Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

Should the article about Poland be rewritten?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • No

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14
"Above Dacia are the Peucini..." - wrote Ptolemy.

Where is Dacia? We know where.

Now Tacitus, Germania, 46 - wrote that the Venedae inhabited all forests, etc. between the Peucini and the Fenni.

Who are the Fenni? The Fenni are Finnic-speakers, such as Estonians and Livonians (the latter are nowadays almost extinct).

So the Venedae extended between Livonians-Estonians (or other related tribes) in the north, and almost Dacia in the south.

This confirms the idea that they lived from the Baltic Sea almost to the Carpathians. Of course they were intermingled with others.

Not sure why we have an idea that ancient ethnic composition within space consisted of continuous and very compact mono-ethnic areas. IMO it was more similar to 19th century Balkan or modern Middle Eastern "ethnic Flickenteppich", with various ethnic groups / tribes living intermingled with each other.

look at my link on post # 136...now look at map of ptolemy on page 126...

Original Ptolemy's map of European Sarmatia was not preserved. All such maps are either modern or Medieval interpretations.

As for Jordanes - for whatever reason, he is calling Slavic people (or one branch of them - depending how you interpret his account) Venedi.

Later Germans commonly applied the name Wends to their Slavic neighbours, so did the Danes. And Slovenes were called Winds until the 20th century.

I don't know if Slavic peoples (including Slovenes) used those names when describing themselves, but others did apply those names to them.

It might be a bit like with Welsh people. Welsh people called themselves Brythons. Welsh is a name applied to them by Anglo-Saxon neighbours.

English "Vlach" and "Welsh" are similar names both originating from the same Germanic word meaning "foreigners", even though one of these names describes Celtic-speakers while the other one Romanian-speakers. So it is possible that some of names of distant tribes and peoples from Roman and Greek sources were actually such generic terms which covered peoples belonging to more than one ethno-linguistic groups.
 
What the heck, albanopolis? Such racist nonsense won't be tolerated here. Banned.
No offense Taranis; but I feel that this was a bad call. I know he was being racist, but maybe you could have gave him at least a warning. Maybe you should give Albanapolis another chance.
 
"Above Dacia are the Peucini..." - wrote Ptolemy.

Where is Dacia? We know where.

Now Tacitus, Germania, 46 - wrote that the Venedae inhabited all forests, etc. between the Peucini and the Fenni.

Who are the Fenni? The Fenni are Finnic-speakers, such as Estonians and Livonians (the latter are nowadays almost extinct).

So the Venedae extended between Livonians-Estonians (or other related tribes) in the north, and almost Dacia in the south.

This confirms the idea that they lived from the Baltic Sea almost to the Carpathians. Of course they were intermingled with others.

Not sure why we have an idea that ancient ethnic composition within space consisted of continuous and very compact mono-ethnic areas. IMO it was more similar to 19th century Balkan or modern Middle Eastern "ethnic Flickenteppich", with various ethnic groups / tribes living intermingled with each other.



Original Ptolemy's map of European Sarmatia was not preserved. All such maps are either modern or Medieval interpretations.

As for Jordanes - for whatever reason, he is calling Slavic people (or one branch of them - depending how you interpret his account) Venedi.

Later Germans commonly applied the name Wends to their Slavic neighbours, so did the Danes. And Slovenes were called Winds until the 20th century.

I don't know if Slavic peoples (including Slovenes) used those names when describing themselves, but others did apply those names to them.

It might be a bit like with Welsh people. Welsh people called themselves Brythons. Welsh is a name applied to them by Anglo-Saxon neighbours.

English "Vlach" and "Welsh" are similar names both originating from the same Germanic word meaning "foreigners", even though one of these names describes Celtic-speakers while the other one Romanian-speakers. So it is possible that some of names of distant tribes and peoples from Roman and Greek sources were actually such generic terms which covered peoples belonging to more than one ethno-linguistic groups.

From what I know from a study I read; I believe English people are nearly half (45%) Brythonic Celtic (similar to Welsh, Cornish, Breton French) and half (55%) Norse/Dane Viking on average. (Essentially, the same genetics as a Frenchman from Brittany/Normandy.) From a study I read, only about 2 million English people actually posses Anglo-Saxon genetics. (Which is surprising considering the English language has a major Anglo-Saxon influence.)

I believe Anglo-Saxon genetics are mostly centered around Kent, (or the original area where the Anglo Saxons settled; in Southeast England.) They have a very small proportion of Roman genetics at 1% frequency. Interesting information I read from a genetic study. I'm sorry I cannot provide any sources (as I forgot them) but this is what I heard about the genetic admixture of the British people.

---

Also, I wanted to ask you something: do you believe that Hungarians have a Scythian and/or a Sarmatian origin? Although it seems they speak a Siberian Asian language. (unless Uralic is actually Caucasian) I wonder if the pre-Hungarians formed a nomadic heredity (mix of tribes), and this is where they (East Europeans such as Scythians + Sarmatians) lost their Indo-European tongues in favor of a Uralic (Hungarian) one. This may also explain Hungarian migration into Europe from Russia, and their total lack of Siberian N1c1 (Y-DNA); that is seen in & is most prevalent amongst most the Uralic speakers. Hungarians (Magyars) also seem to lack N1c1 in the Hungarian population, whereas Baltic Indo-Europeans (Lithuans, Latvians) are seen with this Siberian haplogroup N1c1 at a higher frequency than R1a. Another good example would be other Uralic speakers such as the Finnish and the Permian people (Udmurts + Komis) who also carry a high frequency of N1c1.

It suggests that the original speakers of Hungarian, hypothetically may have been from the West of the Urals. (East Europeans)

I have yet to discover if N1c1 is East Asian in origin or if it was a European Y-DNA. But evidence and logic seem to point me in the direction that it may have had origins in the Yakuts and other Turkic/Northeastern Asian people.

Also, I have yet to discover whether or not the Uralic language group has a Caucasian origin or a Siberian Asian origin. But there is (another theory, lol) that Uralic was originally a Caucasian language group; and the Asiatic speakers of Uralic (Nenets, Mansi/Khanty/Selkup/Nganasan etc.) were once enslaved by Caucasian Uralic speakers; and were originally Turkic-Siberian in origin; but lost their Turkic languages; and essentially inheriting the Caucasian languages: (Proto-Uralic).

(I believe this theory is valid and makes logical sense; seeing as these N1c1 people are most related to the Yakuts of East Russia, who speak a Turkic language. If N1c1 is indeed Siberian/Turkic in origin; then that means that East Europeans may have bred with Siberian Asians at one point in history. This would also make further sense, if Siberian Asians were once enslaved by Eastern Europeans. Or perhaps, all were once admitted into a multi-ethnic federation, like the Huns. One circumstance in example; would be pre-Hungarians (Ugrics) keeping Asian/Siberian Turkic speakers as slaves; and the slaves that were freed eventually became the Mansi and Khanty.)
 
Last edited:
Here: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/3/5*.html



He does not claim that the Venedic mountains can be seen from the Baltic Sea. He also gives location of these mountains:



As you can see Venedici mountains were some part of the Carpathians (like today Tatra mountains are part of the Carpathians).

Also north of the Venedae - in "lower" terrain, closer to the Baltic Sea - lived the Old Prussian tribes (Galindae + Sudini):



As for Pliny:



Indeed - Pliny doesn't say that the Venedis lived along the Baltic coast. He says that they lived in lands up to the Vistula River.

They lived along most of the Vistula River, to the east of it.

see that speck of mountains south of the venetic lagoon ..............thats montes venetics
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Poland_topo.jpg

its above 54degrees on the linked map ,............. he actually states 55 degrees

Carpathian mounts are at 48 degrees


read your link , it says what I said, below the Venedic live the gythones ...........same as the russian map of the link I stated
 
"Above Dacia are the Peucini..." - wrote Ptolemy.

Where is Dacia? We know where.

Now Tacitus, Germania, 46 - wrote that the Venedae inhabited all forests, etc. between the Peucini and the Fenni.

Who are the Fenni? The Fenni are Finnic-speakers, such as Estonians and Livonians (the latter are nowadays almost extinct).

So the Venedae extended between Livonians-Estonians (or other related tribes) in the north, and almost Dacia in the south.

This confirms the idea that they lived from the Baltic Sea almost to the Carpathians. Of course they were intermingled with others.

Not sure why we have an idea that ancient ethnic composition within space consisted of continuous and very compact mono-ethnic areas. IMO it was more similar to 19th century Balkan or modern Middle Eastern "ethnic Flickenteppich", with various ethnic groups / tribes living intermingled with each other.



Original Ptolemy's map of European Sarmatia was not preserved. All such maps are either modern or Medieval interpretations.

As for Jordanes - for whatever reason, he is calling Slavic people (or one branch of them - depending how you interpret his account) Venedi.

Later Germans commonly applied the name Wends to their Slavic neighbours, so did the Danes. And Slovenes were called Winds until the 20th century.

I don't know if Slavic peoples (including Slovenes) used those names when describing themselves, but others did apply those names to them.

It might be a bit like with Welsh people. Welsh people called themselves Brythons. Welsh is a name applied to them by Anglo-Saxon neighbours.

English "Vlach" and "Welsh" are similar names both originating from the same Germanic word meaning "foreigners", even though one of these names describes Celtic-speakers while the other one Romanian-speakers. So it is possible that some of names of distant tribes and peoples from Roman and Greek sources were actually such generic terms which covered peoples belonging to more than one ethno-linguistic groups.

Peucini are the Bastanae...same people, they lived above the dacians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae
 
Maybe, but it still doesn't change the fact that the Venedae lived also inland.

Peucini-Bastarnae were perhaps originally two different tribes but they later merged into one.

There was a similar Slavic tribe with dual name, they were called Heveldi-Stoderani:

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrons/thietmar.htm#IV|

"(...) Inperator autem a Romania discedens nostras regiones invisit et accepta Sclavorum rebellione Stoderaniam, quae Hevellun dicitur, armato petens milite, incendio et magna depredacione vastavit et victor Parthenopolim rediit (...)"

Another similar tribe were Glomaci-Daleminci:

"(...) provinciam quam nos Daleminci vocamus, Slavi autem Glomaci vocant. (...)"
 
P.s. just for fun:
Also Pagyritae is a candidate. Gyra is drink. Pagyriti or similar should be Lith for to drink. In Latvian this is changed to 'padzerties'. And 'pagiras' is only used for 'hangover' :D
On a second though we might be talking Polesians here... Gyris - forest/wood in Lithuanian. Pagyritai = Polesians, same etimology.
 
Going back to Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth,question is how many Lithuanians were absorbed as Poles?
I do not know what is the difference between R1A1 branch which is Slavic and R1A1 branch which is Baltic,maybe in the future we will see more clear tests showing the influence of Baltic people,in Poland.
I do not know about admixture either,there are tests which have a generic "Eastern European admixture" which is present at both Baltic and North Slavic people.
Would be needed more in depth admixture tests than these mentioned above.
 
I can't reply to everything because the pace of the thread continued too fast, but I have a few issues I'd like to reply to.

Germanic language emerged in Scandinavia roughly during the Nordic Bronze Age, according to the most commonly accepted theory at least. So Corded Ware people from Eulau didn't speak Germanic, because they lived in a different geographical area and in a different time period.

Proto-Germanic itself dates from the iron age, and I would place the homeland further south than Scandinavia proper (well, the Jutland peninsula and the Danish Isles, but I hear Denmark is Scandinavia light :cool-v: ), specifically I would include the north German plain, based on river names.

R1a obviously was in these areas before Slavs but those were different subclades of R1a. For example R1a Z284 which was characteristic of Proto-Germanic population apparently. Do you have data on types of R1a subclades in different regions of Germany and Austria today?

R1a L664 that you mentioned is not found in Eastern Germany and in Austria today (not in high frequencies at least).

AFAIK great majority of R1a in Germany-Austria today are typically Slavic subclades. Especially West & South-West Slavic ones.

Also areas with highest frequency of R1a in Germany & Austria are the same areas which at some point of history had predominantly Slavic population. Though of course after WW2 there were huge population movements (expulsion of easternmost Germans), which contributed to the territorial dispersion of R1a over entire Germany. I'm sure that large part of R1a in modern Western Germany came during and after the end of WW2. A lot also came with Polish immigration. Not to mention internal migrations from Communist Germany to West Germany in the second half of the 20th century.

About the genetic angle on the issue, we should get Sparkey into this discussion. (y) I'd like to say a very general issue: neither are ethnic groups are genetically homogenous, nor should we expect genetic haplogroups to exactly match to a certain ethno-linguistic group even if - for example, a certain ethnic group participated in a migration/movement. For instance, while R1a and R1b for sure both were involved with the people who spread the Indo-European languages, they do not correlate too well with the Centum / vs. Satem split (or other divisions).

Further, I'd like to point out something about the Eulau site: this is archaeologically speaking part of the Corded Ware culture. At the time frame (ca. 2600 BC) its extremely improbable to already speak of "Germanic", "Celtic", etc. Its more probable that the people of Eulau still spoke a form of late Proto-Indo-European.

There are many toponyms in modern territory of Poland which are of unknown or seriously disputed linguistic origin. For example Vistula and Oder are among such unclear toponyms (just to mention the two largest rivers in Poland). It is possible that these toponyms come from an extinct Indo-European language. Though it is also possible that some of them are Pre-Indo-European in origin (this is sometimes claimed for Vistula).

On the name "Vistula", in my opinion its Indo-European but beyond that not determinable. ;)
Its derived from the Indo-European root *weis- ('to flow', a reflex in English is the word 'ooze'), just like the river "Weser" in northwestern Germany.

Later I will try to find and post here something more about those hypothetical Venedic-speaking peoples.

I will talk more about the Venedi later.

It is not only my hypothesis - there were scholars who proposed the existence of a Venedic branch of Indo-European languages. They are hardly the only extinct branch of IE languages - other of now extinct branches of Indo-European languages were for example: Sorothaptic, Ligurian, Phrygian, Dacian, Thracian, Lusitanian, maybe also Illyrian (because not everyone agrees that Albanian language is a direct continuation of Illyrian languages).

I'm not so convinced that such a construct of "Venedic" is necessary. Some of these languages, we do know for certain that they existed (Dacian, Thracian, Lusitanian), even if we don't know that much (Lusitanian, for example, was similar to the Celtic languages, and Dacian and Thracian were Satem languages for sure), but about Sorothaptic I'm extremely sceptical that it even existed.

They were called the Stavani (Stavanoi) by Ptolemy. Maybe another source calls them the Savari?

I explicitly meant the Savari, not the Stavani, but you fixed that yourself. :)

Ptolemy also records another tribe which could very likely be Slavic-speaking, the Slovenoi.

Ptolemy wrote that they lived much farther east than the Stavanoi, because along the Volga River:Souobenoi, Sloveni (Greek: Σουοβενοι) - according to Ptolemy (around year 150 CE) a tribe living at the Volga River (Latin: Rha). Recording ou means phonteically a sound similar in pronunciation to English w, while Greek β can be read as v. This is why their name should be pronounced as Słovenoi (in phonetic recording [swovεnoɪ]). There exists a hypothesis equating this tribe with Slavs, supported by similarity to the oldest own name of Slavs from Slavic own written texts - *Słoveni [1] or Slověni [2].

[1] Gołąb, Zbigniew (1992). The Origins of the Slavs: A Linguist's view. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1992
[2] http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/lingwpl...html#slowianie

Here, I must disagree on that interpretation because that this seems extremely implausible from the perspective of phonetic evolution, on multiple levels. The development /l/ > /l̴/ > /w/ occured only in Polish, not even in Proto-Slavic, and its clear that this is a very late sound change, because, for instance Latin loanwords are affected by it, like the word "donkey":

Latin "asellus" > Russian "osil", Polish "osioł"

Likewise, the sound shift *a > *o (short /a/, I should specify!) occured only during the Migration Period.

Further, I might, the reading of Greek beta (β) as /v/ occured only decisively in the Middle Ages (Byzantine Greek), in the Classical period (Ptolemy lived in Roman Egypt, if you recall) it was probably still /b/.

So, for what we know about the early evolution of Slavic, you'd expect something like "Slauēnoi", not "Souobēnoi". Besides, I'm not convinced of the "Slavs were recent invaders from the steppe who entered Europe only during the Migration Period", I think the case for that hypothesis is extremely weak.

Sure but question is to what extent were East Germanic-speaking tribes genetically Germanic ???

For example according to Jordanes Goths came to Pomerania from Scandinavia, in a relatively small number*. They increased in numbers by absorbing local peoples. Later when the Goths "rolled" towards the Roman border, they continued absorbing tribes which dwelled on their way.

*Jordanes wrote that Goths - led by King Berig - came on 3 ships. Let's estimate there were ca. 100 people on each ship. This is 300 people:

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

Jordanes even explicitly mentions (by name) some of the peoples that joined them.

So it seems that East Germanic trbes were a huge melting pot of genes and ethnicities, even though their lingua franca was East Germanic.

I linked two video lectures "Rethinking barbarian invasions through genomic history" by Patrick Geary. Geary claims he was unable to find Germanic genes in places where East Germanic tribes settled. He concludes that East Germanic migrations did not take place.

My opinion is that his conclusion is wrong - East Germanic migrations did take place (which is confirmed by historical accounts and by archaeology), but those tribes were very heterogeneous in genomic terms, so it is very hard to identify their traces today.

I personally don't consider Jordanes a particularly reliable source, to be honest. I might want to ask a reverse question: how genetically homogenous were the Germanic tribes from the start? There is no particularly good reason to assume that they were in the first place, in my opinion.

Back to the Savari - sorry, I thought that you twisted the name (from the Stavani), but they were actually two different tribes!

Both of them could be Slavic (or Proto-Slavic) - both the Stavani and the Savari. Here is the list of peoples living in Sarmatia Europaea according to Ptolemy - in most cases it is hard to identify ethnicity / language. With big red dots I marked tribes which were probably Baltic-speaking:

http://s4.postimg.org/yqchybkq5/European_Sarmatia_tribes.png

European_Sarmatia_tribes.png


Here are possible identifications for these probably Baltic-speaking tribes:

Ptolemy's Galindai (Galindae) = Medieval Galindians
Ptolemy's Sudinoi (Sudini) = Medieval Sudovians
Ptolemy's Sali = Medieval Selonians
Ptolemy's Carvones (Carbones) or Cariones or Careotae = Medieval Curonians

Generally, I agree here. I was going to reply that I meant the Savari and not Sturni. About the Baltic tribes, the idea that they are in fact Baltic is based mainly around the fact that 1000 years later, the same tribes seem to inhabit the area.

I concede that the case for the "Savari" being identical with the later "Severianes" is somewhat weak, but they were located by Ptolemy at the approximately correct location, at an area where we would expect, in the classical period, the speakers of early Proto-Slavic to have lived.

I might further add, from a linguistic perspective its clear that Baltic and Slavic are inside the Indo-European languages, most closely related. In my opinion, there must have been linguistic unity between Baltic and Slavic families at a point - probably late Bronze Age / early Iron Age.
 
Last edited:
On the "Venedi", in my opinion, they were either 1) Baltic or 2) undifferentiated Balto-Slavic (based on the timing - 2nd century AD, it could be still possible to argue for the latter).
- Ptolemy places them clearly along the shore of the Baltic Sea.
- The "Venedic" mountains are certainly not the Carpathians, I'm not sure where exactly they are (today, in the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia?). There can be no doubt about it because Ptolemy gives coordinates for the Venedic mountains, and these place them in vicinity to the Baltic, in the general area of the Baltic tribes also listed by Ptolemy.

EDIT: I might add that Ptolemy lists the Carpathians mountains separately, as "Καρπατης ορος" (Karpatēs oros), marking part of the border between European Sarmatia and Dacia.

I think for the identity of the Venedi, Tacitus (part 46) describes the differences between Bastarnae (Peucini), Venedi and Fenni in detail:

- he says that the language of the Bastarnae is similar to the Germanic one (from which we can conjecture, the Venedi and the Fenni spoke a different language).
- he says that the Venedi are like the Germanic people in so far as that they lived in permanent settlements (but in contrast to the nomadic Sarmatae).

So, in my opinion (I will get to the Lusatian culture later), the construction of a "Venedic" language is unnecessary here, as the Venedi of the classical sources were probably Balto-Slavic peoples. Its possible that the term "Venedi" was a Germanic exonym, and if that is the case its plausible that the later term "Wends" (for the Slavs) was just a logical continuation of the name.
 
On the "Venedi", in my opinion, they were either 1) Baltic or 2) undifferentiated Balto-Slavic (based on the timing - 2nd century AD, it could be still possible to argue for the latter).
- Ptolemy places them clearly along the shore of the Baltic Sea.
- The "Venedic" mountains are certainly not the Carpathians, I'm not sure where exactly they are (today, in the Kaliningrad Oblast of Russia?). There can be no doubt about it because Ptolemy gives coordinates for the Venedic mountains, and these place them in vicinity to the Baltic, in the general area of the Baltic tribes also listed by Ptolemy.

EDIT: I might add that Ptolemy lists the Carpathians mountains separately, as "Καρπατης ορος" (Karpatēs oros), marking part of the border between European Sarmatia and Dacia.

I think for the identity of the Venedi, Tacitus (part 46) describes the differences between Bastarnae (Peucini), Venedi and Fenni in detail:

- he says that the language of the Bastarnae is similar to the Germanic one (from which we can conjecture, the Venedi and the Fenni spoke a different language).
- he says that the Venedi are like the Germanic people in so far as that they lived in permanent settlements (but in contrast to the nomadic Sarmatae).

So, in my opinion (I will get to the Lusatian culture later), the construction of a "Venedic" language is unnecessary here, as the Venedi of the classical sources were probably Balto-Slavic peoples. Its possible that the term "Venedi" was a Germanic exonym, and if that is the case its plausible that the later term "Wends" (for the Slavs) was just a logical continuation of the name.

Analysis of these ethnonyms has shown that all the peoples of the Venedian Gulf known toPtolemy — Veneds, Veltae, Ossi, Carbones, Careo-tae, Sali — are identified as the population of the south-eastern Baltics in the area between the Vistulaand Western Dvina.
 
ptolemy map



Under the V for Venedae is a circle indicating Venedic montes, under this is the tribe Gythones, under them Finni tribe.

east of Gythones are the Galindae, next to them sudini ( both old Prussian tribes).........placement of Venedae reflects the same place for the old-prussian tribe the WARMIANS


The venedic montes are between the modern cities of Elblag and Milejewo
 
I have not much time so I will only reply to one post now (rest later):

Mihaitzateo:

Going back to Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, question is how many Lithuanians were absorbed as Poles?

Compared to the overall number of Poles in Europe, not so many Lithuanians were absorbed (after all, Lithuanians were never very numerous).

I'm quite sure that more Belarusians were Polonized than Lithuanians, but some of those Belarusians were themselves Slavicized Lithuanians (or other Balts). Before Polish culture became dominant in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Old Belarusian culture and language had been dominant there.

Typical haplogroups for Lithuanians and Latvians are N1c1 and R1a. I think the amount of N1c1 haplogroup might indicate Baltic ancestry:

Amount of N1c haplogroup in Poles from Poland and in Belarusians from Belarus:

First, regional distribution of N1c (old N3) in Belarus (northern part has over twice as much N1c as other parts) - from Dienekes:

Northern Belarus - ca. 18,9%
Central Belarus - ca. 8,8%
Southern Belarus - ca. 8,1%

And now average percentage of people with N1c1 haplogroup in Belarus (average % for entire country) and in Poland:

Belarus (average) - ca. 10,1% (according to one Russian study)
Poles from Poland - ca. 5,8% (according to the same study)

So both directly (Polonization of Lithuanian-speakers) and indirectly (Polonization of Belarusianized Lithuanians) perhaps quite a large number of Lithuanians was absorbed. The presence of Poles in the Lithuanian-Belarusian borderland is the result of Polish settlement in this area throughout centuries and of Polonization of local peoples. The group which was especially "vulnerable" to Polonization were Belarusian-speaking Roman Catholics. They actually called their language "prosta mova" ("simple speech"), not Belarusian. Those people were choosing Polish identity because they spoke a Slavic language (unlike their Roman Catholic Lithuanian-speaking neighbours in the north), but they were Roman Catholics (unlike their East Slavic-speaking Orthodox neighbours in the south-east). They also lived intermingled with Polish settlers and under strong influence of Polish culture (cities and towns in Southern Lithuania and in Northern Belarus were mostly Polish-speaking apart from Jews, nobility in the countryside was also Polish-speaking).

Many Roman Catholics from Belarus identified as Poles even if they were Belarusian-speakers.

I do not know what is the difference between R1A1 branch which is Slavic and R1A1 branch which is Baltic

I can give you info about several of major subclades of R1a. As far as I know:

L260 is common in West Slavs (Poland - 17,2%) and Western Ukrainians (Lviv - 9,1%), but rare in East Slavs, Balts (Russians - 3,2%; Belarusians - 3,3%; Lithuanians - 1,4%) and South Slavs.

Z92 is common in East Slavs (Belarusians - 11,8%; Russians - 10,8%) and Balts (Lithuanians - 7,2%), but rare in West Slavs (Poles - at least 1,7%), South Slavs and Western Ukrainians.

Z280 (apart from Z92) is common in all Slavs and in Balts (Russians - 27,9%; Ukrainians from Lviv - 25,3%; Poles - 26,8%; Belarusians - 23,6%; Croats - 22,0%; Lithuanians - 21,5%).

M458 (apart from L260) is present in all Slavs and Balts, but most common in West Slavs & Belarusians (Belarusians - 12,1%; Poles - 9,4%; Ukrainians from Lviv - 9,1%; Russians - 6,0%; Lithuanians - 5,0%; Croats - 3,0%).

As for I2 haplogroup:

I2a1b is present in all Slavs and Balts, but most common in East and South Slavs (Croats - 37,8%; Ukrainians from Lviv - 22,1%; Belarusians - 17,9%; Russians - 11,7%; Poles - 6,4%; Lithuanians - 3,5%).

All these percentages are taken from one Russian study. Other studies can show other percentages, of course.

Here is the study in question: http://s11.postimg.org/khn67kfjn/R1a_Slavs_2.png

The original graph (in Russian): http://s006.radikal.ru/i215/1304/c6/9b1c4260cc94.jpg

Eupedia website has slightly different proportions for haplogroups.

For example according to Eupedia website in Poland N1c is 4% not 5,8%.

============================

Anyway - Z280 seems to be the most "Balto-Slavic" subclade of R1a. Maybe it was common among Balto-Slavs before they split.

============================

One of reasons why Lithuanians have in recent history had an aversion to Poles is because almost all of Medieval Lithuanian elites became culturally and linguistically Polonized throughout history. In the early 1800s Lithuanian language was practically limited just to peasants, while all of nobility, intelligentsia and of Non-Jewish urban dwellers in these regions spoke Polish and identified as ethnic Poles.

The only exception was in the region of Samogitia, where many Lithuanian-speaking nobles survived (they spoke local Samogitian dialect). But those Samogitian nobles, despite being Lithuanian-speaking, did not have a separate nationalism, but felt unity with Polish-speakers at that time.

This is illustrated by a song of Samogitians of Telsiai region from the Polish-Russian War of 1830-1831 (aka the November Uprising):

[see next post for words of this songs]

In the 19th - early 20th centuries, when education became common, many smart Lithuanian peasants graduated from new high schools and universities, and new Lithuanian-speaking intelligentsia emerged. This is how the so called "Lithuanian national revival" started.

Naturally Lithuanian nationalism cherishes mostly Early Medieval times as the glorious period of their past. At that time Pagan Lithuanian culture flourished, while the decline of Lithuanian culture started already with the political expansion of Lithuania into East Slavic principalities which were politically fragmented but had rich Greek Orthodox, Christian culture, which was "higher" than Lithuanian Paganism. Already before the adoption (through Polish influence) of Roman Catholicism as religion, most of Lithuanian society had been Orthodox Christians and Slavic-speakers.

Old Belarusian was the official language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. So with expansion and Christianization (both Orthodox and Catholic) started the decline of "native Lithuanian" culture and gradual Belarusianization and Polonization.

After the 16th century, Polish and Latin replaced Old Belarusian as main languages of the Grand Duchy.
 
Last edited:
Gieysmie żiemaycziu Telszu pawieta wayno metu 1831:

Dabar lenkai naprapule
Kol żemaitiai gyvi
Kad visi prie ginkło pule
Tad ir bus szczastlivi

Lenkai, lietuviai, żemaitiai draugibie
Kayp visada buvom tayp busim vyinibie

Ar maż pralijom aszaru
Kad kożnam rudyni
Rekrutams ukazai cara
Lieb imt paskutini
Wayka motinai o seserei broli

Nebe mums iau poniawosi
Prakeiktas maskoli

Kaktas musu ne bus skustas
Ney żwangins gielżiniai
O Sybiras visad pustas
Neb grażos minyai

Wysi vyrai eikim newale numesti

Neprietieli musu pakarop dawesti

Gana vieros papeykimo
Gana jau kientieti
O diel puszku atliejimo
Warpus nujemkieti

Joug ir Diewas Danguy
Te Dieva teysibie
Duos lenkams, lijtuviams,
Żemaitiams vienibie

Trisdeszimtis sekmie metu
Kayp carai czie wałda
Kam ir spakaini wieta?
Kamy Diewui małda?
Gins virus y padvadas, nubiauros
tau buta
Yr mergaytiems yr moterims siułodami
knuta

Jug żemaitis kożnas turi
Titnago striełbeli
O dieł wajska ims isz buri
Tinkama żyrgeli
Oniekie tau sako: tunkart gausi mani
Kad iszginsi ysz Żemaicziu
Neprietieli szuni

Eykim wisi jemt Pałanga
O łaywais nupłauksma
Stalicziop su walia Danga
Yr cara sugausma

Tad sugryżies namon
Kriżius pastatysma
Yr Yszganima Metus
Ant ju paraszisma.

In English:

Song of Samogitians of Telsiai county during the war of 1831:

The Poles have not yet perished
So long as the Samogitians still live
Everyone has taken up arms
So we will be happy

Poles, Lithuanians, Samogitians
Always live in peace with each other
We have been and still are in unity

Weren't enough tears shed
When during salty years
With use of knouts
In accordance with Tsarist orders
Conscripted into the army
Were mother's last son and sister's last brother?

You are not going to rule here
You damned Muscovite

You will not shave our heads anymore
You won't hear the clang of handcuffs
And Siberia, desolated
Will be ill remembered

Come on, boys, liberate yourselves from the yoke

Our enemy
Shall be humiliated

Let's put an end to religious persecutions
Let's put an end to sufferings and dungeons

Let's put an end to recasting bells into enemy cannons

There is God in Heaven
Let the God's will cause
Poles, Lithuanians and Samogitians
To unite together in one rank

It has been thirty years
Of the occupation by Tsardom
Who and where can hide before it?
Where can we praise the God?
They will drive away our men
They will plunder our houses
And threaten with knouts
Our women and girls

But each of us, the Samogitians
Has his gun loaded
And will take with him to the army
A first class horse
The girl tells you: I will be yours
When from our Samogitia
You drive away the enemy - dog

We must march on Palanga
From which we will sail on ships
To Moscow, God's will
And we will capture the Tsar

And when we come back home
We will construct crosses
And engrave on them
The Year of Liberation


===========================================

Similar Polish-Lithuanian unity in fight against Russian occupation of the Commonwealth could also be observed in the January Uprising (1863-1864):


Only in the 2nd half of the 19th century new type of nationalism, based on language rather than on common history, divided Poles and Lithuanians.
 
Sile - Venetic language you are talking about was probably one of Italic languages (though its name is not necessarily of Italic origin).

There was also Wendisch language (name for some of West Slavic dialects) and Windic language (Winds was the old name for Slovenes).

Today there is a language called Avar (in Dagestan), it belongs to Caucasian family and it rather has nothing to do with Medieval Avars.



The Veleti lived (in historical times) west of the Oder River in what is now eastern half of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and in Brandenburg.

Apart from the Veleti there were also the Obodrites - they lived west of the Veleti, roughly along the Elbe River.

South of the Veleti and the Obodrites lived the Lusatians-Sorbs.

It is assumed that those tribes shaped themselves in areas more to the east, and then migrated westward, like here:

Migration_to_Germany.png


Name of the Obodrites comes from Oder River ("ob Odra" was Slavic for "near the Oder"; Obodrites - these who live near the Oder).

But in historical times (since the moment when they were first mentioned in a written source) they lived along the Elbe River.

So the Obodrites adopted their name from the Odra River, but later they migrated westward towards the Elbe River.

I see no documentation that the Lusatians are slavic.
 
venedae are west-baltic culture, flatbed grave system .
since slavic language came out of baltic languages in the hinterland , it clear the term balto-slavic is a modern terminology and should not be applied to ancient times

The traditional view is that the Balto-Slavic languages split into two branches, Baltic and Slavic, with each branch developing as a single common language (Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic) for some time afterwards. Proto-Baltic is then thought to have split into East Baltic and West Baltic branches. However, more recent scholarship has suggested that there was no unified Proto-Baltic stage, but that Proto-Balto-Slavic split directly into three groups: Slavic, East Baltic and West Baltic.[12][13] Under this view, the Baltic family is paraphyletic, and consists of all Balto-Slavic languages that are not Slavic. This would imply that Proto-Baltic, the last common ancestor of all Baltic languages, would be identical to Proto-Balto-Slavic itself, rather than distinct from it.

Finally, there is a minority of scholars who argue that Baltic descended directly from Proto-Indo-European, without an intermediate common Balto-Slavic stage. They argue that the many similarities and shared innovations between Baltic and Slavic are due to several millennia of contact between the groups, rather than shared heritage.[14]
 
Please notice that between the 2nd century BC and the 2nd century AD the Germania-Sarmatia boundary was moving eastward in time. Maybe it is just a coincidence that those authors had different views on where the boundary was located, but maybe indeed there were population movements which were pushing the boundary in eastern direction - from roughly the Elbe/Oder to the Vistula in 300 years.

this is because the non-slavic population was being absorbed into germanic society ..........since Vandals had a confederation system of many tribes ( which I named in early threads ), then these tribes where not all germanic .

The Bastanae seems to be the most famous of the not "pure" germanic people, ..........maybe Peucini indicates a baltic tribe of the bastanae, ..then again, maybe not
 
I see no documentation that the Lusatians are slavic.

They speak a Slavic language, so they are Slavic. For your information - Slavic, Germanic, etc. are linguistic terms. They denote linguistic groups.

Many people from the New World (Americas, Australia - like you -, etc.) are confused about such things.

They all speak English or Spanish, etc., and belong to very young nations, so they differentiate between themselves with use of "ancestry", instead of other things. I call this phenomenon - "The New World Identity Crisis". :) You see, people in Europe usually don't think of themselves as "Slavs" or "Balts".

New World nations are still very much "tribal societies". Old World nations and ethnic groups usually don't have this "tribalism" anymore.

There are Americans, but within Americans there are such "tribes" - German-Americans, Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc.

Old World identities are national & ethno-cultural, not "genetic" or "ancestral". A Pole is first and foremost a Pole. And whether "Slavic" or "Germanic" is irrelevant. Germans in Europe also identify as "just Germans" - they don't care whether their ancestors were Celts, Scandinavians, Balts or Slavs.

I also don't care so much who were my distant ancestors, though I know that I have ancestors from several distinct ethnic backgrounds and regions.

since slavic language came out of baltic languages in the hinterland

Slavic language most certainly did not come out of Baltic language. Balto-Slavic language was not Baltic language. And actually genetic data indicates that Balts emerged when part of Balto-Slavs mixed with (or absorbed) some Non-Indo-Europeans of N1c1 haplogroup, while the rest of Balto-Slavs did not mix with those N1c1 groups (and these became Slavs). So rather Balts came out of "Slavs" (Balto-Slavs) - not inversely. Also it is commonly believed that Slavic languages - especially Polish (as far as I know) - are closer to the original Proto-IE language, than Baltic languages.

The idea that Slavs emerged from Balts is quite funny considering that Baltic-speakers number few million people while Slavic-speakers number few hundred million people. Either Balts were a smaller group since the start, or Slavs were much more successful in expanding.

It seems almost certain that Balto-Slavs (before they split into Balts & Slavs) did not have significant amounts of N1c1 haplogroup.
 
it clear the term balto-slavic is a modern terminology and should not be applied to ancient times

Term "Balts" is also a modern terminology. It was invented in the 19th century to denote language family encompassing Lithuanian, Latvian and few other minor & extinct (Prussian) languages. Medieval sources did not differentiate that much, and they often counted Balts as part of Slavs.

E.g. Helmold (born 1120, died 1177) - author of "Chronica Slavorum" ("Chronicle of the Slavs") - counted Prussians as one of Slavic peoples (IIRC):

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

Indeed Baltic languages are similar to Slavic languages (hence there is a theory that there once had been a common Balto-Slavic language).
 
The idea that Slavs emerged from Balts is quite funny considering that Baltic-speakers number few million people while Slavic-speakers number few hundred million people. Either Balts were a smaller group since the start, or Slavs were much more successful in expanding.

It seems almost certain that Balto-Slavs (before they split into Balts & Slavs) did not have significant amounts of N1c1 haplogroup.

Its not funny at all...example..Italian was created in the 13th century from all the regional Italian regions, 500 years later in 1861 when they did the census of the 22 million Italians, only 600000 knew or spoke Italian. With enforcement by the Government and 150 years later 95% of the 60 Million Itlains know Italian.

Whats numbers got to do with it if a language is prevent from being used!
 

This thread has been viewed 347353 times.

Back
Top