Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

[Diurpaneus]

Slav origins

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


slav movements as per archeology
Prague archaeological culture expanded from western Ukraine and eastern Poland to eastern Germany and lower Danube. The map from the academy of sciences as per archaeological evidence.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Distribution of the Slavic clay plates(6th-7th c. AD)

166-6a8c49dfc5tavaslava.jpg




most of them & the earliest from S and E Romania and Moldova.
I'm not saying that the Slavs came from Romania,but their genesis is complex,and they acculturated a lot of people.


"The Ister, which is the greatest of all the rivers which we know, flows always with equal volume in summer and winter alike. It is the first towards the West of all the Scythian rivers, and it has become the greatest of all rivers because other rivers flow into it. And these are they which make it great: [46]--five in number are those [47] which flow through the Scythian land, namely that which the Scythians call Porata and the Hellenes Pyretos, and besides this, Tiarantos and Araros and Naparis and Ordessos."

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_herodotus_4.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_names_of_rivers

[Diurpaneus]

Slav origins

Uploaded with ImageShack.us


slav movements as per archeology
Prague archaeological culture expanded from western Ukraine and eastern Poland to eastern Germany and lower Danube. The map from the academy of sciences as per archaeological evidence.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Distribution of the Slavic clay plates:

166-6a8c49dfc5tavaslava.jpg




most of them & the earliest from S and E Romania and Moldova.
I'm not saying that the Slavs came from Romania,but their genesis is complex,and they acculturated a lot of people.

he Ister, which is the greatest of all the rivers which we know, flows always with equal volume in summer and winter alike. It is the first towards the West of all the Scythian rivers, and it has become the greatest of all rivers because other rivers flow into it. And these are they which make it great: [46]--five in number are those [47] which flow through the Scythian land, namely that which the Scythians call Porata and the Hellenes Pyretos, and besides this, Tiarantos and Araros and Naparis and Ordessos

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_herodotus_4.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_names_of_rivers

[Nobody1]

We have 2 issues here
1- the term slavic, IMO has 2 meanings, a linguistic term and an ethnic term.
We have true "ethnic" slavs like Belorussia, Ukraine and Poland and then we also have a linguistic term for slavic , these are the 3 mentioned plus Russia, croatia, serbia etc etc.............I find it completely useless to speak of the linguistic slavs in regards to the topic.
The linguistic term slavic is equal to the western term of Latin.

Recently Russians have stated, we are 25% slavic, 25% central asians, 25% siberians and 25% uralic people.

2- the "ae" endings simply means, same as or similiar to the named tribe ..........we also have Samatae, Vandalae, Bastanae, Fennae etc.........so as an example, Samatae, Samatians and others tribes who are similar to samatians.

.........................

The Venedi like the Aestii are insignificant people/tribes who where only mentioned in history due to the amber trade and/or by Jordanes in glorifying the might of the goths as they annexed these coastal tribes

But even with your definition of linguistic Slavs and ethnic Slavs the same questions remain;
For the linguistic Slavs must have emerged from somewhere as well or at least be greatly influenced by the ethnic Slavs;

[Sile]

But even with your definition of linguistic Slavs and ethnic Slavs the same questions remain;
For the linguistic Slavs must have emerged from somewhere as well or at least be greatly influenced by the ethnic Slavs;

yes they did emerge from somewhere as non-slavic ethnic people, who over time changed their language into the superior language of the area, which was slavic.

[Nobody1]

yes they did emerge from somewhere as non-slavic ethnic people, who over time changed their language into the superior language of the area, which was slavic.

But that would manifest the Balto-Slavic complex of the Venedi/Venedae and make the Vandal/Przeworsk complex Germanic(and Keltic/LaTene) until subjugated and adopting a Slavic language; Thats what one usually also reads out of the Historical and Archaeological backround; In other words the Slavs could only have expanded from the Balto-Slavic complex i.e. Venedae (Jordanes V/XXXIV);

[Sile]

But that would manifest the Balto-Slavic complex of the Venedi/Venedae and make the Vandal/Przeworsk complex Germanic(and Keltic/LaTene) until subjugated and adopting a Slavic language; Thats what one usually also reads out of the Historical and Archaeological backround; In other words the Slavs could only have expanded from the Balto-Slavic complex i.e. Venedae (Jordanes V/XXXIV);

I do not know why you glorify Jordanes, when major modern scholars ridicule him.

He is the only one I know of the ancient historians that does not place the Venedi next to the aestii on the coast of the baltic sea.

Scholars suggest that because the Goths firstly annexed the venedi and aestii on the coast before annexing the bastanae, that he made the venedae ( whoever they where) far greater than what they where to show that the Goths where a far superior society................note Jordanes was a Goth.
He also failed to name the bastanae anywhere. A tribe which was 10 times far greater than the Venedae

[Taranis]

One of the points I was trying to make at the beginning of the thread was that name Polska (in polish) is only attested around 15 century and not necessarily used to describe the full extent of first known "Poland", the land of Mieszko. For first 4 centuries we only know this name in latin, Polonia, Polania, Polenia, even Bulonia, never as Polska. And in this form only describing land of Polans, the tribe of Polanie, and never the whole dominion of Mieszko or Chrobry. I think we have to wait till 13 century to start to see Polonia used for the whole country, and this without Silesia and West Pomerania, which were separated since.

One important issue to consider there is, in medieval 'western' Europe, Latin was the language of not only the Catholic Church, but also administration, and this held certainly true for not only the Frankish Empire and its successor states, but also for medieval Poland. Consider that probably the most famous Pole of the Renaissance, Nicolaus Copernicus (hint: the name itself is latinized!) published in Latin.

[Nobody1]

I do not know why you glorify Jordanes, when major modern scholars ridicule him.

He is the only one I know of the ancient historians that does not place the Venedi next to the aestii on the coast of the baltic sea.Scholars suggest that because the Goths firstly annexed the venedi and aestii on the coast before annexing the bastanae, that he made the venedae ( whoever they where) far greater than what they where to show that the Goths where a far superior society................note Jordanes was a Goth.
He also failed to name the bastanae anywhere. A tribe which was 10 times far greater than the Venedae

May the ridiculing of Jordanes be as it may - no sufficient alternatives are provided (for the emergence and rapid expansion of the Slavs); Keeping in mind that Jordanes of the 6th cen AD wrote at a time after the Hunnic invasion and the Völkerwanderung thus peoples were no longer present where previously recorded (Plinius/Ptolemy/Tacitus); The Aestii and Bastarnae remain obscure on their own; Tacitus (XLV/II) "the Aestyan nations reside, who use the same customs and attire with the Suevians; their language more resembles that of Britain" and the Bastarnae are either Keltic or Germanic but def. beyond the Danube and used as mercenaries by already (3rd/2nd c BC) Philip V and Perseus of Macedon; If the Bastarnae are Germanic (Plinius/Strabo/Tacitus) than one of the earliest Germanic peoples recorded in classical History;

The deeds of the Greuthungi [Goth] Ermanaric and his grant kingdom is of course up for much critical view but also recorded in Ammianus (XXXI/III) and in Cassiodorus (but not on the Amal-kings list) and is also present in other Germanic/Norse sagas;

[Taranis]

Slav origins

Yes, Polesia certainly was part of the original Proto-Slavic homeland, but I would be in favour of a larger area than that. A good candidate, in my opinion, for the speakers of early Proto-Slavic (before the contact with Proto-Germanic speakers) would be the early iron age Milograd Culture:

[epoch]

But questions arise, WHAT were these Goths really, BEFORE the time they arrived on the gates of the Eastern Roman Empire and History?

Jordanes mentions during the 5th century three Gothic kings, apparently living under Hunnic rule, called Valamir, Thiudemir and Vidimir. These names are quite odd, as the first two almost certianly translate to Walamar and Thiudemar. The last seems odd in the normal Germanic naming scheme. Unless the letter "n" was left out and it actually read Vindimir. In that case it would translate to Wendemar, and the three kings would have names meaning famous Celt/Roman, famous German and famous Slav.

[LeBrok]

Jordanes mentions during the 5th century three Gothic kings, apparently living under Hunnic rule, called Valamir, Thiudemir and Vidimir. These names are quite odd, as the first two almost certianly translate to Walamar and Thiudemar. The last seems odd in the normal Germanic naming scheme. Unless the letter "n" was left out and it actually read Vindimir. In that case it would translate to Wendemar, and the three kings would have names meaning famous Celt/Roman, famous German and famous Slav.

Isn't "mir" slavic for peace or world? Or is it only in Russian borrowed from Goths?
Whatever the history is "Vidimir" have a slavic vibe.

[epoch]

Isn't "mir" slavic for peace or world? Or is it only in Russian borrowed from Goths?
Whatever the history is "Vidimir" have a slavic vibe.

The explanation of the name Wladimir states that it means "Ruler of peace". However, since the name looks like being originally germanic - Waldemar - the translation "peace" might be folk etymology.

The grandfather of the three is called Vinitharius. That could be a constructed nickname as well, meaning something like defeater of the Veneti or Wends. That could be a naming scheme like the Roman tradition: Germanicus, commander or defeater of the Germans and Claudius Gothicus, defeater of the Goths. Vinitharius is indeed known for a fierce battle against the slavic Antes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozh

His son and the father of the three kings was called Vandalarius. I don't know of a fight between Goths and Vandals - apart from them being fierce rivals - but the name is again strikingly similar to that Roman tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amali_dynasty

[matbir]

Here is an interesting discussion about etymology of name Polska (Poland).

http://archeowiesci.pl/2011/05/31/sk...-nazwa-polski/

In Middle Ages the official language in kingdom of Poland was Latin that is why it was written Regnum Poloniae. For nearly 400 years (until 14th century) Poland was composed of Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Silesia, Masovia and Pomerania (with exception of Western Pomerania which was lost in 1181). Its political system was integrated even during fragmentation, what you can easily find in list of High Dukes of Poland, some of them ware Dukes of Silesia. Polish language at that time was written occasionally, the earliest document with Polish sentence comes from Silesia.

Everything I've read by polish historians was inconclusive. They could have been Slavic, Baltic, Celtic (name Kalisz, amber traders, is most likely of celtic origin) or other tribes related to Dacian or Slavic tribes who don't exist anymore. They could have been Germanic, although I would guess that germanic speech would have been recognized by contemporary historians back then.
If Venedi have been located on west side of Vistula they surely were assimilated by germanic tribes, if they were not germanic to start with. Last germanic tribe located around Kalisz was Vandals.

And I expect that nothing conclusive will be written in next few years, because this case needs further study. Certainly Slavs in ancient times ware hidden under the name Venedi, but Venedi could have been wider term and could have included some other tribes (maybe belonging to Proto-Slavic family). One more thing is hydronyms, which reveal that Germanic tribes didn't live in whole Polish territory:
Hydronomia germańska.jpg
"Najstarsza Warstwa Nazewnicza Na Ziemiach Polskich" Zbigniew Babik 2001
So Germanics left signs in lower and middle Vistula and middle Oder. What about the rest? I suppose if they ware in Pomerania, North-western Greater Poland, Upper Silesia, Lesser Poland and Central and Southern Masovia they hadn't stay for long. So then who lived there?
Things are getting even more confusing when you take into account genetic surveys, which suggest that Polish population is autochthonous and did not came here in 5th century.
Underhill et al. (2009); Rębała et sl. (2012); Mielnik-Sikorska et al (2012)

I think most genetics of people from Poland,at least of women,is not Slavic.
Maybe most of the genetics there is from Baltic people,who knows.

I've read some papers and I have different opinion. In Poland only Suwalki region shows signs of assimilation of Baltic element. Grzybowski et al. (2007)

Recently Russians have stated, we are 25% slavic, 25% central asians, 25% siberians and 25% uralic people.

Where have you found this? It stays with contrary to what I know. In mentioned above article by Mielnik-Sikorska you can find that Poles from Lublin are closer related to Russians from Orel then to Ukrainians from Lviv.

Yes, Polesia certainly was part of the original Proto-Slavic homeland, but I would be in favour of a larger area than that. A good candidate, in my opinion, for the speakers of early Proto-Slavic (before the contact with Proto-Germanic speakers) would be the early iron age Milograd Culture:

I doubt it, Milograd culture was replaced by Zarubintsy culture which have its origin in Pomeranian culture. In that area cultures changed quite frequently so talking about Proto-Slavs earlier then Zarubintsy culture is just unsupported speculation.

The explanation of the name Wladimir states that it means "Ruler of peace". However, since the name looks like being originally germanic - Waldemar - the translation "peace" might be folk etymology.

Mir also means the world. By the way there are other Slavic names with "wlad/wlod" and "mir": Mirosław, Władysław. Idea of creation of this kind of name is trivial, so Waldemar and Władymir independent from each other.

[LeBrok]

In Middle Ages the official language in kingdom of Poland was Latin that is why it was written Regnum Poloniae. For nearly 400 years (until 14th century) Poland was composed of Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Silesia, Masovia and Pomerania (with exception of Western Pomerania which was lost in 1181). Its political system was integrated even during fragmentation, what you can easily find in list of High Dukes of Poland, some of them ware Dukes of Silesia. Polish language at that time was written occasionally, the earliest document with Polish sentence comes from Silesia.

Well, more precisely what we call now polish language, but this common term for all slavic provinces of what we call now Poland didn't exist till 15th century. I'm pretty sure you won't find any attestation, even in latin, that Silesian slavic language was called polish back then, or Silesians, Pomeranians or Mazovians calling themselves polish. I don't think anyone here would deny slavic character of these provinces. The main question is when all these provinces started consider themselves as greater ethnicity of polish people. To my knowledge this didn't happen till 15th century.

And I expect that nothing conclusive will be written in next few years, because this case needs further study. Certainly Slavs in ancient times ware hidden under the name Venedi, but Venedi could have been wider term and could have included some other tribes (maybe belonging to Proto-Slavic family). One more thing is hydronims, which reveal that Germanic tribes didn't live in whole Polish territory:

I have no knowledge about germanic hydronyms in Poland. However if Slavs were autochthonous to Poland area we would have only slavic hydronyms but we don't. I don't think there is any major rivers with slavic name in Poland.

"Najstarsza Warstwa Nazewnicza Na Ziemiach Polskich" Zbigniew Babik 2001
So Germanics left signs in lower and middle Vistula and middle Oder. What about the rest? I suppose if they ware in Pomerania, North-western Greater Poland, Upper Silesia, Lesser Poland and Central and Southern Masovia they hadn't stay for long. So then who lived there?

A billion dollar question. :)

Things are getting even more confusing when you take into account genetic surveys, which suggest that Polish population is autochthonous and did not came here in 5th century.
Underhill et al. (2009); Rębała et sl. (2012); Mielnik-Sikorska et al (2012)

I beg to differ. These study shows that slavic population of central Europe is fairly homogenous but not that they are autochthonous. Mind you that archeology points to the fact that during Slavic expansion lands of center europe were depopulated to a large extent.

[Sile]

Until, the slavic writers give people the names of these ancient "slav" tribes, we have to live with the mystery of people who spoke slavic.

...........how confusing if we used only linguistic names for ancient races, that is...slavic, germanic, nordic, Latin, Greek, gallic, thracian, etc........we would have no sense of ancient Europe

I have never seen an ancient slav tribal name, yet ancient Greek and Roman historians have given us dozens upon dozen of tribal names. maybe one day I could be lucky

[matbir]

Well, more precisely what we call now polish language, but this common term for all slavic provinces of what we call now Poland didn't exist till 15th century. I'm pretty sure you won't find any attestation, even in latin, that Silesian slavic language was called polish back then, or Silesians, Pomeranians or Mazovians calling themselves polish. I don't think anyone here would deny slavic character of these provinces. The main question is when all these provinces started consider themselves as greater ethnicity of polish people. To my knowledge this didn't happen till 15th century.

I have linked especially for you page from Wikipedia, which I suppose you did not read.
Quote: "Bogwali uxor stabat, ad molam molendo. Cui vir suus idem Bogwalus, compassus dixit: Sine, ut ego etiam molam. Hoc est in polonico: Day, ut ia pobrusa, a ti poziwai." - Book of Henryków (Liber fundationis claustri Sancte Marie Virginis in Henrichow) 1270^[3]
The medieval recorder of this phrase, the Cistercian monk Peter of the Henryków monastery, noted that "Hoc est in polonico" ("This is in Polish").^[4][5][6]
Text sources 3 and 4 are available online. It looks like medieval monk had known that people from Henryków in Lower Silesia spoke Polish.

I have no knowledge about germanic hydronyms in Poland. However if Slavs were autochthonous to Poland area we would have only slavic hydronyms but we don't. I don't think there is any major rivers with slavic name in Poland.

I do not think that any major rivers have Slavic names anywhere, because names of major rivers are very old and sometimes we do not know if they are Indoeuropean or not.
This map shows signs of Goths and some tribe in Lower Silesia maybe Vandals/Silings. But there is no sign of long lasting presence of other tribe. Interesting Tribe is Lugii which consisted of some clans, from which some did not have Germanic names like Nahavarvali.

A billion dollar question. :)

It just shows how this story is complicated and how little we know.

I beg to differ. These study shows that slavic population of central Europe is fairly homogenous but not that they are autochthonous. Mind you that archeology points to the fact that during Slavic expansion lands of center europe were depopulated to a large extent.

Check tables 2 and 4 from Mielnik-Sikorska's article, also take under consideration Rembala's comparison of Poles, Germans and Swedes, keep in mind that Underhill shows the highest diversity of M458 is found in Poland, and then it is leading to conclusion that population of Poland is the local one for quite long. I will write some more about this later.
Depopulation had taken place but is there any sign of population replacement?

Until, the slavic writers give people the names of these ancient "slav" tribes, we have to live with the mystery of people who spoke slavic.

...........how confusing if we used only linguistic names for ancient races, that is...slavic, germanic, nordic, Latin, Greek, gallic, thracian, etc........we would have no sense of ancient Europe

I have never seen an ancient slav tribal name, yet ancient Greek and Roman historians have given us dozens upon dozen of tribal names. maybe one day I could be lucky

Ancient writers put them under collective name of Venedae, probably they was never interested in them so they never specified their names. When they moved to areas closer to the writers they started to distinguish them. I thing that we will never know, how did they call themselves in antiquity.

[LeBrok]

I have linked especially for you page from Wikipedia, which I suppose you did not read.
Quote: "Bogwali uxor stabat, ad molam molendo. Cui vir suus idem Bogwalus, compassus dixit: Sine, ut ego etiam molam. Hoc est in polonico: Day, ut ia pobrusa, a ti poziwai." - Book of Henryków (Liber fundationis claustri Sancte Marie Virginis in Henrichow) 1270^[3]
The medieval recorder of this phrase, the Cistercian monk Peter of the Henryków monastery, noted that "Hoc est in polonico" ("This is in Polish").^[4][5][6]
Text sources 3 and 4 are available online. It looks like medieval monk had known that people from Henryków in Lower Silesia spoke Polish.

Sorry I missed this one. It is possible that we see an example of creation of Polish ethnicity in educated spheres at this time period. It is 300 years after Mieszko's unification. This process was ongoing for 400 years, from nonexistent to wildly accepted. However keep in mind that this text was written by Latin and German speaking monks, and most likely of German ethnicity. In this case Germans could call all slavic speakers of this region as Polish, and not necessarily it means that slavic Silesians called themselves Polish.
Humoristically, this first "polish" sentence was spoken by Czech person. Perhaps this monk couldn't differentiate Czech from Polish, or these languages were very close at this time. Also, I've never found carbon dating on this document to make sure it is an original from around 1270 or is it a copy from 100 or 200 years later.
A nice read from Witold Hermaszewski :
http://whermaszewski.wordpress.com/2...a-henrykowska/

Check tables 2 and 4 from Mielnik-Sikorska's article, also take under consideration Rembala's comparison of Poles, Germans and Swedes, keep in mind that Underhill shows the highest diversity of M458 is found in Poland, and then it is leading to conclusion that population of Poland is the local one for quite long. I will write some more about this later.
Depopulation had taken place but is there any sign of population replacement?

It is ok M458 diversity could have been original leftovers of this location (Poland) it doesn't mean it came with Slavs. M458 is 10 ky old.

Ancient writers put them under collective name of Venedae, probably they was never interested in them so they never specified their names. When they moved to areas closer to the writers they started to distinguish them. I thing that we will never know, how did they call themselves in antiquity.

I wish we had more certainty than relying on a guess and someone hopes.

[Sile]

Ancient writers put them under collective name of Venedae, probably they was never interested in them so they never specified their names. When they moved to areas closer to the writers they started to distinguish them. I thing that we will never know, how did they call themselves in antiquity.

Ancient writers put them on the baltic coast next to the Aestii.
Since Slavs do not know sea/marine terminology then this is wrong, besides the venedi disappeared under the gothic name by 200AD.

Jordanes theory has been corrected by slavic writers....see below
The original and therefore very precious information provided by Jordanes was that the territory of Moesia, once the habitat of the Getae and then the Goths, was now under the control of the Sclaveni; Sclaveni a civitate Novietunense et laco qui appellatur Mursiano. To this he made two additions, since he associated the classical Venedae (= his Venethae) with the Sclaveni and Antes of his time. One insertion relates to the habitat of the Antes: usque ad Danastrum (cf. Antes. . . a Danastro extenduntur § 35), and the second insertion connects the information on the Sclaveni with that on the Venethae: in boream Viscla (cf. ab ortu Vistulae. . . Venetharum natio. . . consedit § 34).

Jordanes associated the classical Venedae with Vinid-, the Gothic designation for the Latin/Byzantine Sklavin-, on the same «linguistic» grounds that he identified the Goths with the Getae: simple similarity in sound [64]. On the other hand, he included the group he called Venethae = Vinid- in his introductory section for good reason: it was part of the Gothic tradition, where the great ruler Hermanarich (§ 119) had dealings with the Venethae. We assume, then, that Jordanes in this case is not speaking of his own time, but is merely putting together information from his heterogeneous sources. We cannot trust his remarks about the Venethae (= classical Venedae). Further, Jordanes had learned about the populous band of the Venedae from classical sources, especially Ptolemy, who connected them with the Vistula River, even giving the Gulf of Danzig the designation κόλπος Οὐενεδικός. Tacitus wrote that the Venedi's «plundering forays take them over all that wooded and mountainous country» (§ 46) [65]. It was apparently on that basis that Jordanes gave his description of the habitat of the Venethae: hi paludes silvasque pro civitatibus habent (§ 35). Jordanes here is not providing contemporary, sixth-century, data, but a rehash of material from older sources.
The word Vinid- is of Old Germanic origin; it is related to Old Norse vinr-, which had the meaning (established by Jost Trier) «der Genosse im Ring» (' comrade in the ring [of the warriors ']) [66]. But there was still another reason why Jordanes identified Venetae (= classical Venedae) with the Germanic term Vinid-. Like the Goths, who took over the former habitat of the Getae, the Vinid-, of his time lived on the territory of the ancient Venedae. Jordanes's data on the Vinid- (~ Vindi) are original and extremely important.
He tells us that the Vidivarii (this word has correctly been recognized as Vindivarii) live «on the shores of the ocean (Baltic Sea) where the waters of the Vistula river stream through three throats». They are not an ethnic unit, but people «congregated from different bands (or races)» (ex diversis nationibus adgregati, § 36). It is certain that in Jordanes' Vi[n]divarii we are dealing with a form of a name which Jordanes incorrectly took to be a supposed illustration of the original name of the people concerned: Vindi = Sclavi, plus the Latin word varii, meaning 'different'.

It is fortunate that Jordanes provides another form of this name: Viuidarii, gens Viuidaria (§ 96, which specialists have also corrected to Vinidarii). The second element in the name, -varii > -arii, stands for the Germanic *vari-ōs 'defender' [67]. The term *vinid-[v]ari-ōs, therefore, should be translated as «defender of the comrades in the [warriors'] ring» (or possibly: «inhabitant of the ring ») [68]. The remaining information that Jordanes furnishes corroborates this proposed etymology. He writes:
«The same Gepidae were bursting with envy as long as they lived in the region of Spesis (Spesis provincia, unidentified hapax) [69] on the island surrounded by spits of the Vistula which in their own language they called Gepedoios (Germ. ojos «island »). Now, I was told, this island is inhabited by the kind (gens) *Vinid-ari, since the [the Gepidae] left (ca. 250) for better lands.
It is well known that the *Vinidarii [are those] who had congregated together from different bands [or races] (ex diversis nationïbus) as if to one refuge and had formed one kind (in unum asylum collecti sunt et gentem fecisse noscuntur, § 96)» [70].
This definition of the Vinid-ari- is of profound importance for European history. Jordanes was in large part a compiler, and he patched together facts or statements from many different sources with no regard at all for the times and places these sources were written. Yet when he reports about groups and events for which he has contemporary information, he seems to have been accurate and therefore we can trust his statements.
During his lifetime, an institution that would subsequently have worldwide importance was in the process of formation. In Germanic it was called Vinid-, in the Byzantine cultural sphere Σκλαβην-/Sclavīn-, and (later) in the Islamic world aṣ-Ṣaqlab. From Jordanes we can deduce that these terms were originally neither ethnic nor linguistic in meaning, but organizational. What was involved was a new kind of military organization, but one similar to groups which repeatedly were formed in the course of the rise of steppe or sea paces. Paesants from different hamlets, often diverse in ethnic origin but always similar in parochial outlook, after having spent some time together in a refuge - like the Vinidarii - and having undergone military training, developed into a band of professional warriors using the same lingua franca.
Let us recall two other equivalent terms used by Jordanes: the phrases vagina nationum and officina gentium, i.e., 'the vagina of bands', and the 'factory of tribes' (§ 25). These are revealing metaphors, surely, meaning the whole system of attracting raw recruits, gathering them into a training ground whose location was, for the observers in the sedentary empires, mysterious or even fantastic, and then se[n]ding out terrifying masses of trained soldiers in sudden and devastating attacks against distant territories. Even from Jordanes's data, it is evident that Scandinavia was not the original home (Urheimat) of the Goths. Berig had assembled his people there to train them for his planned military campaigns on the European continent. Both Scandinavia and the Vistula delta - like Mongolia earlier and later, and like the Zaporogian Sič in the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries - were training centers for the transformation of peasants (or pasturalists, or even fishermen) from the surrounding territories into a class of professional warriors.

This is, then, another instance of a phenomenon which kept repeating in Eurasian history. The non-historical pastoralists or peasants beyond the limes of the existing historical empires (Rome, Iran, China), who had no experience with the larger world, and whose parochial interests therefore did not in any way predispose them to larger political bodies, were more often than not forced into undergoing a period of training that absorbed them into one larger body. This process, which usually lasted over successive generations for at least one century, created an upper class among the trainees that was cognizant of larger political bodies. That class became ready to take part in strengthening a pax and in forging the parochial dialects into a standard medium of communication for the entire pax. Linguae francae developed that embraced diverse linguistic entities into a «common language», whether based on Turkic or Slavic (or other) materials. Upon the demise of the pax, it was possible for several full-fledged «daughter languages» to emerge. This involves a concept of language development often ignored by those who take too literally the model of the genealogical tree of language as it was elaborated during the age of Romanticism. Rather than seeing only branches that continually sprout new branches, we are saying that a lingua franca which has evolved in order to serve large areas itself becomes a new and fairly uniform «tree» that then slowly puts forth new branches.
I spent four decades studying all twenty-two living Turkic languages, along with all the extinct forms that are known, with the aim of uncovering a Proto-Turkic stage (or perhaps more than one). I could not escape the conclusion that the oldest reconstructable common Turkic is the stage which directly preceded the oldest Turkic written texts, about 550-650, that is to say the time when the Turkic pax with its lingua franca, essentially free of dialectal diversities, was created.
My friend and colleague, Horace G. Lunt, has recently told me that he has had essentially the same experience with Slavic material. The oldest reconstructable Slavic differs so little from attested Old Church Slavonic, whose normalized form can be put in the ninth century, that OCS itself must be considered a dialect form of Common Slavic, and a dialect-free stage could be envisaged for as late as 750-800.

Historians have generally used linguistic abstractions, such as the notion of Common Slavic, for their own purposes, without trying to discover what objective reality was behind them. We need to try rather to study concrete peoples in concrete situations, insofar as this is possible. It is my conviction that only a method of historical sociolinguistics, such as we are suggesting here, can produce valid answers to our valid questions.
Let us turn to another equation made by Jordanes in his introduction (§ 35). He presents the Antes as the same, apparently meaning the same society, as the Sclaveni, although they are stronger than the Sclaveni. There are two points to be considered before we turn to the etymology of this name. The first is the minor but perhaps significant fact that Jordanes has the plural form Antes [71] (Antium), which is unexpected as an equivalent of the Greek Ἄνται (sg. Ἄντης) of all other sources [72]. The second is that this group appears and disappears during the brief span between 535 and 602 in Procopius, Menander, Agathias, Pseudo-Mauricius, Theophylact Simocattes and Theophanes [73]; it is only Jordanes that mentions Antes outside this period. He brings them up in connection with the Ostrogoths at the end of the fourth century. In a passage explicitly derived from old sources (and perhaps we may assume here the Gothic songs Jordanes mentions in his introduction), Jordanes relates how the resistance of the Antes was crushed by the Gothic king Vinitharius (fl. about 400). He captured Boz, «rex» of the Antes, and crucified him along with his sons and seventy nobles (primates, § 247). At that time, namely during the «third habitat», the Goths lived super limbum Ponti, « above an arm of the Pontic Sea », that is, in the curve north of the Black Sea, between the Dniester and Dnieper rivers (§ 82), called the Lukomorie in sources from Kievan Rus' [74]. Hence Jordanes never actually defines the current habitat of the Antes in his own time, but merely recounts at second hand tales about the glorious past of the Goths. A reasonable hypothesis is that the Antes/Antai, like the Vinid- (who, as we already know, merged in Jordanes's mind with the Venedae of classical times) were present in the Gothic oral traditions. The Vinid- were linked with the great Ostrogothic king Hermanarich (d. 375) who, having overpowered the Heruli, forced them and the Baltic Aesti to submit to his rule (§ 119) [75].
As for the other historians, speaking of near-contemporary events of the sixth century, their statements are remarkably vague. In Pseudo-Mauricius Σκλάβοι and Ἄνται are always linked, in that order, while Procopius has Σκλαβηνοί and Ἄνται four times, but Ἄνται and Σκλαβηνοί three times, though does mention the Ἄνται alone in two extensive passages. In fact, it appears that this name had no precise meaning to the sixth-century historians.
This analysis shows clearly that §§ 35-36 do not contain precious information about the topography of the putative three branches of the Slavs, contrary to the belief of many scholars. Rather, apart from the current location of the Sclaveni in Jordanes's former homeland, Pannonian Moesia (a civitate Novietunense et laco qui appellatur Mursiano, § 35) and the information on the non-Slavic Vistula Vinidarii, all the data are only various insertions the compiler took from different sources, whether classical writings or oral traditions, of the Goths themselves. Jordanes put the Vinid-, Sclaveni and Antes together not on the basis of ethnic or linguistic criteria, but because all three terms refer to institutions of military colonists on frontier territories. Although this findings may dismay Slavists, it will help historians understand the process of nation-building in medieval Europe and Asia [76].
(75) In § 36 in the introduction, the Vinid- (Vidivarii) are mentioned just before the Aesti; surely this is part of the traditional association with Hermanarich.



Besides Lithuanians have more claim to the term venedae than slavs as they where far more numerous and their lands stretched from the baltic to near the black sea at the time slavs appeared in the medieval times. IIRC , lithuanians also had Fenni and bastanae

[Taranis]

I doubt it, Milograd culture was replaced by Zarubintsy culture which have its origin in Pomeranian culture. In that area cultures changed quite frequently so talking about Proto-Slavs earlier then Zarubintsy culture is just unsupported speculation.

I concede that it is speculative, but it is not unsupported: the reconstructable vocabulary of Proto-Slavic is supportive of the area of the Milograd Culture. For example, there's a native Proto-Slavic word for "birch" (cognate exists respectively in Baltic and in Germanic, eg. Russian "bereza" versus Lithuanian "beržas", German "Birke"), while the word for "beech" is evidently borrowed from Germanic (Polish "buk" versus German "Buche"). To me, this suggests the original Slavic homeland was in an area where birches but no beeches grew. I might add that this is in reversal also a decisive argument that Proto-Slavic cannot have originated in the steppe (ie, southern Ukraine) - since birches do not grow there.

Also, this goes without saying, but the speakers of Proto-Slavic - at the very early stages of the language, too - must have lived somewhere, no? In my opinion, the Milograd Culture is the best candidate.

[matbir]

Sorry I missed this one. It is possible that we see an example of creation of Polish ethnicity in educated spheres at this time period. It is 300 years after Mieszko's unification. This process was ongoing for 400 years, from nonexistent to wildly accepted. However keep in mind that this text was written by Latin and German speaking monks, and most likely of German ethnicity. In this case Germans could call all slavic speakers of this region as Polish, and not necessarily it means that slavic Silesians called themselves Polish.
Humoristically, this first "polish" sentence was spoken by Czech person. Perhaps this monk couldn't differentiate Czech from Polish, or these languages were very close at this time. Also, I've never found carbon dating on this document to make sure it is an original from around 1270 or is it a copy from 100 or 200 years later.
A nice read from Witold Hermaszewski :
http://whermaszewski.wordpress.com/2...a-henrykowska/

I have read whole Hermaszewski’s tekst, his clues contradicts yours. ;)
1. Monk the author of the book was wery well informed about history of local community, so it is likely that he knew well how to distinguish Poles from Czechs.
2. The knight had Czech origin but he had Polish wife and he leaved among Poles, so the most probable is that he used Polish language to speak with his wife.
3. Polish ethnicity was already created in feudal class in 11^th century. The best prove for that is the crisis of state 1034-1039/40. Duke Kazimierz was forced to leave the country, he get back fife years later and took the throne the only one who had power to oppose him was Miesław cześnik of Polish king Mieszko II, he was defeated at the Battle of Pobiedziska in 1041.

It is ok M458 diversity could have been original leftovers of this location (Poland) it doesn't mean it came with Slavs. M458 is 10 ky old.

I wish we had more certainty than relying on a guess and someone hopes.

As I promised here are my points why there were no population replacement in Poland during migration period:
My map made to clarify my points.

1. Analysis of Mielnik-Sikorska et al.(2012)
Table 4. Red points on map are representing samples from table.

Rst values shows that modern northern Slavic population reveals ancient division in two groups of proto-Slavs northern one and southern one( reported before in Morozova et al.(2011) – mtDNA).
According theory of spread of Slaves in late antiquity and early middle ages the roads of migration to the west leaded from Ukraine/Belarus to Poland and from Ukraine through Carpathian mountains to Pannonian Basin and then to Bohemia, Alps and Dinaric Alps( drown in orange).
Southern road:
There are two samples from Lviv so values will be written that way: 1/2
Distance in a straight line.
Lviv – Użhorod 0.007/0.002 distance 185 km (barrier Carpathian Mountains)
Lviv – Bratislava -0.004/0.005 distance 540 km
Lviv – Bohemia 0.018/0.028 distance 650 km – 0.0028 per 100 km/0.0043 per 100 km ( marked on map with brown line)
It is clear that these populations are very close to each other, what supports mass migration from Ukraine to Pannonian Basin in early middle ages.
Northern road:
Lviv – Lublin 0.042/0.046 distance 188 km – 0.0223 per 100 km/0.0298 per 100 km ( marked on map with brown line)
Concerning that Lviv was part of Poland from 1340 to 1795 but it was influenced by Polish culture and people until 1945. There are many known relations from 14^th and 15^th century that many Polish settlers converted to orthodox faith and assimilated in to local Ruthenian population. So probably that Rst value could have been higher for medieval Population from Lublin and Lviv. Rst value increases 7 to 10 times faster with distance from Lviv to Lublin then from Lviv to Central Bohemia while on second road there are multiple barriers for migration.
Alternative road is from Pripet marshes.
Ivanava – Lublin 0.0075 distance 228 km
It seems that this are very close related populations, but Ivanava sample comes from YHRD where it is described as 35 haplotypes so we are dealing with little sample size.
This closeness could be caused by mentioned by Nestor migration of Vyatichi and Radimichs, because Ivanava is small Town in sparsely populated area this could be some relic of this migration( migration marked in green on map). One more supporting fact is that in Underhill et al.(2009) M458 in Central Belarus was confirmed only in 4% of the sample while in Poland near Lublin in Zamość it was found to nine times more frequent.
2. Good indicator to show differences between Polish and Ukrainian/Belorussian populations is to check frequencies of subclades of haplogroup I and combined with frequency of haplgroup R1a. (various studies, reference points marked in yellow on map)

Belarus:		I1/I2a1/I2a2	R1a		sample size
South West		9.8/17.2/0	46.7		122			(Klyosov 2013)
West Polesia		8.3/25.6/0	44.6		121			(Kushnierevich 2013)
East Polesia		4.2/26/0	42.7		96			(Kushnierevich 2013)
Average		7.4/22.9/0	44.7		339
Ukraine:
Lviv		4.6/20.8/2.6	44.8		154			(Mielnik-Sikorska 2012 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Poland:
Zamość		4/14.1/0	56.6		99			(Battaglia 2009)
Białystkok		3.2/17.2/2.2	53.8		186			(Pepinski 2004 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Mazovia		5.1/12.9/2.4	56.5		255			(Stoltyszewski 2006 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kurpie		7/8.2/1.9	61.4		158			(Rębała 2012)
Bydgoszcz		6.1/7.6/0.8	57.6		132			(Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Northern Poland		7.3/10.9/1.8	55		507			( Pawłowski 2003 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kociewie		8.2/5.7/1.9	57.6		158			( Rębała 2012)
Gdańsk		6.7/10.1/1.9	57.7		208			( Rębała 2005 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kashubia		13.7/2.9/1.5	62.3		204			( Rębała 2012)
Polish cost		10.3/5.1/1.3	59		78			( Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Average		7.2/9.5/1.6	57.8		1985
Sorbs:		9.8/3.3/1.6	65		123			( Rębała 2012)
Slovakia:
Bratislava		5.5/15/1.8	45.1		164			(Rębała 2012)
Czech Republic:
Average		5.1/8.6/2.7	34.2		257			( Luca 2006)

To analyze data further I need to calculate relative frequencies to haplogroup, which is the best to help me trace migration of Slaves. I2a1 is very rare or absent from places where modern Germanic population lives and is virtually absent from areas settled by ancient or early medieval Germanic people. I have excluded I2a1 – M26 from relative frequencies; 1 sample from Kashubia and three from Bohemia because it is virtually absent from Central and Eastern Europe.

Belarus-Polesia:		0.323/1/0		1.952
Ukraine-Lviv:		0.221/1/0.125		2.154
Poland-Average:		0.758/1/0.168		6.084
Sorbs:		2.97/1/0.485		19.697
Slovakia-Bratislava:		0.367/1/0.12		3.001
Bohemia:		0.689/1/0.365		4.621

Analysis of relative frequencies in southern road:

Lviv – Bratislava: change of relative frequencies:
I1	increased by factor		1.66
I2a2	decreased by factor		0.96
R1a	increased by factor		1.39
Bratislava – Bohemia:
I1	increased by factor		1.88
I2a2	increased by factor		3.04
R1a	increased by factor		1.54
Comparison Lviv-Bohemia:
I1	increased by factor		3.12
I2a2	increased by factor		2.92
R1a	increased by factor		2.15

Conclusion:
Changes of relative frequencies of analyzed haplogroups is clinal. Final changes along analyzed road are around 2 and 3. This changes occur in two steps, with similar rate per step, what makes genetic drift not appropriate model to explain results. Simultaneous migration and assimilation of some local significantly smaller groups then immigrating one explains observed changes in relative frequencies.
The composition of assimilated groups could have been complex, in Panonian Basin before Slaves lived many ethnic groups of different origins, Germanic, Celtic, Sarmatian, Panonian( Illyrian) and Dacian tribes. This assimilated elements probably ware similar to modern Bavarian but poorer with I1 and richer with R1a. Slavic population of Bohemia could have been enriched in R1a from Oder and Vistula Basin by migration through Moravian Gate ( marked with two red lines and green arrow on map).
I tried to find haplogroup composition of that pre-Slavic population of Bohemia, here are results:

Bratislava frequencies of R1a/R1b				45.1/15.2%
Bohemia R1a/R1b frequency				34.2/28%
Pre Slavic Bohemian:				I1/I2a1/I2a2/R1a/R1b
				5/0/3.5/17.9/45

Modern Czech population could be mixture of that pre-Slavic in 40% with that from Bratislava in 60%.
Analysis of relative frequencies in northern road:
Polesia - Poland:

I1	increased by factor		2.35
I2a2	increased from		0 to 0.168
R1a	increased by factor		3.12
Poland-Sorbs:
I1	increased by factor		3.92
I2a2	increased by factor		2.89
R1a	increased by factor		3.24
Comparison Polesia-Sorbs:
I1	increased by factor		9.2
I2a2	increased from		0 to 0.485
R1a	increased by factor		10.09

Situation in Northern European Plane during migration period, was marked by population outflow to south and west, and population dropped by two-thirds (in Vistula Basin ). From eastern part of this area in Pripyat Marches and middle Dnieper Slaves migrated to Vistula, then Oder and next to Elbe. Before migration period basins of that three rivers were inhabited by Germanic tribes. The only one group which was assimilated by migrating Slavs was this Germanic people. If migration from Polesia to Vistula Basin was mass scale population movement then population of Vistula Basin had to be richer in R1a poorer in all I subclades especially in I2a1 then modern Polish population. Modern Sorbs and Kashubians fit to this description, here is sample calculation:

				I1/I2a1/I2a2/R1a/R1b/N
Polish from Bydgoszcz:				6.1/7.6/0.8/57.6/12.9/3
Belarus-Polesia:				7.4/22.9/0/44.7/5.1/8
Sorbs:				9.8/3.3/1.6/65/9.8/0
Combined 65%Sorbs+35%Polesia:				9/10.1/1/57.9/8.2/2.8

This result is range of polish samples. So it is highly possible that immigrants from Polesia spread in Vistula Basin among people with genetic composition similar to modern Sorbs. If that would be truth, eastern Germanic tribes were genetically closer related to Protoslavic population then to any other. This theory is supported by results of commercial studies which shows many R1a subclades specific to Polish and central European area, like L260 and L365.
Changes of relative frequencies in two steps from Polesia to Sorbs is too high explain this by migration. More appropriate model describes that modern Polish population was created by much more migration events and much longer time then 1500 years. To describe Slavic migration by northern road minor migration with large scale assimilation, with decreasing influence of migrants from Polesia from about 40% in Eastern Poland to virtually 0 on Baltic coast and middle Elbe river is much more resonable. Unfortunately the only available data are for middle and lover Vistula Basin so we have big gap in central, southern and western Poland.

Ancient writers put them on the baltic coast next to the Aestii.
Since Slavs do not know sea/marine terminology then this is wrong, besides the venedi disappeared under the gothic name by 200AD.

Jordanes theory has been corrected by slavic writers....see below
(...)

Besides Lithuanians have more claim to the term venedae than slavs as they where far more numerous and their lands stretched from the baltic to near the black sea at the time slavs appeared in the medieval times. IIRC , lithuanians also had Fenni and bastanae

You have quoted Omelijan Pritsak’s work, but I do not thing that this is considered as good analysis of ancient texts, Tacitus and Pliny( Naturalis Historia, IV-97) mentioned Veneti/Venedi in Eastern Europe, in forest area north of Black Sea, it fits localization of Slavs. Later Jordanes relied on this.
Tac. Ger. 46:
“As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatæ, although indeed the Peucini called by some Bastarnæ, are like Germans in their language, mode of life, and in the permanence of their settlements. They all live in filth and sloth, and by the intermarriages of the chiefs they are becoming in some degree debased into a resemblance to the Sarmatæ. The Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatæ, who live in waggons and on horseback. ”
Here is map showing Zarubintsy culture( green), and location of Bastarnae( violet), Sarmatians and Scythians( yellow). Fenni ware in upper Oka river and north to the upper Dnieper. Judging from this description Veneti fits perfectly green area.
BTW some signs of name Venedi are visable in names of Russia in Finic languages( Fin. Venäläiset, Est. Venelased, ), and name for Western Slavs in German Wenden.

I concede that it is speculative, but it is not unsupported: the reconstructable vocabulary of Proto-Slavic is supportive of the area of the Milograd Culture. For example, there's a native Proto-Slavic word for "birch" (cognate exists respectively in Baltic and in Germanic, eg. Russian "bereza" versus Lithuanian "beržas", German "Birke"), while the word for "beech" is evidently borrowed from Germanic (Polish "buk" versus German "Buche"). To me, this suggests the original Slavic homeland was in an area where birches but no beeches grew. I might add that this is in reversal also a decisive argument that Proto-Slavic cannot have originated in the steppe (ie, southern Ukraine) - since birches do not grow there.

Also, this goes without saying, but the speakers of Proto-Slavic - at the very early stages of the language, too - must have lived somewhere, no? In my opinion, the Milograd Culture is the best candidate.

I know this line of argument, it does not confirm the roots of the Slavic languages ​​in Milograd culture. Sufficient for the existence of such relationship is about 800 years between rise of Zarubintsy culture and Slavic expansion. Remember that in Polesia are also many Baltic hydronyms that just may be associated to Milograd culture, otherwise there is no place for them.
The most important is basic assumption that cultural replacement results in change of cultural attributes, one of them is language. Of course archaeological studies are performed on dead objects, so we cannot ask them about their owners language.

[Sile]

I have read whole Hermaszewski’s tekst, his clues contradicts yours. ;)
1. Monk the author of the book was wery well informed about history of local community, so it is likely that he knew well how to distinguish Poles from Czechs.
2. The knight had Czech origin but he had Polish wife and he leaved among Poles, so the most probable is that he used Polish language to speak with his wife.
3. Polish ethnicity was already created in feudal class in 11^th century. The best prove for that is the crisis of state 1034-1039/40. Duke Kazimierz was forced to leave the country, he get back fife years later and took the throne the only one who had power to oppose him was Miesław cześnik of Polish king Mieszko II, he was defeated at the Battle of Pobiedziska in 1041.

As I promised here are my points why there were no population replacement in Poland during migration period:
My map made to clarify my points.

1. Analysis of Mielnik-Sikorska et al.(2012)
Table 4. Red points on map are representing samples from table.

Rst values shows that modern northern Slavic population reveals ancient division in two groups of proto-Slavs northern one and southern one( reported before in Morozova et al.(2011) – mtDNA).
According theory of spread of Slaves in late antiquity and early middle ages the roads of migration to the west leaded from Ukraine/Belarus to Poland and from Ukraine through Carpathian mountains to Pannonian Basin and then to Bohemia, Alps and Dinaric Alps( drown in orange).
Southern road:
There are two samples from Lviv so values will be written that way: 1/2
Distance in a straight line.
Lviv – Użhorod 0.007/0.002 distance 185 km (barrier Carpathian Mountains)
Lviv – Bratislava -0.004/0.005 distance 540 km
Lviv – Bohemia 0.018/0.028 distance 650 km – 0.0028 per 100 km/0.0043 per 100 km ( marked on map with brown line)
It is clear that these populations are very close to each other, what supports mass migration from Ukraine to Pannonian Basin in early middle ages.
Northern road:
Lviv – Lublin 0.042/0.046 distance 188 km – 0.0223 per 100 km/0.0298 per 100 km ( marked on map with brown line)
Concerning that Lviv was part of Poland from 1340 to 1795 but it was influenced by Polish culture and people until 1945. There are many known relations from 14^th and 15^th century that many Polish settlers converted to orthodox faith and assimilated in to local Ruthenian population. So probably that Rst value could have been higher for medieval Population from Lublin and Lviv. Rst value increases 7 to 10 times faster with distance from Lviv to Lublin then from Lviv to Central Bohemia while on second road there are multiple barriers for migration.
Alternative road is from Pripet marshes.
Ivanava – Lublin 0.0075 distance 228 km
It seems that this are very close related populations, but Ivanava sample comes from YHRD where it is described as 35 haplotypes so we are dealing with little sample size.
This closeness could be caused by mentioned by Nestor migration of Vyatichi and Radimichs, because Ivanava is small Town in sparsely populated area this could be some relic of this migration( migration marked in green on map). One more supporting fact is that in Underhill et al.(2009) M458 in Central Belarus was confirmed only in 4% of the sample while in Poland near Lublin in Zamość it was found to nine times more frequent.
2. Good indicator to show differences between Polish and Ukrainian/Belorussian populations is to check frequencies of subclades of haplogroup I and combined with frequency of haplgroup R1a. (various studies, reference points marked in yellow on map)

Belarus:		I1/I2a1/I2a2	R1a		sample size
South West		9.8/17.2/0	46.7		122			(Klyosov 2013)
West Polesia		8.3/25.6/0	44.6		121			(Kushnierevich 2013)
East Polesia		4.2/26/0	42.7		96			(Kushnierevich 2013)
Average		7.4/22.9/0	44.7		339
Ukraine:
Lviv		4.6/20.8/2.6	44.8		154			(Mielnik-Sikorska 2012 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Poland:
Zamość		4/14.1/0	56.6		99			(Battaglia 2009)
Białystkok		3.2/17.2/2.2	53.8		186			(Pepinski 2004 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Mazovia		5.1/12.9/2.4	56.5		255			(Stoltyszewski 2006 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kurpie		7/8.2/1.9	61.4		158			(Rębała 2012)
Bydgoszcz		6.1/7.6/0.8	57.6		132			(Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Northern Poland		7.3/10.9/1.8	55		507			( Pawłowski 2003 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kociewie		8.2/5.7/1.9	57.6		158			( Rębała 2012)
Gdańsk		6.7/10.1/1.9	57.7		208			( Rębała 2005 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kashubia		13.7/2.9/1.5	62.3		204			( Rębała 2012)
Polish cost		10.3/5.1/1.3	59		78			( Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Average		7.2/9.5/1.6	57.8		1985
Sorbs:		9.8/3.3/1.6	65		123			( Rębała 2012)
Slovakia:
Bratislava		5.5/15/1.8	45.1		164			(Rębała 2012)
Czech Republic:
Average		5.1/8.6/2.7	34.2		257			( Luca 2006)

To analyze data further I need to calculate relative frequencies to haplogroup, which is the best to help me trace migration of Slaves. I2a1 is very rare or absent from places where modern Germanic population lives and is virtually absent from areas settled by ancient or early medieval Germanic people. I have excluded I2a1 – M26 from relative frequencies; 1 sample from Kashubia and three from Bohemia because it is virtually absent from Central and Eastern Europe.

Belarus-Polesia:		0.323/1/0		1.952
Ukraine-Lviv:		0.221/1/0.125		2.154
Poland-Average:		0.758/1/0.168		6.084
Sorbs:		2.97/1/0.485		19.697
Slovakia-Bratislava:		0.367/1/0.12		3.001
Bohemia:		0.689/1/0.365		4.621

Analysis of relative frequencies in southern road:

Lviv – Bratislava: change of relative frequencies:
I1	increased by factor		1.66
I2a2	decreased by factor		0.96
R1a	increased by factor		1.39
Bratislava – Bohemia:
I1	increased by factor		1.88
I2a2	increased by factor		3.04
R1a	increased by factor		1.54
Comparison Lviv-Bohemia:
I1	increased by factor		3.12
I2a2	increased by factor		2.92
R1a	increased by factor		2.15

Conclusion:
Changes of relative frequencies of analyzed haplogroups is clinal. Final changes along analyzed road are around 2 and 3. This changes occur in two steps, with similar rate per step, what makes genetic drift not appropriate model to explain results. Simultaneous migration and assimilation of some local significantly smaller groups then immigrating one explains observed changes in relative frequencies.
The composition of assimilated groups could have been complex, in Panonian Basin before Slaves lived many ethnic groups of different origins, Germanic, Celtic, Sarmatian, Panonian( Illyrian) and Dacian tribes. This assimilated elements probably ware similar to modern Bavarian but poorer with I1 and richer with R1a. Slavic population of Bohemia could have been enriched in R1a from Oder and Vistula Basin by migration through Moravian Gate ( marked with two red lines and green arrow on map).
I tried to find haplogroup composition of that pre-Slavic population of Bohemia, here are results:

Bratislava frequencies of R1a/R1b				45.1/15.2%
Bohemia R1a/R1b frequency				34.2/28%
Pre Slavic Bohemian:				I1/I2a1/I2a2/R1a/R1b
				5/0/3.5/17.9/45

Modern Czech population could be mixture of that pre-Slavic in 40% with that from Bratislava in 60%.
Analysis of relative frequencies in northern road:
Polesia - Poland:

I1	increased by factor		2.35
I2a2	increased from		0 to 0.168
R1a	increased by factor		3.12
Poland-Sorbs:
I1	increased by factor		3.92
I2a2	increased by factor		2.89
R1a	increased by factor		3.24
Comparison Polesia-Sorbs:
I1	increased by factor		9.2
I2a2	increased from		0 to 0.485
R1a	increased by factor		10.09

Situation in Northern European Plane during migration period, was marked by population outflow to south and west, and population dropped by two-thirds (in Vistula Basin ). From eastern part of this area in Pripyat Marches and middle Dnieper Slaves migrated to Vistula, then Oder and next to Elbe. Before migration period basins of that three rivers were inhabited by Germanic tribes. The only one group which was assimilated by migrating Slavs was this Germanic people. If migration from Polesia to Vistula Basin was mass scale population movement then population of Vistula Basin had to be richer in R1a poorer in all I subclades especially in I2a1 then modern Polish population. Modern Sorbs and Kashubians fit to this description, here is sample calculation:

				I1/I2a1/I2a2/R1a/R1b/N
Polish from Bydgoszcz:				6.1/7.6/0.8/57.6/12.9/3
Belarus-Polesia:				7.4/22.9/0/44.7/5.1/8
Sorbs:				9.8/3.3/1.6/65/9.8/0
Combined 65%Sorbs+35%Polesia:				9/10.1/1/57.9/8.2/2.8

This result is range of polish samples. So it is highly possible that immigrants from Polesia spread in Vistula Basin among people with genetic composition similar to modern Sorbs. If that would be truth, eastern Germanic tribes were genetically closer related to Protoslavic population then to any other. This theory is supported by results of commercial studies which shows many R1a subclades specific to Polish and central European area, like L260 and L365.
Changes of relative frequencies in two steps from Polesia to Sorbs is too high explain this by migration. More appropriate model describes that modern Polish population was created by much more migration events and much longer time then 1500 years. To describe Slavic migration by northern road minor migration with large scale assimilation, with decreasing influence of migrants from Polesia from about 40% in Eastern Poland to virtually 0 on Baltic coast and middle Elbe river is much more resonable. Unfortunately the only available data are for middle and lover Vistula Basin so we have big gap in central, southern and western Poland.
You have quoted Omelijan Pritsak’s work, but I do not thing that this is considered as good analysis of ancient texts, Tacitus and Pliny( Naturalis Historia, IV-97) mentioned Veneti/Venedi in Eastern Europe, in forest area north of Black Sea, it fits localization of Slavs. Later Jordanes relied on this.
Tac. Ger. 46:
“As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatæ, although indeed the Peucini called by some Bastarnæ, are like Germans in their language, mode of life, and in the permanence of their settlements. They all live in filth and sloth, and by the intermarriages of the chiefs they are becoming in some degree debased into a resemblance to the Sarmatæ. The Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatæ, who live in waggons and on horseback. ”
Here is map showing Zarubintsy culture( green), and location of Bastarnae( violet), Sarmatians and Scythians( yellow). Fenni ware in upper Oka river and north to the upper Dnieper. Judging from this description Veneti fits perfectly green area.
BTW some signs of name Venedi are visable in names of Russia in Finic languages( Fin. Venäläiset, Est. Venelased, ), and name for Western Slavs in German Wenden.

I know this line of argument, it does not confirm the roots of the Slavic languages ​​in Milograd culture. Sufficient for the existence of such relationship is about 800 years between rise of Zarubintsy culture and Slavic expansion. Remember that in Polesia are also many Baltic hydronyms that just may be associated to Milograd culture, otherwise there is no place for them.
The most important is basic assumption that cultural replacement results in change of cultural attributes, one of them is language. Of course archaeological studies are performed on dead objects, so we cannot ask them about their owners language.

good article

But answer me some questions
1- why do all slavs try to kill off all balts from history ...........didn't the west-baltic barrow culture exist?...a culture associated with the Aestii and Venedi?
The balts where in control of the baltic sea , south side way way before the slavs ever existed.

2- Name me these slavic tribes........I want to see the ancient names...........sarmatians are iranic people , bulgars are turkic etc

maybe you need to read this for more proof on who the slavs where ..........relying on the plagiarist Jordanes is a very bad move the last half dozen years.

http://www.academia.edu/227794/Hidin...Slavic_Venethi

Maybe you need to find the origins in the polesine forests of Belarus and Ukraine....that's where all noteworthy Polish and Russians historians place the origins of the slavs

[LeBrok]

I have read whole Hermaszewski’s tekst, his clues contradicts yours. ;)
1. Monk the author of the book was wery well informed about history of local community, so it is likely that he knew well how to distinguish Poles from Czechs.
2. The knight had Czech origin but he had Polish wife and he leaved among Poles, so the most probable is that he used Polish language to speak with his wife.
3. Polish ethnicity was already created in feudal class in 11^th century. The best prove for that is the crisis of state 1034-1039/40. Duke Kazimierz was forced to leave the country, he get back fife years later and took the throne the only one who had power to oppose him was Miesław cześnik of Polish king Mieszko II, he was defeated at the Battle of Pobiedziska in 1041.

As I promised here are my points why there were no population replacement in Poland during migration period:
My map made to clarify my points.

1. Analysis of Mielnik-Sikorska et al.(2012)
Table 4. Red points on map are representing samples from table.

Rst values shows that modern northern Slavic population reveals ancient division in two groups of proto-Slavs northern one and southern one( reported before in Morozova et al.(2011) – mtDNA).
According theory of spread of Slaves in late antiquity and early middle ages the roads of migration to the west leaded from Ukraine/Belarus to Poland and from Ukraine through Carpathian mountains to Pannonian Basin and then to Bohemia, Alps and Dinaric Alps( drown in orange).
Southern road:
There are two samples from Lviv so values will be written that way: 1/2
Distance in a straight line.
Lviv – Użhorod 0.007/0.002 distance 185 km (barrier Carpathian Mountains)
Lviv – Bratislava -0.004/0.005 distance 540 km
Lviv – Bohemia 0.018/0.028 distance 650 km – 0.0028 per 100 km/0.0043 per 100 km ( marked on map with brown line)
It is clear that these populations are very close to each other, what supports mass migration from Ukraine to Pannonian Basin in early middle ages.
Northern road:
Lviv – Lublin 0.042/0.046 distance 188 km – 0.0223 per 100 km/0.0298 per 100 km ( marked on map with brown line)
Concerning that Lviv was part of Poland from 1340 to 1795 but it was influenced by Polish culture and people until 1945. There are many known relations from 14^th and 15^th century that many Polish settlers converted to orthodox faith and assimilated in to local Ruthenian population. So probably that Rst value could have been higher for medieval Population from Lublin and Lviv. Rst value increases 7 to 10 times faster with distance from Lviv to Lublin then from Lviv to Central Bohemia while on second road there are multiple barriers for migration.
Alternative road is from Pripet marshes.
Ivanava – Lublin 0.0075 distance 228 km
It seems that this are very close related populations, but Ivanava sample comes from YHRD where it is described as 35 haplotypes so we are dealing with little sample size.
This closeness could be caused by mentioned by Nestor migration of Vyatichi and Radimichs, because Ivanava is small Town in sparsely populated area this could be some relic of this migration( migration marked in green on map). One more supporting fact is that in Underhill et al.(2009) M458 in Central Belarus was confirmed only in 4% of the sample while in Poland near Lublin in Zamość it was found to nine times more frequent.
2. Good indicator to show differences between Polish and Ukrainian/Belorussian populations is to check frequencies of subclades of haplogroup I and combined with frequency of haplgroup R1a. (various studies, reference points marked in yellow on map)

Belarus:		I1/I2a1/I2a2	R1a		sample size
South West		9.8/17.2/0	46.7		122			(Klyosov 2013)
West Polesia		8.3/25.6/0	44.6		121			(Kushnierevich 2013)
East Polesia		4.2/26/0	42.7		96			(Kushnierevich 2013)
Average		7.4/22.9/0	44.7		339
Ukraine:
Lviv		4.6/20.8/2.6	44.8		154			(Mielnik-Sikorska 2012 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Poland:
Zamość		4/14.1/0	56.6		99			(Battaglia 2009)
Białystkok		3.2/17.2/2.2	53.8		186			(Pepinski 2004 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Mazovia		5.1/12.9/2.4	56.5		255			(Stoltyszewski 2006 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kurpie		7/8.2/1.9	61.4		158			(Rębała 2012)
Bydgoszcz		6.1/7.6/0.8	57.6		132			(Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Northern Poland		7.3/10.9/1.8	55		507			( Pawłowski 2003 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kociewie		8.2/5.7/1.9	57.6		158			( Rębała 2012)
Gdańsk		6.7/10.1/1.9	57.7		208			( Rębała 2005 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Kashubia		13.7/2.9/1.5	62.3		204			( Rębała 2012)
Polish cost		10.3/5.1/1.3	59		78			( Wozniak 2010 predicted by http://predictor.ydna.ru/)
Average		7.2/9.5/1.6	57.8		1985
Sorbs:		9.8/3.3/1.6	65		123			( Rębała 2012)
Slovakia:
Bratislava		5.5/15/1.8	45.1		164			(Rębała 2012)
Czech Republic:
Average		5.1/8.6/2.7	34.2		257			( Luca 2006)

To analyze data further I need to calculate relative frequencies to haplogroup, which is the best to help me trace migration of Slaves. I2a1 is very rare or absent from places where modern Germanic population lives and is virtually absent from areas settled by ancient or early medieval Germanic people. I have excluded I2a1 – M26 from relative frequencies; 1 sample from Kashubia and three from Bohemia because it is virtually absent from Central and Eastern Europe.

Belarus-Polesia:		0.323/1/0		1.952
Ukraine-Lviv:		0.221/1/0.125		2.154
Poland-Average:		0.758/1/0.168		6.084
Sorbs:		2.97/1/0.485		19.697
Slovakia-Bratislava:		0.367/1/0.12		3.001
Bohemia:		0.689/1/0.365		4.621

Analysis of relative frequencies in southern road:

Lviv – Bratislava: change of relative frequencies:
I1	increased by factor		1.66
I2a2	decreased by factor		0.96
R1a	increased by factor		1.39
Bratislava – Bohemia:
I1	increased by factor		1.88
I2a2	increased by factor		3.04
R1a	increased by factor		1.54
Comparison Lviv-Bohemia:
I1	increased by factor		3.12
I2a2	increased by factor		2.92
R1a	increased by factor		2.15

Conclusion:
Changes of relative frequencies of analyzed haplogroups is clinal. Final changes along analyzed road are around 2 and 3. This changes occur in two steps, with similar rate per step, what makes genetic drift not appropriate model to explain results. Simultaneous migration and assimilation of some local significantly smaller groups then immigrating one explains observed changes in relative frequencies.
The composition of assimilated groups could have been complex, in Panonian Basin before Slaves lived many ethnic groups of different origins, Germanic, Celtic, Sarmatian, Panonian( Illyrian) and Dacian tribes. This assimilated elements probably ware similar to modern Bavarian but poorer with I1 and richer with R1a. Slavic population of Bohemia could have been enriched in R1a from Oder and Vistula Basin by migration through Moravian Gate ( marked with two red lines and green arrow on map).
I tried to find haplogroup composition of that pre-Slavic population of Bohemia, here are results:

Bratislava frequencies of R1a/R1b				45.1/15.2%
Bohemia R1a/R1b frequency				34.2/28%
Pre Slavic Bohemian:				I1/I2a1/I2a2/R1a/R1b
				5/0/3.5/17.9/45

Modern Czech population could be mixture of that pre-Slavic in 40% with that from Bratislava in 60%.
Analysis of relative frequencies in northern road:
Polesia - Poland:

I1	increased by factor		2.35
I2a2	increased from		0 to 0.168
R1a	increased by factor		3.12
Poland-Sorbs:
I1	increased by factor		3.92
I2a2	increased by factor		2.89
R1a	increased by factor		3.24
Comparison Polesia-Sorbs:
I1	increased by factor		9.2
I2a2	increased from		0 to 0.485
R1a	increased by factor		10.09

Situation in Northern European Plane during migration period, was marked by population outflow to south and west, and population dropped by two-thirds (in Vistula Basin ). From eastern part of this area in Pripyat Marches and middle Dnieper Slaves migrated to Vistula, then Oder and next to Elbe. Before migration period basins of that three rivers were inhabited by Germanic tribes. The only one group which was assimilated by migrating Slavs was this Germanic people. If migration from Polesia to Vistula Basin was mass scale population movement then population of Vistula Basin had to be richer in R1a poorer in all I subclades especially in I2a1 then modern Polish population. Modern Sorbs and Kashubians fit to this description, here is sample calculation:

				I1/I2a1/I2a2/R1a/R1b/N
Polish from Bydgoszcz:				6.1/7.6/0.8/57.6/12.9/3
Belarus-Polesia:				7.4/22.9/0/44.7/5.1/8
Sorbs:				9.8/3.3/1.6/65/9.8/0
Combined 65%Sorbs+35%Polesia:				9/10.1/1/57.9/8.2/2.8

This result is range of polish samples. So it is highly possible that immigrants from Polesia spread in Vistula Basin among people with genetic composition similar to modern Sorbs. If that would be truth, eastern Germanic tribes were genetically closer related to Protoslavic population then to any other. This theory is supported by results of commercial studies which shows many R1a subclades specific to Polish and central European area, like L260 and L365.
Changes of relative frequencies in two steps from Polesia to Sorbs is too high explain this by migration. More appropriate model describes that modern Polish population was created by much more migration events and much longer time then 1500 years. To describe Slavic migration by northern road minor migration with large scale assimilation, with decreasing influence of migrants from Polesia from about 40% in Eastern Poland to virtually 0 on Baltic coast and middle Elbe river is much more resonable. Unfortunately the only available data are for middle and lover Vistula Basin so we have big gap in central, southern and western Poland.
You have quoted Omelijan Pritsak’s work, but I do not thing that this is considered as good analysis of ancient texts, Tacitus and Pliny( Naturalis Historia, IV-97) mentioned Veneti/Venedi in Eastern Europe, in forest area north of Black Sea, it fits localization of Slavs. Later Jordanes relied on this.
Tac. Ger. 46:
“As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatæ, although indeed the Peucini called by some Bastarnæ, are like Germans in their language, mode of life, and in the permanence of their settlements. They all live in filth and sloth, and by the intermarriages of the chiefs they are becoming in some degree debased into a resemblance to the Sarmatæ. The Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatæ, who live in waggons and on horseback. ”
Here is map showing Zarubintsy culture( green), and location of Bastarnae( violet), Sarmatians and Scythians( yellow). Fenni ware in upper Oka river and north to the upper Dnieper. Judging from this description Veneti fits perfectly green area.
BTW some signs of name Venedi are visable in names of Russia in Finic languages( Fin. Venäläiset, Est. Venelased, ), and name for Western Slavs in German Wenden.

I know this line of argument, it does not confirm the roots of the Slavic languages ​​in Milograd culture. Sufficient for the existence of such relationship is about 800 years between rise of Zarubintsy culture and Slavic expansion. Remember that in Polesia are also many Baltic hydronyms that just may be associated to Milograd culture, otherwise there is no place for them.
The most important is basic assumption that cultural replacement results in change of cultural attributes, one of them is language. Of course archaeological studies are performed on dead objects, so we cannot ask them about their owners language.

Great homework Matbir. I'm extremely busy at the moment, and will be for another month or so. Not enough time to concentrate on complicated matter and write intelligent response.

[FrankN]

It will be very interesting to finally learn about supposed population replacement when Slavs moved west around 6th century AD. Was current Polish land empty, or did Slavs mixed with local populations, in some degree with East Germanic tribes, or their left overs like Goths, Vandals, Svabians, or whoever was left there? I think the land was depopulated but certainly not empty. Slavization of Germanic population most likely occurred.
Other interesting fact is huge Germanic demographics in Polish cities during middle ages. To the degree that in many cities official language was German, even in Polish capitol Krakow (Cracow).

One can notice that Poland was always the place where cultural pendulum was swinging from germanic to slavic from slavic to germanic, beck and forth many times over.

Living in a place that used to be Slavonic until the 12th century, I have been wondering about this myself already for some time. I feel this is a good opportunity to present some of my findings and conclusion, also as they may be pertinent to Mathir's highly interesting attempt to reconstruct Slavic population movement from genetic data.

For the area covered during the LGM, i.e. the Northern European Plain north-east of the approximate line Hannover-Berlin-Bydgoszcz. multiple pollen analyses from sediments of glacial lakes, and from swamp areas, are available. Most of them point to a dramatic, though not complete drop in agricultural land use around the 5th/6th century, followed by a small recovery around the 8th/ 9th century, substantial increase in the 12th century back to the level that existed during the 1st-3rd century AD, and a historical peak in the 14th and early 15th century. Interpreting these patterns needs to consider that lake/ swamp sediments have a limited catchment radius which, depending on the size of the lake in question, may cover as little as 1-2 km. The lakes/swamps are furthermore located within alluvial, i.e. sandy environments, and as such rather reflect the use of marginal lands, and not agriculture along fertile river marshes. As such, the pollen diagrams are likely to overstate actual changes in human land use.

On a closer look, comparing various locations reveals the existence of two diametrically opposite trends. In Western Germany, the agricultural decline already commences in the early 1st century AD. In several parts of Westphalia, agricultural land use drops by around 50% from the first century BC to the 3rd century AD. The drop is most likely related to Roman attempts to conquer lands east of the Rhine, but may also reflect contemporary Germanic incursions into previously Celtic areas. A 50% drop in cereal pollen reported from Dithmarschen (Riesenwohld) north of the Upper Elbe between the 1st and 3rd century AD, however, is obviously linked to Roman fleet expeditions during this period. At the same time, there is a marked increase in agricultural land use further east. This corresponds to Roman reports of a mass flight of Germanics across the Elbe during Drusus' campaign (12-9 BC).
Another marked drop in agricultural land use in Westphalia, to only 10-15% of the pre-Roman peak, occurs in the early 3rd century BC. Such a drop can also be observed in several locations further East, e.g. Herzberg on the south-western Harz (Jues-See), and is most likely linked to the Roman incursions under Emperors Severus Alexander and/or Maximilian Thrax (for background see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_at_the_Harzhorn). Here, again, agricultural land use further east shows a contemporary increase, indicating further Germanic migration away from areas threatened by Roman incursions.
During the migration period, Westphalia is repopulated. By as early as around 475 AD in some areas, e.g. around Rheine, and in the second half of the 6th century across all of Westphalia, agricultural land use returns to the level observed during the 1st-3rd century AD. This is interpreted as sign of Saxon immigration from north-east of the Elbe, promoted by the fact that the Franks had eliminated the danger of Roman incursions. Simultaneously, agricultural land use in Dithmarschen, i.e. the northern upper Elbe, picks up strongly, almost reaching 14h/15th century peak level. This means that the Upper Elbe area, even though it may have contributed to the Anglo-Saxon migration into England, has probably been a net immigration region during the 5th-8th century AD.

East of a line that more or less corresponds to the maximum extend of Slavic settlement during the early middle ages, the trends are opposite. Southwest of the Elbe, there are significant signs of dips during periods of Roman incursions (turn of the millennium, early 3rd century), which correspond to settlement increase further east, and (partial) recovery thereafter. Then, at latest by the mid 6th century, agricultural land use declines suddenly and massively. In the case of the well-studied Belau Lake in eastern Holstein, e.g., settlement indicators decrease from more than 30% of all pollen in the early 5th century and around 25% in the early 6th century to below 10% in the late 6th century. This corresponds to archaeological evidence of various settlements that have been given up around 550 BC. During the late 7th century, in the Belau lake sediments settlement indicators increase steeply to 20-25%. They remain at that level until around 1150, i.e. the beginning of German colonolisation. Then, another steep and steady incline to more than 55% by the beginning of the 14th century takes place. Similar patterns have been observed in other places, e.g. the Müritz lakes in Mecklenburg, and swamps in the Hanoverian Wendland SE of Luneburg, where, however, the local stratigraphy is more compressed, so dating of the changes is subject to higher uncertainty.
German Wikipedia furthermore reports a substantial increase in forest coverage (which implies substantial reduction of agricultural land use) all along the Pomeranian and South Swedish Baltic Sea coast during the Migration Period. Pollen diagrams from Rybojady on the Obra river west of Posznan show a strong increase in agricultural use including cereal production during the late Iron Age / Roman period, possibly indicating immigration from Western Germany after the Roman conquest attempt. Here. however, settlement already declines markedly during the 4th century AD, with an abrupt break in the presence of cereal pollen from approximately 400 AD on. Recovery, including re-emergence of cereal production, already commences in the 7th century, some 50-100 years earlier than in Eastern Holstein.

Interestingly, just west of the line settled by Slavs, the pattern is quite different. Sediments in the Einfeld Lake, just 20 km west of the Belau Lake, do not show any traces of agricultural decline during the 6th and 7th century, and even a first, temporary cereal production peak during the 9th century, at a time when nearby Neumünster was the political centre of Saxon Middle Holstein. Similarly, pollen from the Elbaer Moor, a few km north of Luneburg, and less than 15km west of the area where Slavic village names start to dominate, does hardly show signs of agricultural and settlement decline during the 5th to 7th century. However, grain production may have been temporarily reduced, while animal husbandry increased simultaneously. Here, strong agricultural and settlement expansion commences already in the early middle ages, probably as early as by the mid-8th century AD.

I realise that this post has already become quite long, so I will discuss and interpret patterns in a subsequent post. Nevertheless, below already links to my sources. They are all in German, but enclosed pollen diagrams may still be illustrative:

• Kollsee / Kosel (Angeln, north of the Eider):
  https://www.uni-kiel.de/ufg/bereiche...afeln%2017.htm
• Riesenwohld, Dithmarschen (northern Upper Elbe):
  http://www.museum-albersdorf.de/riesewohld/rwpollen.htm
• Westphalia (Diagram with settlement indicators on p. 109):
  http://www.ghl-westmuensterland.de/m...lenanalyse.pdf
• Belau Lake, East Holstein (Diagram on p. 233):
  http://www.uppakra.se/backup/docs/uppakra6/17_Jons.pdf
• Einfeld Lake, Neumunster, Middle Holstein (Diagram on p. 70):
  https://www.umweltdaten.landsh.de/nu...een_Typ_11.pdf
• Luneburg area (Diagrams on p. 19 and p. 29):
  http://ediss.uni-goettingen.de/bitst...pdf?sequence=1
• Herzberg/ Harz: http://home.snafu.de/voigt.buss/pskizze.htm
• Western Brandenburg: http://www.academia.edu/6761602/Jahns_S._et_al._2013_Pollenanalytische_Untersuchun gen_am_Rudower_See_und_Rambower_Moor_zur_holozanen _Vegetations-_und_Siedlungsgeschichte_in_der_westlichen_Prignit z_Brandenburg._In_Heske_I._Nusse_H.-J._Schneeweiss_J._eds_._Gottinger_Schriften_zur_Vo r-_und_Fruhgeschichte_33_277-293
• Müritz, Mecklenburg:
  http://books.google.de/books?id=LHDD...derung&f=false
• Oder and Obra (Warthe) valleys, Brandenburg / West Poland (various diagrams at the end of the document):
  https://ediss.uni-goettingen.de/bits...pdf?sequence=1

For a general discussion, with strong focus on methodological issues, see http://www.academia.edu/1550778/Uber...orddeutschland

[FrankN]

To sum up my previous post, pollen diagrams reveal the following significant population movements in Eastern Germany and northern Poland during the Roman and Migration Periods and the early middle ages:

1. At the beginning of the 1st millennium AD, Roman attempts to conquer Germania Magna drive significant numbers of West Germanics (and possibly also Continental Celts) across the Elbe. This displacement reaches out far beyond the Oder, either directly or via Domino Effects. [Assuming that Polish scientists have also prepared pollen analyses, I invite Forum members who understand Polish to examine respective publications and check out how far to the east these population movements really extended. The Marcomannic Wars may have lead to movements out of Moravia and into Silesia, which might also show up in pollen diagrams.]
2. At the beginning of the migration period, there is a widespread, sudden and massive drop in settlement along the Baltic Sea coast and its extended hinterland. This drop starts sometimes during the early fifth century somewhere in Eastern Pomerania, and progresses westwards over the next century until it comes to a halt around 550 AD in Middle Holstein, at the Ilmenau river in Lower Saxony, and near (probably east of) the Harz mountains [Again, Polish pollen diagrams might help to clearer identify the starting point and time of this process].
3. Repopulation, most likely driven by Slavic immigration, takes place during the seventh century. Pollen diagrams suggest a westward movement along or parallel to the Baltic coast, other movements (up the Oder and Elbe) might have also occurred, but can't be traced from the pollen diagrams that I have examined. By the end of the seventh century, the migration reaches the middle Elbe and East Holstein. Since settlement remains rather constant over the following 350 years, there seems to only have been one immigration / expansion wave from the east. In the repopulated (slavicised) areas, settlement density during the early middle ages appear to have been substantially (30-50% ?) lower than during the 1st-4th century AD.
4. In the second half of the twelfth century, a strong and steady increase in settlement begins, which peaks by the late 14th century. This increase starts in East Holstein around 1150 and moves eastwards. It reaches the Oder around 1250, and the Wartha around 1300. The geographical spread and the timeline correspond well to the German colonisation. At the late 14th century peak, settlement-indicating pollen are at least double as frequent as during Roman times, and around three times as frequent as during the early (Slavic) middle age.

What caused the sudden and massive population drop of the 5th -6th century?

• The Justinian Plague, which commenced in the Eastern Mediterranean around 541 AD, can be ruled out for Eastern Pomerania, where the drop already occurred earlier. Further to the west, the drop is more or less contemporary to the Plague. However, the fact that some places were virtually deserted, while others, only a few kilometres further west, show hardly any sign of population decrease, makes it rather unlikely that the drop was primarily caused by an epidemic. The Plague may, however, have delayed repopulation of deserted areas.
• Climate change: Between the 4th and 8th century AD, the European climate became colder and wetter (Migration Period Pessimum). Around 580 AD, Gregory of Tours reported various long winters, heavy rains, floods, poor harvests and famines throughout the Frankish Empire. Pollen diagrams testify for such a weather change in north-central Europe, which, among others, resulted in increasingly planting rye instead of wheat, and/or a temporary shift from farming towards animal husbandry. This also documents that farmers along the coasts had developed and used strategies to mitigate the impact of climate change. The change may nevertheless be responsible for some population decrease, especially a slight drop in settlement along the Oder and Wartha valleys that occurred already in the late 4th century AD, or the 5th century population decline along the upper Weser (a flood-prone area). However, it can neither explain the sudden, massive and widespread drop in settlement that occurred along the Baltic Sea and its hinterland, nor why nearby regions with similar climate and topography did not show such a drop (Middle Holstein), or even increased settlement (Dithmarschen). The latter case is instructive, as it displays a substantial increase in pasture, at the expense of forests - a mitigation strategy that in principle should also have been possible near the Baltic Sea.
• The Huns: The Hunnic incursion into Central Europe commenced with the destruction of the Ostrogoth kingdom in southern Ukraine in 375; their dominance of Central Europe ended when Attila died in 453. The Huns are likely to have heavily influenced population trends in southern Poland / Silesia, but most of the population drop along the Baltic Sea occurred when their power was already broken. While they are thus unlikely to directly have caused the population decline, they should nevertheless have substantially weakened the Baltic economic base by blocking trade links with the Mediterranean, especially the network of amber routes. Successors to the Huns, such as the late 5th century Herulian kingdom around the middle Danube and lower Morava, however, attempted to re-establish (amber) trade with the Baltic Sea, so the economic downturn should in principle only have been temporary, and no reason to massively leave the western and central Baltic coasts.
• Immigration pull: The collapse of the Roman empire obviously provided for various attractive migration opportunities: England, France, the Rhineland, Westphalia, Bavaria & Austria south of the Danube, the western Balkans, even Italy. However, if such opportunities had been the main migration motive, one would expect an west-easterly pattern - the closer an area to "attractive" immigration regions, the higher the decline in population and settlement. But the observed pattern is the other way round: Emigration starts in the east, progresses westward over time, and north of the Lower Elbe, from where it is easy to get to England or the Netherlands, people (refugees?) are piling up. This doesn't mean that the availability of migration opportunities, especially towards the newly established Germanic kingdoms along the middle Danube, was irrelevant. To the opposite - it surely helped communities to decide for emigration. However, I don't think it was the main factor. The existing population was primarily pushed out - otherwise the drop in settlement would have been much smaller and spread out over time.
• Emigration push: Recent excavations along the projected course of the A20 motorway have uncovered defensive earthworks along the watershed between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea in Middle Holstein, next to remains of a small settlement that was apparently given up around 550 AD. The earthworks (a palisade-covered earth wall behind a small trench, 700 m of which have been excavated between a swamp and a lakeshore) are a mystery to excavators. It is the first time such structures have been found in Northern Germany, though the excavator (whom I met during a presentation of his results) is aware of similar findings in Denmark. Apparently, people in middle Holstein and further up through Jutland had reason to defend themselves against incursions from the Baltic Coast.
  I know I am getting highly speculative here, but the most plausible explanation to me is a "Varangian-style" pattern that emerged somewhere in the Central / Eastern Baltic Sea (Central Swedish Coast? Gotland? "Venedii" east of the Vistula?). Originally coming by boat to trade in their amber or furs, they find out that locals are either unable or unwilling to trade with them (as the trade link further on to the Mediterranean has been blocked by the Huns). In order to not return empty-handed, the "visitors" shift from trading into pillaging mode, which over a few years should suffice to convince the locals of the need to emigrate. With the initial "partners" gone, further villages along the coast and up the rivers are "visited", until most of the local population has fled the area. When trade with the Mediterranean is finally re-established, it lacks trade hubs along the western Baltic Sea and is thus re-routed towards the East (the Varangian route along the Dnepr) or the West (the Frankish-controlled Rhine). This re-routing in turn substantially affects the population further inland (to the extent they haven't already been pushed out by the Huns, as was apparently the case with Vandals & Suebi), especially along the upper Elbe and Oder, in Silesia, Bohemia and Moravia, which causes further out-migration.

[LeBrok]

Bravo FrankN. Great research and summary. I wish I had time to dive into the subject. Maybe in a month.