223+ Modalities"


at http://knordtvedt.home.bresnan.net

These files are periodically updated as new information is obtained.



From: terry lowery
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2013 4:26 PM
To: ken
Subject: hello




sorry to bother you today,i was wondering the mrca for i1 is east Germany ,west Poland area correct?the very north of those areas?

 

[tjlowery87]

that's all I know on the subject,is what he said on my above post which is a copy of email

 

[Nobody1]

@ Sile

I still dont know what you quoted (is it from Wikipedia again?) but it was def. not from Pytheas
Something from Pytheas

James Cowles Prichard - Ethnography of Europe (1841)
Pliny in giving an account of the production of amber says, that according to Pytheas there was " an estuary of the ocean called Mentonomon, inhabited by the Guttones, a people of Germany. It reached six thousand furlongs in extent. From this place an island named Abalus was distant about one day's sail, on the shore of which the waves throw up pieces of amber. The inhabitants make use of it for fuel, or else sell it to their neighbours the Teutones" - Pliny adds, that Timaeus gave full credit to this story;

"Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. Incolas pro ligno ad eo uti, proximique Teutonis vendere"


So the Guttones were Germanic and so were the Teutones
needless to say that the Goths [to whom the Guttones are attributed - Cassiodorus] spoke an Indo-European Germanic language
in fact much closer to modern-day German than to any other modern-day Germanic language;

 

[tjlowery87]

so im thinking somewhere between east Germany,and old Prussia area

 

[pyromatic]

We're talking about a dispersal and expansion millennia before these Germanic tribes came into existence. I1-bearing people may well have played a role in their formation and identity, but so did others. To say XX tribe == ZZ haplogroup is pointless. By the time we see various identifiable ethnic identities forming in Europe, they should invariably contain multiple haplogroups.

 

[Fire Haired]

pyromatic i hear what ur saying but i think that fact I1 M253 is not speacial for either Germanic speakers in Scandinavia(since 3,500-4,000ybp) or Uralic speakers(prob 8,000ybp but at least 6,000ybp). Like u were saying when the ethnic groups of modern europe were forming they had haplogroup from ethnic groups that lived before them maybe I1 M253 in Scandinavia is from a pre Germanic pre Uralic people group of Scandinavia.

It actulley is not pointless to say XX tribe is ZZ haplogroup. It is a fact Y DNA R1a1a1b2 Z93 spread with Indo Iranian languages. R1a1a1 M417 is one of the proto Indo European haplogroups. R1b L11 defintley is a marker and the main haplogroup of the spread of Germanic and Italo Celtic languages. From what we can see it is the only haplogroup they spread for Germanic Italo Celts and Indo Iranians. G2a P15 is a huge marker and main haplogroups of one of or the one people group that spread farming in Europe.

There have been ethnic groups in Europe as long as their have been people in Europe. So u must be talking about modern language families like Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Slavic, Baltic, Uralic. Y DNA I is the only popular or the only Paloithic male lineage from Paloithic Europe. So the first settlers of Scandinavia 11,000ybp would have been probably 100% hg I. Since Uralic languages arrived about 8,000-6,000ybp with N1c, Corded war culture R1a 4,000-5,000ybp, Germanic languages R1b and I2a2 3,500-4,000ybp, Farmers G2a, E1b1b, possibly J2 6,000-4,000ybp. The only haplogroup in Scandinavia that does not seem to be from any of these migrations is I1 M253 so it makes sense to me that was the hg I haplogroup the first Scandinavians had.

 

[pyromatic]

I really wish you would quit asserting such statements as fact. They aren't. Not even close. I shall henceforth insist that L11 is a marker of trisomy. Why? Because it is.

 

[Fire Haired]

pyromatic i know i am trying to stop i should say probably or most likely. Seriously though for Indo Iranian R1a1a1b2 Z93 and Balto Slavic R1a1a1b2 Z283 and then proto Indo European R1a1a1 M417 it is so obvius it is coming close to saying fact. But i know that is not being a good thinking. It is crazy how in the 1800's British realized Hindi was related to European languages then they found more info found out there was a major language family in Europe and asia so they called it Indo European. Then they tracj migrations of pre historic culture's that for many very good reasons they say is the spread of Indo European languages mainly because of the kurgen theory. Now with Y DNA we have tracked a migrations and haplogroups that totally seem to have orignated with Indo Europeans. It is shcoking how much Indo European Y DNa there is.

We have been able to trace the spread of a culture, language, religion, and their Y DNA even though they lived in pre history. As we get more ancient DNA and just more DNA info am sure in the next 5 years the story of the spread of Indo European languages will be just about compeltly figured out. I am sure there will be history channel doc's or other professional docs all about Indo Europeans and they can include Y DNA.

 

[Sile]

@ Sile

I still dont know what you quoted (is it from Wikipedia again?) but it was def. not from Pytheas
Something from Pytheas

James Cowles Prichard - Ethnography of Europe (1841)
Pliny in giving an account of the production of amber says, that according to Pytheas there was " an estuary of the ocean called Mentonomon, inhabited by the Guttones, a people of Germany. It reached six thousand furlongs in extent. From this place an island named Abalus was distant about one day's sail, on the shore of which the waves throw up pieces of amber. The inhabitants make use of it for fuel, or else sell it to their neighbours the Teutones" - Pliny adds, that Timaeus gave full credit to this story;

"Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. Incolas pro ligno ad eo uti, proximique Teutonis vendere"


So the Guttones were Germanic and so were the Teutones
needless to say that the Goths [to whom the Guttones are attributed - Cassiodorus] spoke an Indo-European Germanic language
in fact much closer to modern-day German than to any other modern-day Germanic language;

the guttones where on both sides of the vistula delta, going east from the Guttones into prussian lands where the Venedi, next to them the Aestii and then the modern Curonions old Semogitia.
Semogitia meaning in lithuanian, from getia people.

Pytheus who sailed the baltic in 320BC states

Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTO NOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum.
as translated -"Pytheas believed that the Guttones were of German race, living by the Aestuarian sea (Baltic sea), at the mouth of the river named NOMON, at the stretch of 6,000 stadii. Sailing a day. Pytheus never knew of any baltic people, so he called them germanics, but the river Nomon is stated.

the name Mentonomon (in nominative), its genitive form is Metuonidis.
"Mentonomon" is unambiguously stated to be an aestuarium or "estuary" of 6000 stadia, which using the Herodotean standard of 600 feet per stadium is 681 miles. That number happens to be the distance from the mouth of the Skagerrak to the mouth of the Vistula.

So what point you making?
I say the teutons and guttones where NOT neighbours and the Teutons did not bear the I1 that KenN states at the time in question

 

[Nobody1]

the guttones where on both sides of the vistula delta, going east from the Guttones into prussian lands where the Venedi, next to them the Aestii and then the modern Curonions old Semogitia.
Semogitia meaning in lithuanian, from getia people.

Pytheas didnt record any of that; he just recorded the Teutones and Guttones - in 320 BC

Pytheus who sailed the baltic in 320BC states
Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTO NOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum.
as translated -"Pytheas believed that the Guttones were of German race, living by the Aestuarian sea (Baltic sea), at the mouth of the river named NOMON, at the stretch of 6,000 stadii. Sailing a day. Pytheus never knew of any baltic people, so he called them germanics, but the river Nomon is stated.

I know what Pytheas states; since thats exactly the quote i posted - (post #25)
You only forget the part where he mentions the Teutones as their Neighbours

the name Mentonomon (in nominative), its genitive form is Metuonidis.
"Mentonomon" is unambiguously stated to be an aestuarium or "estuary" of 6000 stadia, which using the Herodotean standard of 600 feet per stadium is 681 miles. That number happens to be the distance from the mouth of the Skagerrak to the mouth of the Vistula.

Thomas William Shore - Origin of the Anglo-Saxon race (1906)
The Goths and other Teutonic people of the Baltic are brought under the early notice of Pytheas, the renowned navigator of Marseilles, in the fourth century B. C. He tells us that he sailed up the Baltic in search of the amber coast, rounding the cape of what is now called Jutland, and proceeding about 6,000 stadia along the coasts of the Guttones and Teutones.


and since when is the Vistula no longer part of the Baltic coast?

So what point you making?
I say the teutons and guttones where NOT neighbours and the Teutons did not bear the I1 that KenN states at the time in question

The point i making is that Pytheas in 320 BC recorded the Guttones (Germaniae genti) and the Teutones as neighbours on the Baltic coast; Both Germanic - (whatever Y-DNA Hg you assign to them is up to you);

 

[Sile]

Pytheas didnt record any of that; he just recorded the Teutones and Guttones - in 320 BC

I was saying this , Pytheus comments are after

I know what Pytheas states; since thats exactly the quote i posted - (post #25)
You only forget the part where he mentions the Teutones as their Neighbours

never seen it in the link I used.

Thomas William Shore - Origin of the Anglo-Saxon race (1906)
The Goths and other Teutonic people of the Baltic are brought under the early notice of Pytheas, the renowned navigator of Marseilles, in the fourth century B. C. He tells us that he sailed up the Baltic in search of the amber coast, rounding the cape of what is now called Jutland, and proceeding about 6,000 stadia along the coasts of the Guttones and Teutones.


and since when is the Vistula no longer part of the Baltic coast?

I am saying the teutones and guttones are not neighbours the teutons are not on the baltic coast but are in Jutland, the Vandili confederation of tribes sits between the teutons and Guttones.

The point i making is that Pytheas in 320 BC recorded the Guttones (Germaniae genti) and the Teutones as neighbours on the Baltic coast; Both Germanic - (whatever Y-DNA Hg you assign to them is up to you);

Yes he did, but he did not know about any baltic tribes, this was 200years before ANY of the other historians wrote about the area. Herodous was the first to name any baltic tribes and that was the Neuri as baltic people

 

[Sile]

I was saying this , Pytheus comments are after


never seen it in the link I used.



I am saying the teutones and guttones are not neighbours the teutons are not on the baltic coast but are in Jutland, the Vandili confederation of tribes sits between the teutons and Guttones.





Yes he did, but he did not know about any baltic tribes, this was 200years before ANY of the other historians wrote about the area. Herodous was the first to name any baltic tribes and that was the Neuri as baltic people

Old I1 people as per KenN dates



Baltic people there and no germanics in the bronze-age




Archeology is Baltic type and baltic tribes in bronze-age




Germanic tribes in the iron -age,
Vindili Confederation sits in the area in question, I see no teutonic in this area, maybe you have better eye sight than I.
Facts are the germanics entered the area of pomerania AFTER the baltic people already settled there

 

[Nobody1]

never seen it in the link I used.

doesnt surprise me since you didnt quote the entire passage;

"Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. incolas pro ligno ad ignem uti eo proximisque Teutonis vendere"

I am saying the teutones and guttones are not neighbours the teutons are not on the baltic coast but are in Jutland, the Vandili confederation of tribes sits between the teutons and Guttones.

I understand that thats what your saying;
i just dont get why your saying that when Pytheas clearly says it to the contrary

The Vandals were obviously not on the Baltic coast in the 4th cen BC;
The vandals were associated with the inland Przeworsk culture still in the 2nd cen BC;
So no surprise they were not on the Baltic in the 4th cen BC - and Pytheas never recorded them there to begin with

Yes he did, but he did not know about any baltic tribes, this was 200years before ANY of the other historians wrote about the area. Herodous was the first to name any baltic tribes and that was the Neuri as baltic people

Since when are the Neuri a Baltic people?
Herodotus records them in what is today West Ukraine;

---

@ Sile post#34

Great so the Germanic tribes (Guttones & Teutones) pushed out the Balts during the Iron-age;
Well than theres your answer as to why Pytheas couldnt have recorded any Baltic tribes on the Baltic coast in the 4th cen BC;

Germanic tribes in the iron -age, Vindili Confederation sits in the area in question, I see no teutonic in this area, maybe you have better eye sight than I.

fantastic remark;
you might notice that the map also shows the Alemanni in the Dekumatsland that means its 3rd cen AD;

Ever heard of the Cimbrian war - 2nd cen. BC ?

well than you know why no Teutons are present on a map representing the Imperial Roman age of the 3rd cen. AD;

 

[Sile]

doesnt surprise me since you didnt quote the entire passage;

"Pytheas credidit Guttonibus Germaniae genti, accoli Aestuarium oceani, MENTONOMON nomine, spatio stadiorum sex millium. Ab hoc die navigatione insulam abesse Abalum. Illo vero fluctibus advehi et esse concreti maris purgamentum. incolas pro ligno ad ignem uti eo proximisque Teutonis vendere"




I understand that thats what your saying;
i just dont get why your saying that when Pytheas clearly says it to the contrary

The Vandals were obviously not on the Baltic coast in the 4th cen BC;
The vandals were associated with the inland Przeworsk culture still in the 2nd cen BC;
So no surprise they were not on the Baltic in the 4th cen BC - and Pytheas never recorded them there to begin with




Since when are the Neuri a Baltic people?
Herodotus records them in what is today West Ukraine;

---

@ Sile post#34

Great so the Germanic tribes (Guttones & Teutones) pushed out the Balts during the Iron-age;
Well than theres your answer as to why Pytheas couldnt have recorded any Baltic tribes on the Baltic coast in the 4th cen BC;




fantastic remark;
you might notice that the map also shows the Alemanni in the Dekumatsland that means its 3rd cen AD;

Ever heard of the Cimbrian war - 2nd cen. BC ?

well than you know why no Teutons are present on a map representing the Imperial Roman age of the 3rd cen. AD;

goths are interesting topic, like the Geats of Sweden, the Gutes of Gotland, the Guttones on the vistula, their neighbours the Gepids, the Getae on the black sea .........we can discuss on another thread.
But this thread is about I1 and its proven that its not a germanic marker, neither is it a slavic marker. The only people on record as far as I see which matches KenN data are the baltic tribes.........who they are exactly we do not know, but we know there is west-baltic archeology and east-baltic archeology from the bronze-ages

 

[Nobody1]

goths are interesting topic, like the Geats of Sweden, the Gutes of Gotland, the Guttones on the vistula, their neighbours the Gepids, the Getae on the black sea .........we can discuss on another thread.
But this thread is about I1 and its proven that its not a germanic marker, neither is it a slavic marker. The only people on record as far as I see which matches KenN data are the baltic tribes.........who they are exactly we do not know, but we know there is west-baltic archeology and east-baltic archeology from the bronze-ages

We know exactly who the Baltic tribes are;
Balts are Indo-Europeans;
In fact the language is one of the purest (most archaic) forms of the Indo-European language branch;

So if the Baltic tribes are I1 than so can other Indo-European groups be; (Germanic / Slavic / Sarmatian)

Do i think thats the case.....

 

[Ike]

But this thread is about I1 and its proven that its not a germanic marker, neither is it a slavic marker.

What do you mean with Germanic? Linguistically?

 

[Sile]

What do you mean with Germanic? Linguistically?

It can never be linguistic.

The marker as noted by KenN , we eliminated germanic peoples and slavic peoples, whats is left from what we know is only baltic or maybe finnic.........do you have an idea.?
I am not saying it is not part of germanic, slavic, italic marker now

 

[Sile]

We know exactly who the Baltic tribes are;
Balts are Indo-Europeans;
In fact the language is one of the purest (most archaic) forms of the Indo-European language branch;

So if the Baltic tribes are I1 than so can other Indo-European groups be; (Germanic / Slavic / Sarmatian)

Do i think thats the case.....

with that comment, we might as well say all of Europe. The issue was when KenN found this I1 and he stated pomeranian and old prussian lands............who was there then that we know. I can only find it was Baltic people. So its baltic.