Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

[Sile]

with proof that the venedi where a minor tribe on the coastal and where designated as part of the old-prussians from many papers, are you satified that Jordanes was a huge fabricator or stories/lies?

 

[arvistro]

@Tomenable, nice speech on tribal Americans and language groups ignorant Euros including yourself
Based on what I read from you, Slavic identity is strong in you. You tend to assign things to Slavs whenever in grey area this is normal, most of us do it, just no need to deny it.
As to Balts and Slavs, I prefer Euro Satems. Slavic languages are indeed younger, they started their victory when Old Euro Satem speakers were killed in big numbers by apocaliptic events around 500-800 in (middle?) Europe + increased assimilation of left overs after written Old Church Slavonic was created.

 

[Tomenable]

Old Church Slavonic was never used in Slavic countries which adopted Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy.

So the (mis-)conception that written Old Church Slavonic language was crucial in Slavicization of populations is wrong, because in such case only Orthodox Slavs should be Slavs today, while me and other Roman Catholic Slavic-speakers should be speaking other languages.

On the other hand, Germanic languages were as successful in expanding as Slavic. They were originally spoken just in parts of Scandinavia (Denmark is considered part of Scandinavia as well). Romance languages also expanded from a small area inhabited by tribes of the Latins.

with proof that the venedi where a minor tribe on the coastal and where designated as part of the old-prussians from many papers

There is no such proof. Apart from Ptolemy and Jordanes also other sources - including Pliny and Tacitus - mention the Venedi.

Neither of those sources claims that the Venedi were limited just to the Baltic coast. And Ptolemy also doesn't claim this in an explicit way.

Moreover, Ptolemy mentions the Venedae as "greater tribes" (not one tribe, and not a minor one) and he starts the description of European Sarmatia by mentioning them - which as well indicates that they were the most numerous ethnic group or groups in European Sarmatia.

Ptolemy mentions the Venedae as "greater tribes", while for example the Goths (and many others) - as "lesser tribes".

This of course indicates that the Venedae were much more numerous than the Goths, or any other of the "lesser" tribes.

are you satified that Jordanes was a huge fabricator or stories/lies?

Nope, because he wasn't. Are you really unable to understand that ethnonyms can be transferred into speakers of another language ???

Today there are people called Avars in existence, but they speak a language that is not related to early medieval Avar.

They also most likely are not descendants of those old Avars (at least not in any major proportion of their overall ancestries).

As to Balts and Slavs, I prefer Euro Satems. Slavic languages are indeed younger

Being "younger" means exactly that they split from the Proto-Indo-European continuum later, and remained part of it longer.

Because - as you surely know - various Indo-European languages emerged from the original PIE continuum, by splitting from the rest of it.

So the fact that Slavic tongues are younger only confirms that those were Baltic languages which split from a larger whole.

Fact is that Balts have a lot of N1c1, while most of Slavs don't. Had Balto-Slavs had a lot of N1c1, we should all have it in large frequency. But only Balts have a lot of it. The conclusion is that ancestors of Balts absorbed / assimilated a lot of N1c1 Non-Indo-Europeans, while Slavs didn't.

So the logical assumption is that the Slavic-Baltic split happened when ancestors of Balts absorbed N1c1 populations.

Of course this is just one theory because nothing is absolutely certain when talking about such ancient past.

Italian was created in the 13th century

Italian is just one language, not entire family. The entire family is called Romance and it originates from language of the ancient Latin tribes.

For your information, modern Standard German (Literary German) language is also a relatively young creation.

In the Middle Ages there were hundreds of Germanic (and not only Germanic of course) dialects spoken throughout the Holy Roman Empire.

Later based on just a small fraction of all those dialects emerged two standardized languages - Standard Dutch and Standard German.

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

Who allegedly prevented which language from being used, and when ???

 

[Taranis]

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.

I mentioned however earlier, that Baltic and Slavic descend from a common Balto-Slavic, which presumably was spoken during the late Bronze Age / early Iron Age. It is clear that in the time period before contact with speakers of Germanic, Proto-Slavic must have been still very similar to what we reconstruct Proto-Balto-Slavic as. Hence my idea that the "Venedi" were, in fact, speakers of Balto-Slavic.

 

[Tomenable]

Yes and the fact that Slavs and Balts share R1a Z280 seems to prove that the Balto-Slavic community existed.

It is quite possible that the Venedi were among the peoples who were speakers of Balto-Slavic.

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).

I'm not sure if German was ever official language in Cracow, but it was surely widely spoken in trade contacts, because trade in much of Europe was at that time dominated by the Hanseatic League. So Non-German merchants also used German language in contacts with German merchants, and between each other (just like today we use English to communicate, even if we aren't English).

For example if a Polish merchant traded with a Hungarian or a Lithuanian merchant, they used either German or Latin to communicate.

On the other hand, documents not related to trade were mostly written in Latin, rather than German. Nothing was in Old Church Slavonic, though.

Polish until the 1200s was most probably just a spoken language - in writing everyone in Poland, regardless of ethnic origins, was using Latin or German. First known texts in Polish come from the 1200s. We also have Polish songs, poems, etc. from earlier times (including the 1100s), but in Latin translation. We also have Polish sentences spoken in the battle of Legnica in 1241, but they were recorded by Jan Długosz in the 1400s. Personal names, toponyms, etc. in Polish / Slavic language are recorded as early as the 900s and earlier. But these were recorded in Latin language sources.

So Poland never adopted Old Church Slavonic as written language. Instead, Latin was used as written language in early Poland.

As for Germanic demographics in Cracow - in 1241 the Mongols burned the city of Cracow. After the destruction by the Mongols, the city was rebuilt according to new principles - Magdeburg Law was adopted in a privilege issued by Polish duke Boleslav and his mother Grzymislava. German specialists (including people familiar with Magdeburg Law) were invited to organize the city in the same way as Magdeburg.

German commoners were also invited to help repopulate the city after the depopulation caused by the Mongols*. But ethnic German population in Medieval Cracow never exceeded 30% of its inhabitants, according to most of modern estimates. Though after adoption of German Law (Magdeburg Law in this case), German language gained importance so it was spoken also by many people who were not German by origin.

*Actually nobody was inviting Germans specifically. Invited settlers were: "cuiuscunque gentis et cuiuscunque artis homines" ("people, unimportant of their origin or their skills in craftswork"). So Polish rulers were simply attracting immigration from any possible sources, in order to increase the number of inhabitants - pretty much like Sweden is doing today (opening borders to all kinds of immigrants).

Most of immigrants came from the west (that is, largely from the HRE) simply because those lands had larger population size, higher population density. But "German" ("Niemiec" in Polish), was not only an ethnic German in modern understanding. "Niemiec" was pretty much everyone who came from Western Europe - including actual Germans (in the modern sense), but also including Frisians, Dutch people, Flamands, Waloons (though Waloons were also sometimes called "Romans", due to the fact that they spoke a Non-Germanic language). We can say that "Niemiec" was equivalent to any Germanic-speaking person as well as some Non-Germanic speakers from the Holy Roman Empire and Western Europe.

It is quite possible that a Yiddish-speaking Jew was also sometimes called "Niemiec" (German), though I have no proof for this.

The peak of German presence in Cracow was undoubtedly in early 1300s, when they even attempted to attach the city to the Bohemian Crown, rebelling against Polish duke Wladyslav Lokietek. In 1312 those disloyal Germans were executed. Only those who could speak Polish were left alive:

A revolt by the Germans of Cracow, headed by one Albert, and by Bishop Jan Muskata, who thought of returning to their earlier Bohemian allegiance, was suppressed after a year-long siege [1311 - 1312]. (...) Investigations into the Cracovian revolt were assisted by a simple language test. Any suspect who could repeat and correctly pronounce "soczewica", "koło", "miele", "młyn" was judged loyal; he who faltered was guilty. (...) The Archbishop of Gniezno, Jakub Swinka, brought Bishop Muskata, the "enemy of the Polish people", before an ecclesiastical court. He excommunicated [in 1285] the prince of Głogów, who "was turning Silesia into a new Saxony" and had resigned his claim to Pomerania in favour of the Teutonic Order.

If a German was already sufficiently Polonized and could speak Polish, then he survived 1312. But those who couldn't speak Polish didn't survive.

 

[arvistro]

You changed quotes by me and Sile. I said nothing of Jordanes, he nothing of Slavs being younger ----
I also think R1a z280 can be associated with proto-Balto-Slavic, whereas m456 with proto-Slavic exclousively. Also as far as I read other forums m456 + one of 'I' subgroups are the haplos common to all Slavs.

Different versions are about Balto-Slavs, but if you check reconstructed words they sound more Baltic. Lithuanian in particular. So I tend to agree with "The oldest Slavic protolanguage could be described as the results of further changes acting on the Baltic protolanguage (but not vice versa)" Ivanov, Browne, Slavonic languages.

From myself I would add those changes happened under Scytho - Sarmatian influence. When old Dievs/Deiwas became dyavol and Iranian Bog became God.

Re OCS I agree Slavic was older than OCS but OCS and written language certainly helped to further assimilate bordering people and remnants of older satem forms. As you (was it you?) noted for GDL.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Well since we are talking about Poland here,I would be very curious to see some test of the Y paternal lines of the Poles from NE Poland.
I am wondering how much N1C they have.
Someone said that different people were invited to repopulate Poland,however,it seems few Baltic people came,from the very few N1C paternal lines present in Poland.
As for the theory that Balto-Slavis assimilated Fino-Ugrian people,I agree with it.
However,I find it very weird that most R1A from Russia is Z280 and that Russia also has a significant amount of N1C paternal lines.
From this point of view,of paternal lines,Russians are rather closed to Baltic people,than to other Slavic people.

 

[mihaitzateo]

@Tomenable: maybe a thread about the spreading of the German languages should be started also.
I doubt all Germans came from Scandinavia and Denmark.
If we take Franks,for example,they did not come from Scandinavia for sure.
And your theory with the spreading of German language does not really works for how France had Frankish rullers but the language remained Galo-Romance.
To make the things even more funny,some Vikings conquered a part of France,settled in Normandy,mixed with locals,adopted the French spoken there.
After,they went and conquered England who was speaking a much more Germanic language those times and influenced English language so much,that now 40% of the English words are from Latin.
Could not really say that German was succesful at spreading.

 

[Sile]

what Polish and Russian say are the origins of the ancient tribes using a racial term

Finnish: Finni.


Lituanian/Veneds: Veneds.


Türkic: Agathyrsi (Türk. Agach-er, forest people),
Aorsi (Avars),
Bodini (Türk. Budun, people),
Gelones (Türk. Gelon, snake),
Melanchlaeni (Türk. Kara Kalpak),
Rhoxolani (Türk. Uraksy Alani, settled Alans),
Savari (Türk. Su-ar, water people),
Sarmats (Türk. Sarma, sack).


Celtic Bastarns.

Turkic is the bulk of the pre slavic in eastern Europe ...........they mean central asian people and before the many wars of Turkic sarmatians fighting Iranic persians on the eastern side of the caspian sea.

 

[Sile]

Old Church Slavonic was never used in Slavic countries which adopted Catholicism instead of Eastern Orthodoxy.

So the (mis-)conception that written Old Church Slavonic language was crucial in Slavicization of populations is wrong, because in such case only Orthodox Slavs should be Slavs today, while me and other Roman Catholic Slavic-speakers should be speaking other languages.

On the other hand, Germanic languages were as successful in expanding as Slavic. They were originally spoken just in parts of Scandinavia (Denmark is considered part of Scandinavia as well). Romance languages also expanded from a small area inhabited by tribes of the Latins.



There is no such proof. Apart from Ptolemy and Jordanes also other sources - including Pliny and Tacitus - mention the Venedi.

Neither of those sources claims that the Venedi were limited just to the Baltic coast. And Ptolemy also doesn't claim this in an explicit way.

Moreover, Ptolemy mentions the Venedae as "greater tribes" (not one tribe, and not a minor one) and he starts the description of European Sarmatia by mentioning them - which as well indicates that they were the most numerous ethnic group or groups in European Sarmatia.

Ptolemy mentions the Venedae as "greater tribes", while for example the Goths (and many others) - as "lesser tribes".

This of course indicates that the Venedae were much more numerous than the Goths, or any other of the "lesser" tribes.



Nope, because he wasn't. Are you really unable to understand that ethnonyms can be transferred into speakers of another language ???

Today there are people called Avars in existence, but they speak a language that is not related to early medieval Avar.

They also most likely are not descendants of those old Avars (at least not in any major proportion of their overall ancestries).



Being "younger" means exactly that they split from the Proto-Indo-European continuum later, and remained part of it longer.

Because - as you surely know - various Indo-European languages emerged from the original PIE continuum, by splitting from the rest of it.

So the fact that Slavic tongues are younger only confirms that those were Baltic languages which split from a larger whole.

Fact is that Balts have a lot of N1c1, while most of Slavs don't. Had Balto-Slavs had a lot of N1c1, we should all have it in large frequency. But only Balts have a lot of it. The conclusion is that ancestors of Balts absorbed / assimilated a lot of N1c1 Non-Indo-Europeans, while Slavs didn't.

So the logical assumption is that the Slavic-Baltic split happened when ancestors of Balts absorbed N1c1 populations.

Of course this is just one theory because nothing is absolutely certain when talking about such ancient past.



Italian is just one language, not entire family. The entire family is called Romance and it originates from language of the ancient Latin tribes.

For your information, modern Standard German (Literary German) language is also a relatively young creation.

In the Middle Ages there were hundreds of Germanic (and not only Germanic of course) dialects spoken throughout the Holy Roman Empire.

Later based on just a small fraction of all those dialects emerged two standardized languages - Standard Dutch and Standard German.



Who allegedly prevented which language from being used, and when ???

read this

http://www.academia.edu/227794/Hiding_behind_a_piece_of_tapestry_Jordanes_and_the_Slavic_Venethi

 

[mihaitzateo]

I find very interesting what someone said here,that Slavic languages appeared from Balto-Slavic,under Iranic influence.
But I think South Slavic as Serbo-Croatian or Bulgarians have also at least some influence from Germanic,with the well known :
english chair - bulgarian stol - serbo-croatian stolica - german stuhl - danish stol
Also Slavic is influenced by Germanic ,take for example Love-German Lieben - Serbo-Croatian - Ljubav etc
Snow - German Schnee - Serbo-Croatian snjieg and so on.

 

[Tomenable]

Turkic is the bulk of the pre slavic in eastern Europe

You took it from a Turkic nationalist website that I also had once visited. Please don't rely on such random websites...

This is basically all crap, because first Turkic-speakers had not visited Europe until Late Roman or even Medieval times.

Sarmats, Aorsi (they weren't Avars), Alans and Rhoxolani were Iranic-speakers and this is commonly acknowledged. Agathyrsi probably too.

Gelones, Melanchlaeni, Bodini were taken by Ptolemy from a much earlier source, Herodotus (check Herodotus for descriptions).

Bodini were described as mostly red-haired people which seems to fit well with some Ugro-Finnic groups like Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi.

Turkic sarmatians fighting Iranic persians

Sarmatians were Iranic, not Turkic. No serious scholar claims that they were Turkic, except for mad Turkic chauvinists.

And the Persian empire was established by Iranic people, but most of the population was of non-Iranic origin.

 

[Tomenable]

Snow - German Schnee - Serbo-Croatian snjieg and so on.

This is not any Germanic influence on Slavic or Slavic influence on Germanic, but simply common, Proto-Indo-European origin (from PIE root *sniegwh):

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=snow

(...) from PIE root *sniegwh- "snow; to snow" (cognates: Greek nipha, Latin nix (genitive nivis), Old Irish snechta, Irish sneachd, Welsh nyf, Lithuanian sniegas, Old Prussian snaygis, Old Church Slavonic snegu, Russian snieg', Slovak sneh "snow"). The cognate in Sanskrit, snihyati, came to mean "he gets wet."

In Polish it is: śnieg

 

[Taranis]

what Polish and Russian say are the origins of the ancient tribes using a racial term

Finnish: Finni.

Lituanian/Veneds: Veneds.

Türkic: Agathyrsi (Türk. Agach-er, forest people),
Aorsi (Avars),
Bodini (Türk. Budun, people),
Gelones (Türk. Gelon, snake),
Melanchlaeni (Türk. Kara Kalpak),
Rhoxolani (Türk. Uraksy Alani, settled Alans),
Savari (Türk. Su-ar, water people),
Sarmats (Türk. Sarma, sack).

Celtic Bastarns.

Turkic is the bulk of the pre slavic in eastern Europe ...........they mean central asian people and before the many wars of Turkic sarmatians fighting Iranic persians on the eastern side of the caspian sea.

This is complete nonsense. Its very clear that the Sarmatians/Scythians were Iranic (and thus Indo-European). The name "Alani" is etymologically related with the term "Aryans" (as in, the nobility of ancient India) or the country name "Iran".

The Huns may have been Turkic (or Altaic, but the matter is far from settled / unambiguous), but they would have been the first.

Also, the Greek name "Melanchlaeni" (as per Herodotus) means 'black cloaks', not 'black hats'. Also, as this is a Greek exonym, we don't know their original language.

This is not any Germanic influence on Slavic or Slavic influence on Germanic, but simply common, Proto-Indo-European origin (from PIE root *sniegwh):

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=snow

In Polish it is: śnieg

That is correct. There is a considerable number of Slavic words that were borrowed from early Germanic (many of them relate to agriculture and trade, which should give a good insight into the nature of the contact, in my opinion), but here I agree, that is not one of them.

 

[Sile]

You took it from a Turkic nationalist website that I also had once visited. Please don't rely on such random websites...

This is basically all crap, because first Turkic-speakers had not visited Europe until Late Roman or even Medieval times.

Sarmats, Aorsi (they weren't Avars), Alans and Rhoxolani were Iranic-speakers and this is commonly acknowledged. Agathyrsi probably too.

Gelones, Melanchlaeni, Bodini were taken by Ptolemy from a much earlier source, Herodotus (check Herodotus for descriptions).

Bodini were described as mostly red-haired people which seems to fit well with some Ugro-Finnic groups like Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi.



Sarmatians were Iranic, not Turkic. No serious scholar claims that they were Turkic, except for mad Turkic chauvinists.

And the Persian empire was established by Iranic people, but most of the population was of non-Iranic origin.

IMO, I agree they are Iranic , my theory is that the iranic pushed through from south caucasus in to north caucasus and met the turkic people of Central Asia somewhere around the nothern part of the caspian sea.

My post was what Russian and poles state for these............i did doubt some of them , but had seconds thoughts on only the celtic -bastanae association

 

[Tomenable]

There is a considerable number of Slavic words that were borrowed from early Germanic

Large part of them are even specifically loanwords from Gothic language, rather than from other Germanic language(s).

There are also words which were borrowed by Germanic-speakers from Slavic language(s).

 

[arvistro]

Well since we are talking about Poland here,I would be very curious to see some test of the Y paternal lines of the Poles from NE Poland.
I am wondering how much N1C they have.
Someone said that different people were invited to repopulate Poland,however,it seems few Baltic people came,from the very few N1C paternal lines present in Poland.

Simple math tells us there are as much Baltic n1c1 descendent people in Poland as in Latvia + Lithuania.
38 million of Poles * 5% paternal N1c1 = 1.9 Million persons.
4 Million of total LV+LT * 40% = 1.6 Million persons.

 

[Tomenable]

Though it is sort of a generalization to claim that all of N1c1 in Poland is "Baltic".

It would be like claiming that all of R1a in Lithuania and Latvia is "Slavic".

 

[arvistro]

Though it is sort of a generalization to claim that all of N1c1 in Poland is "Baltic".

It would like claiming that all of R1a in Lithuania and Latvia is "Slavic".

R1a z280 is actually proto Baltic (or proto Balto Slavic to please Slavic people) m458 is proto-Slavic.
N1c1 South Baltic clade (was it l550?) is a Baltic marker. And 90%+ of Polish n1c1 is South Baltic.
It is marker of curious history. Cousin clade of Rurik's Scandinavian, and cousin of Iberian specific clade. It entered Baltic elite somewhere AD (common male ancestor for all South Baltics lived AD), its downclade is clade of Gediminids/Jagellons, its another downclade is prince Giedroits clan.
Based on above I made initial assumption that it could be varyag clade who would have brought statehood to Prussians/Balts in early vikings age after 500 AD. But it is possible that it was indigenous Baltic. Who knows?

 

[Tomenable]

And 90%+ of Polish n1c1 is South Baltic.

I can think of several different sources of origin for N1c1 haplogroup in Poland:

Probably each of these sources contributed some fraction of overall percentage of N1c1:

1) Balto-Slavs probably had some % of N1c1 before they split into Slavs and Balts (therefore Slavs had some % of it since the beginning).
2) Later Balts assimilated new populations with a lot of N1c1, but Slavs could also assimilate some of those peoples.
3) Western Balts (Prussians) mixed with Slavs in the Slavic-Prussian borderland, some Prussians got assimilated into Slavs.
4) After the conquest & Christianization of Prussians in the 13th century there were refugees, some of them escaped to Poland & Belarus.
5) Some of Old Prussian areas were incorporated into Poland and Belarusian principalities (especially lands of the Yotvingians).
6) Polish settlement in southern & western parts of East Prussia (Polish settlers were invited there by Teutonic Knights & by Hohenzollerns).
7) North Belarus & South Lithuania were the areas where East Slavic expansion in the Early Middle Ages assimilated some of local Balts.
8) There were Polish migrations into the GDL throughout centuries, they intermarried with locals. There was a smaller reverse movement too.
9) During times of the Polish-Lithuanian Union and later (after 1795), Polonization of groups of Belarusians and Lithuanians took place.
10) After WW2 many Poles from Eastern Poland (including Lithuania and Belarus) were deported or emigrated on their own to Poland.

GDL = Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

FamilyTreeDNA hosts the "Nobility of Grand Duchy of Lithuania" project - descendants of 26 (43%) out of 61 nobles included in this study live in Poland today (and this % is probably still lower than for all nobles): https://www.familytreedna.com/public/WXL_Nobility/default.aspx?section=yresults

According to a recent survey by Polish CBOS, today 15% of ethnic Poles from Poland declare having some ancestors from Kresy Wschodnie (former eastern Polish and PLC's territories located east of the Curzon Line; today parts of Ukraine, Belarus, southern Lithuania, south-eastern Latvia and western Russia) - this is approximately 5,800,000 people. Of them 13% (ca. 0,75 million) are people who were born in Kresy personally - mostly old people of course; 43% (ca. 2,5 million) have at least one parent born there, 38% (ca. 2,2 million) have at least one grandparent and 6% (ca. 0,35 million) at least one great-grandparent born there.

PLC = Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Most of these people came from those areas during and after WW2. Origin of population of Poland was examined in Polish censuses of 1947 and of 1950. In 1947 about 2,050,000 people living within new borders of Poland (west of the Curzon Line) belonged to families which in 1939 had lived in Kresy (east of the Curzon Line). By 1950 that number increased to ca. 2,200,000. And in period 1954 - 1959 another group of 250,000 Poles came from Belarus, Lithuania and Ukraine ("2nd Repatriation").

National score for Kresy ancestry is 15% (average for entire Poland) but in some western regions (former German territories) as high as 1/2 of inhabitants. Percentage of people with some ancestors from Kresy by region of Poland:

Let's add that the distribution of immigrants from Kresy in westernmost parts of Poland, was roughly as follows:

Regions: dolnośląskie & parts of opolskie - mostly Poles from Ukraine (largest group among immigrants from Kresy)
Region: lubuskie - mostly Poles from Belarus (who were the 2nd largest group among immigrants from Kresy)
Regions: zachodniopomorskie & parts of pomorskie - mostly Poles from Lithuania (3rd largest group)

Pre-war Polish University of Lviv (Lwów) was after 1945 relocated to Wrocław (Breslau), together with its professors.

Graph posted above comes from:

http://kresowiacy.com/2014/01/co-si...lub-pradziadka-urodzonego-na-dawnych-kresach/

http://dzieje.pl/aktualnosci/cbos-co-siodmy-polak-pochodzi-z-kresow

m458 is proto-Slavic.

Distribution of M458 indicates that it is not proto-Slavic, but rather only proto-West Slavic:

This map shows distribution of M458 ("Central European") and one of its main downclades - L260 ("West Slavic"):

Despite being called "Central European", M458 is also characteristic of West Slavs and Germanized former West Slavs:

Areas where Slavs probably originated - Belarus and Ukraine - have not so much of these subclades.

Neither South Slavs nor East Slavs have a lot of these two subclades (M458 and its downclade L260).

BTW, I already quoted exact percentages of these subclades for various groups before (in this thread).

Another map (I'm not sure how accurate it is) - you can see lower frequency of M458 in western Poland, where large part of the population are Poles from Kresy Wschodnie, about whom I mentioned above, and who came after 1945 to replace expelled Germans:

Poles from Kresy Wschodnie are partially "original" Poles and partially Polonized East Slavs and Balts (most are mixed, like I myself):

That area with over 35% of M458 in South-Eastern Germany is Lusatia, homeland of West Slavic Lusatians-Sorbs.

But as you can see other parts of eastern Germany also have a high frequency of this subclade.

High frequency of M458 in Germany correlates perfectly with areas which used to be West Slavic, but were Germanized.

R1a z280 is actually proto Baltic (or proto Balto Slavic to please Slavic people)

Not "to please Slavic people", but objectively it is proto-Balto-Slavic, and certainly not just proto-Baltic.

I know that Balts want to see everything as proto-Baltic because they are intimidated by Slavs and also have an inferiority complex to their Slavic neighbours (especially Lithuanians have such an inferiority complex to Poles, because of history and Polish domination).

But please, recognize our common origin instead of considering Slavs as your enemies and as a threat or something.

Vladimir Putin is not a representative of all Slavs. Neither is Russia, nor Russian minority in Latvia.

During the first Pan-Slavic Congress in Prague in 1848 Russians were not even present, because the Cogress was organized mostly by Poles, Czechs and South Slavs - and Russia as you know was the enemy of Poles at that time (actually, throughout most of history ).

I know that Latvians dislike mostly Russians, not Poles.