Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

Should the article about Poland be rewritten?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • No

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14
OK, distegard my post above. I found table.
There were indeed 8 inform lines RIA. Of those 6 were present in Polish sample (but in 9 women). 5 in Balts (but in 8 women). 3 in Czech/Slovak (5 women), 3 in Balkan trio (3 women) and few on other samples.
Poles & Balts shared 4 lines. But those were also shared with random other nations around.
Belarussian 0 is crazy strange.
Ok, have no idea how to interpret all of it. Mtdna is crazy difficult and mixed around Europe.
What we can say for certain is most iron age lines in Poland survived and are present in some proportion in modern age Poland (probably proportion is not more than 24% of total, but also not less).
They also survived in Balts or were shared with them, but with less proportion.

Edit: 24% may not be correct estimate. 300 old should be compared to 300 new to arrive at correct estimate. Because logically - if we only had one site with 11 people, we would only find that maybe 15% of modern sample share same maternal lines :) So estimate may rise with more ancient samples.
 
Last edited:
They compared RoIA DNA to 18 modern ethnic groups - but for some reason not to Spaniards / Iberians and Italians...

If those RoIA individuals were at least partially Goths, then there should be some traces in modern Iberia and Italy as well.
 
They compared RoIA DNA to 18 modern ethnic groups - but for some reason not to Spaniards / Iberians and Italians...

If those RoIA individuals were at least partially Goths, then there should be some traces in modern Iberia and Italy as well.
I would love to see East and West Germans sampled separately, to see Slavic influence on East Germany.
 
It would be also nice to distinguish between families which live in West Germany for many (e.g. 10+) generations and these which came recently.

For example in various lands of West Germany in year 1950 between ca. 5% and ca. 40% of people were recent eastern immigrants who came in 1944-1950.

Percent among the total population (by region), in 1950, of people who came to West Germany in 1944 - 1950 from eastern territories lost by Germany:

Schleswig-Holstein - 38,2%
Lower Saxony - 32,6%
Bavaria - 23,5%
Hessen - 20,3%
Wuerttemberg-Baden - 19,0%
North Rhine-Westphalia - 12,9%
City of Bremen - 12,4%
Wuerttemberg-Hohenzollern - 11,4%
City of Hamburg - 11,3%
Baden - 9,4%
Rheinland-Palatinate - 6,0%
Saarland - percent not given (probably very small?)

Add to this also Polish migrations to West Germany during the 19th and the 20th centuries (during the 19th century chiefly to the Ruhr area in Westphalia).

As well as German east-to-west internal migrations during the 19th century (Ostflucht) and 1950-present (emigration from Communist and post-Communist Germany).

All in all, I am very certain that vast majority of R1a haplogroup in West Germany today, is only the product of recent (19th - 20th centuries) migrations.

When people carry out genetic research they wonder "which ancient tribe could possibly bring this here?", and completely neglect VERY RECENT migrations... :)
 
@Tomenable,
Do you know of good site/link with estimates for Poland population 4-8 centuries?

I have recently read this material:
http://www.kirj.ee/public/Archaeology/2014/issue_1/arch-2014-1-30-56.pdf

And it claims among other things in conclusion chapter: Archaeological and palynological data reveal that the event of 536ñ537 caused crop failure in what is today Estonia. This brought about famine severe enough to cause a demographic catastrophe. It took the entire Pre-Viking Age and the first half of the Viking Age until at least the end of the 9th century to return to the previous population level.

In text it also said that other population in North Europe around Baltics (Latvia, Estonia, East Sweden) could be estimated dropped by as much as 50% or more (if I recall it right), with exception of Finland. Article was focused on North Europe. So, I wanted to put it into perspective on what was going on in Poland in same time period. I thought depopulation of Poland could be also connected, but when I read more I found depopulation of Poland was an earlier event? Or that there were two depopulations?
 
Thank you Arvistro.

By the way - this below is a pollen diagram for Schleswig-Holstein (including the regions of Angeln and southern Jutland) - period "13" corresponds to the 6th - early 7th centuries AD, and it shows evidence of a serious depopulation in Schleswig-Holstein during that time. This period corresponds to migrations of Angles and Jutes from those regions (Angeln-Jutland) to Britain; but it also corresponds to the "year without a Summer" (536 AD) and the subsequent starvation and plague, that you have mentioned above. Of course the more pollen, the greater was human activity with plants (and therefore most certainly also population density):

Schleswig_Holstein.png


As you can see the evidence for Anglo-Saxon-Jute immigration is not only in Britain itself, but also in places from which they had emigrated. Anglo-Saxon chronicler Bede (died 735 AD) also mentioned the land of "Angulus desertus" (deserted Angeln), where only few people lived at that time. That period of serious depopulation in Schleswig-Holstein (6th century AD), was also followed by immigration of Slavic peoples to eastern Holstein. In the same time there was apparently also population replacement in Denmark.

During that population replacement, Danes settled in lands abandoned by Jutes-Angles. There is also genetic evidence for this:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011898

(...) the frequency of Hg U4 and U5 declines significantly among our more recent Iron Age and Viking Age Danish population samples to the level observed among the extant Danish population. (...)
 
So there was emigration of Angles & Jutes (to Britain), followed by immigration of Danes & Slavs (Slavs to eastern & central Holstein).

BTW - that diagram should be read from the bottom to the top (chronologically the earliest time is at the bottom).

Check also this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...any-before-WW2?p=445044&viewfull=1#post445044

It is a great chart. I'm confused about time direction. It makes a lot of sense to me with earliest times being at the top and recent at the bottom. If it is reversed the biggest pollen production will fall into Little Ice Age.
 
As for Poland (and Poles) being Germanic.

Maybe Poles have genetically a Germanic admixture, but certainly they are not Germanic in terms of ethnic identity.

Already in the Middle Ages Poles were seriously concerned about the spread of German language.

They also criticized the heavily corrupted Church, an institution implanted to the Pagan Slavic world largely from the German world.

Jan Ostroróg (1436-1501)
in his "Monumentum pro Reipublicae Ordinatione Congestum" ("Treatise on Improving the Republic"), published in 1475, wrote:

About_Sermons.png


In English:

"XXII. About Sermons in the German Language:

Oh what an ungracious and hideous thing for the Poles, that in many places in our churches sermons are given in German language, and this takes place in a lofty and magnificent setting, where only one or two old women listen to them, while at the same time the crowds of Poles are squeezed somewhere in the corner with their preacher. And because nature itself implanted eternal discord and hatred between these two languages (as well as in some other aspects), I exhort you not to say the mass in that language. Let the one who wants to live in Poland learn to speak Polish! Unless we are such simpletons that we forget that the Germans treat our language in a similar fashion in their country. And if, after all, such sermons are needed for the foreign immigrants, let them take place somewhere in secluded spots, without damage to the dignity of the Poles."


About_Monks.png


In English:

"XX. About Enrolling Monks to the Monasteries.

Lords ruling the Republic! How feeble-minded are you, that until this day you have tolerated the fact, that from monasteries - dowered with land and income by our ancestors, built on Polish soil and with its crops fed by the Poles - they are excluding our kinsmen and not allowing them to join the convents; and this only because they are bound by an act of law, which tells them to enroll only Germans to the convent. This act of law is ridiculous and contrary to church laws. Because who dares to impose such a yoke upon the sovereign Kingdom of Poland - the King of which does not recognize the lordship of anyone above him - under the false guise of an act of law? You, brave men - if you want to be considered brave - must stop allowing the Germans - and especially these boorish and effeminate monks - to make fun of the Polish nation, and to deceive it with their bogus piety."


About_Priests.png


In English:

"XVIII. About the Pride of Priests:

Many of you, or maybe all of you, even if less fit to pastoral work, are applying for the priestly dignity, because idleness tends to be pleasant and attractive, while inaction tends to be nice and engaging. Perhaps, if I am not mistaken, the thing which encourages them to do this, is what Saint Paul said: Who desires a bishopric, desires something good. However, they don't know, that desiring itself is evil. One who steals gold, steals something good, but stealing itself is evil. And every priest, if we believe church laws, is a bishop, generally speaking. Sirs! Have you read what I wrote above, as well as what Hieronymus wrote, many of you would have chosen another way of life, and really valued the afterlife more than the earthly life. Myself being a Pole, and seeing what is happening in Poland now, I could not be silent about this."


All in all Ostrorog's concerns about the spread of German language among Poles were justified - considering that several centuries later guys like Otto von Bismarck or Adolf Hitler were convinced that all areas with German-speaking inhabitants should be annexed by Germany.
 
Thanks for the chart!
Not a comment to you, but to guys who made the chart, I don't understand why instead of eras they did not assign normal standard dates (centuries AD).

So, depopulation was not limited to North. 6th century vacated South Baltics as well. I read on Brittain even if they had Anglo-Saxon invasion, their population also went down.. Italy lost ~40% of their folk in plague that followed 536. As they wrote in one source this death rate put an end to Latin and Classic Greek languages. I have also a thread here, about when European males lost their -s at the end of names/surnames. It appears before 500 in all Euro IE languages masculin nominatives ended with -s (most common examples -az in North/West Germans, -s in Gothic, -us in Latin, -os in Greek, etc, I think Taranis added it was -s in Celtic as well). Around 800, only Balts and Greeks retained this feature.

As to folk who survived this mini-apocalypsis best. The paper I copied mentioned Finns. I believe they had their fun in Vendel age (Kwens?) but need to double check if there is archeological evidence for it. But as soon as farming societies from better agrar lands recovered (South Scandinavia), they were pushed back.
The second candidate which seems to actually become the champion out of this is the Slavic folk. Apparently they survived it better than other populations and even expanded on their expense. Maybe they were located near very fertile lands (Ukraine?), and once agriculture became an option again, this land produced baby after baby, clan after clan and tribe after tribe. So, that they could outnumber and assimilate remnants of Germanic tribes in their push West and outnumber and assimilate Balkan folk in their push South.
Probably once more regional population estimates are available we shall find a place in East Europe that experienced baby boom around 6th century.
 
Polish population in former Germany's eastern lands is highly intermixed today.

They are settlers from many distinct regions plus local autochthons who were not deported.

Here is the population structure in those regions as of year 1950 (census data):

DIRECT LINK TO MAP

Mapa_ZO_3.png
 
When it comes to R1a:

According to recent (2014) paper on R1a by Underhill et. al., it seems that M458 cannot be Germanic.

In their samples there is zero (namely: 0,0% and 0 persons) of M458, M558 or Z282 in England and in Ireland.

How could M458 be Germanic if there is no M458 in places where Germanic people extensively settled ???

Moreover, in Central and South England (sample size 75) there is no R1a (of any kind) at all according to this study.

And in Northern England there is just 3,4% of R1a Z284, which appears to be mostly Norwegian / Germanic:

Z284 mutation by country:

Norway - 20,3% (24 of 118)
Denmark - 7,1% (8 of 112)
South Sweden - 3,5% (5 of 141)
North England - 3,4% (1 of 29)
Switzerland - 1,3% (1 of 75)
Ireland - 1% (1 of 100)
Germany - 0,9% (3 of 322)

And these are all places from Underhill's study where Z284 is around 1% or more.

While in Norway Z284 is vast majority of all R1a (24 of 26), this is not the case in South Sweden and Denmark.

In Denmark almost 40% of R1a appears to be Balto-Slavic in origin (which supports archaeological evidence of Slavic settlement in Denmark). In South Sweden majority of R1a appears to be Balto-Slavic in origin (which also supports archaeology and written sources).

When it comes to R1a in Germany - all of it seems to be Balto-Slavic, except for these 3 mutations (in total 1,8%):

Z284 - 0,9%
M417 - 0,3%
M582 - 0,3%
Z93 - 0,3%

M417 (other types? - see below) is the majority of all R1a in the Netherlands.

M582 (probably) and Z93 (most certainly) are Asian in origin - not European - mutations of R1a.
 
M417 in this study must stand for "other types of M417", because 99% of modern R1a are downclades of M417...
 
Poland is more Slavic than Germanic. Germanic nations have more R1b-L11 than R1a-Z282, also Germanic nations have more I1 and less I2a. Germanic people = R1b + I1. Slavic people = R1a-Z282 + I2a (in West). Baltic people = R1a-Z282 + N1c1. Polish folks are NorthCentral Slavic fellas, so SLAVIC! R1b-L11 is pseudo Germanic & Italo-Celtic, R1a-Z282 is pseudo Balto-Slavic...
 
This is a long and complex thread, but what I'm getting out of everyone's comments here and on another thread about R1a is the idea that perhaps the wrong question was asked. Is it possible that modern Germany is more Polish than German, genetically speaking?
 
Although it’s true that some R1a in Germany is from the Polish folks, since the boundary between Germany and Poland changed a couple of times in the past, if you studied history of a state Germany, at least from the times of Westphalia, you should know that Prussians (aristocrats) left a very important mark on Germany. For a very long time Prussians were one of the dominant forces in Germany, and it has been said that Prussians had not a Germanic origin, but were Germanized Slavic folks. I believe that the ancient Prussians had same roots as Polish fellas. So part of R1a in Germany is from Polish people and part of R1a is from the Prussians (Germans, but who were 2000-2500 years ago part of the proto-Slavic people).
 
(East) Prussians were Germanized Baltic folk. And most likely z280, n1c1.

Aristocracy however only involved limited number of local loyal nobles. after Teutones Order captured those lands they also became the aristocracy...

Slavs came to Germany after depopulation in 6th century and stayed there for good :) Germanized of course, for most.
 
Poland is more Slavic than Germanic. Germanic nations have more R1b-L11 than R1a-Z282, also Germanic nations have more I1 and less I2a. Germanic people = R1b + I1. Slavic people = R1a-Z282 + I2a (in West). Baltic people = R1a-Z282 + N1c1. Polish folks are NorthCentral Slavic fellas, so SLAVIC! R1b-L11 is pseudo Germanic & Italo-Celtic, R1a-Z282 is pseudo Balto-Slavic...

did'nt KenN find ancient I marker in east prussia belonging to baltic people 2 years ago?

goths = R1a and some I1 in majority , after moving to the black sea they absorbed many sarmatians ( as per historic fact ) who where I2a. There R1a and I2a after there invasion of western europe via the balkans, italy, france and spain was replaced by the markers in the lands they conquered. The goths did not have the manpower to invade unless they absorbed local tribes in there march.
 
did'nt KenN find ancient I marker in east prussia belonging to baltic people 2 years ago?

goths = R1a and some I1 in majority , after moving to the black sea they absorbed many sarmatians ( as per historic fact ) who where I2a. There R1a and I2a after there invasion of western europe via the balkans, italy, france and spain was replaced by the markers in the lands they conquered. The goths did not have the manpower to invade unless they absorbed local tribes in there march.
Interesting, I believe you!
 
About Antes - Vutj etimology that I proposed. I got apparently someone better than me in linguistics from http://forum.wordreference.com/, username ahvalj to comment this proposal. This was his analysis:
Antes would have produced the Old Church Slavonic **ǫte (cp. the Lithuanian antis and Slavic ǫt- "duck": Russian ут-ёнок, ут-иный, ут-ка). The initial w->v- would have only developed in some dialects, and the root vowel would have been u in most languages, but ę/ą in Polish, o in Slovene and ъ in Bulgarian (e. g. Lithuanian anglis — Latvian ogle — Old Church Slavonic ǫglь — Russian уголь — Polish węgiel — Bulgarian въгле — Slovene vogel "coal"). Though, again, I am not aware of any traces of it in Slavic.

So, after OCS this word would sound something like Ut(j), but in Polish could become węt(j), in Slovene Vot(j), in Russian Utj, etc.Lodz/Vutj although sound similar and somewhat in this range of options, it has different etimology. It means boat (you can find etimology in wiktionary).

His comment about Vjatichi:
Veneti/Venedi may be somehow connected with the Old East Slavic vätiči (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyatichi), who, as the Primary Chronicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle) tells, originated otъ läxovъ "from the Poles" [http://izbornyk.org.ua/ipatlet/ipat01.htm]. i.e. possibly "from Wends (=Baltic Slavs)", but vätiči implies the earlier Common Slavic *u̯ēntītı̯aı̯ with no vowel before the suffix, so in any case these two come from different languages.

So, no Anti would not produce Vutj, but something in that range. Vjatichi/Ventichi (uentitiai) was OK proposal.
 

This thread has been viewed 347384 times.

Back
Top