Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

[Tomenable]

Aren't such things detetmined mostly by autosomal DNA rather than HG?

Hunters are less numerous than farmers because they can't sustain such high population density. If an area was favourable for farming then incoming farmers would quickly outnumber local hunters, perhaps in the very moment of entering an area they were already more numerous.

On the other hand many of Mesolithic hunters adopted farming from migrating Neolithic farmers, so by the time of Copper Age immigration of R1 people, there were perhaps not many hunters left because most of I populations had adopted farming before.

It is more mysterious what happened with Neolithic DNA because it seems for example that G haplogroup was once very numerous in some parts of Europe.

In my opinion Neolithic groups, which brought farming with them for the first time, outnumbered Mesolithic peoples in most fertile areas, while in other areas Mesolithic DNA continued to dominate. In some of those areas (moderately fertile ones) they adopted farming from their new Neolithic neighbours, while in other - most difficult to farm - areas, they remained living predominantly as hunters or fishers or whatever.

Later when Copper-Bronze Age R1 groups with superior technology invaded, they were more interested in occupying fertile lands first, lands suitable for animal husbandry, horse-breeding, cattle-breeding, etc. and for farming. So Neolithic groups which had previously occupied most fertile lands now became the main target of new invaders, while Mesolithic groups which had previously remained dominant only in areas of worse quality, now did not feel the pressure of new immigrants as hard as for example people of G haplogroup such as for example famous Oetzi the Iceman (who was probably killed by R1 peoples).

 

[Tomenable]

Sile,

Wulfstan describes Old Prussian lands as Witland.

One version of a map based on Wulfstan's description, I also have another version, will try to find it later:

Wends, Winds, etc. are Medieval Germanic names for West Slavs as a whole.

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

On the right bank are the Gythones. It would not be surprising to find Goths there too, but if the Gythones are Danzigers

Wulfstan IIRC does not mention any Goths/Gythones, Gdansk/Danzig, or Danzigers.

Goths were long gone from that area in Wulfstan's times and Gdansk still did not exist, except for a fishing village located there.

First Gdansk as a fortified wooden town was built by Polish duke Mieszko I about 100 years later, as dendrochronology shows.

 

[Sile]

Sile,

Wulfstan describes Old Prussian lands as Witland.

One version of a map based on Wulfstan's description, I also have another version, will try to find it later:

Wends, Winds, etc. are Medieval Germanic names for West Slavs as a whole.

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



Wulfstan IIRC does not mention any Goths/Gythones, Gdansk/Danzig, or Danzigers.

Goths were long gone from that area in Wulfstan's times and Gdansk still did not exist, except for a fishing village located there.

First Gdansk as a fortified wooden town was built by Polish duke Mieszko I about 100 years later, as dendrochronology shows.

So tell me, how is sarmatia as per ptolemy and tacitus be stated as wends when they are outside of the map you presented.?

It's because wends refer to the vandili confederation ( vandals) in the past, who once they left for their "trip" where replaced by veleti and took up the same name of wends,............its further proof that wends where not the slavs, it's furhter proof that the venedae where outside the wends sphere, its further proof that the venedae with its neighbours the galidians, sudini etc are and became the old-prussians
Further proof that anyone east of the Vistula river where not wends


You still have not given me any proof about jordanes and his fabricated name , Venethi are who they are OR that they are the same Venedae. When are you going to acknoldge where the venedic montes are?

you can chit-chat as much as you like about the medieval and avoid the ancient period , but that is only deflecting the issue of ptolemy's venedae

 

[Sile]

East of the Vistula River were Old Prussians. West of Old Prussians were West Slavic Kashubians (Pomeranians).

Is this not the ancient lands of the Venedae, east of the Vistula river, yes or no?

Here further proof on the vindili confederation ( vandals ).
furthe rproof on the burgundians are not where you say they where.
further proof on the venedae are outside of the wendish lands ( vandals).

is it not strange that they seperate sarmatians from venedae to the east!.....clear sign they where different people



See in huge print ...V I N D I L I

SE of vindili is the Lygian confederation of tribes

 

[Tomenable]

Here is the first version of my hypothesis on the ethnogenesis of Slavs (I also posted it on one Polish history forum, together with more extensive description - but I described it in Polish so I need time to translate - but I mostly mentioned this in this thread):

Direct link to map (its a "working" version, it took me 10 minutes to make it): http://s29.postimg.org/kusjgwefb/Slavic_Ethnogenesis.png

Since N1c did not participate (in large amounts) in ethnogenesis of Slavs, I assumed that only north-eastern Balts of forest zone cultures had large amounts of it. Dark green is the farthest extent of Lusatian culture; light green - extent of the Late Lusatian culture.

Of course haplogroups listed for each area are only dominant haplogroups.

For example, IMO Mesolithic survivors from the Pripyat Marshes had also some (but not that much) of I1 haplogroup, not just I2.

So other HGs could also be present there, but dominant ones were - IMO - M458 for "Lusatians", Z280 for "Balto-Slavs", etc.

I don't know what exactly could be the haplogroups of Old Prussians (West Balts), so I did not hypothesize this.

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

I've expanded this discussion also here: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26341-who-were-Slavic-people?p=443597&viewfull=1#post443597

 

[arvistro]

Which time period is that map? Approximately? Somewhere 500 BC?

 

[Tomenable]

Which time period is that map? Approximately? Somewhere 500 BC?

Roughly 6th - 3rd centuries BC (so 500 BC too). Except for dark green border*, which is rather for a bit earlier times.

*Farthest extent of the Lusatian Culture.

 

[Tomenable]

Why some posts need moderator's approval and some other posts don't need it? Which posts do?

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

I figured it out - only posts with links need moderator's approval.

OK (message to moderators): please do not approve those earlier duplicate posts.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Considering R1A-458,how can someone be sure that is Slavic?

 

[Sile]

Considering R1A-458,how can someone be sure that is Slavic?

They do realise its not slvic, but hope it is

check where its from, it older than origins of slavs and what we are left with is IIRC the area of the Lugians tribes ( unless you know of an older tribe , then the lugians can lay claim to it)

 

[Tomenable]

Sile you totally do not understand how ethnogenesis works and what it is.

All major haplogroups are older than any of modern European ethnic groups.

But if R1a M458 is Lugian, Z280 is Baltic and I2a is Baltic then Poles are mostly Germano-Baltic.*

How silly (or sile?) such claim is I don't need to explain.

*Arvistro claimed that Z280 and I2a are Baltic.

BTW - check this discussion on another forum, especially posts of Niklot and Authun:

R1a and R1b migrated to Europe shortly after the end of the Stone Age.They are older than Balts, Slavs, Germanics, etc.- everyone:

http://historum.com/european-history/2379-brits-more-german-celtic-47.html#post1986613?postcount=468

 

[Tomenable]

Perhaps indeed M458 is older than Slavic language, but it is undoubtedly also older than the tribes of Lugians.

As for the question asked in this thread:

Poland is simply Polish. Over 1100 years of historical heritage. I know this without digging in haplogroups and DNA.

Australians like Sile are New World's people without any historical heritage, so they need to dig in haplogroups instead.

 

[Sile]

Perhaps indeed M458 is older than Slavic language, but it is undoubtedly also older than the tribes of Lugians.

As for the question asked in this thread:

Poland is simply Polish. Over 1100 years of historical heritage. I know this without digging in haplogroups and DNA.

Australians like Sile are New World's people without any historical heritage, so they need to dig in haplogroups instead.

Its the naming system used by many many people today, not by me, but I need to follow suit to "stay in the game".

as an example a new claim that R-DF27 is Basque is currently being used in the last month.

All we can say is M458 is not slavic, not germanic not anyone we know today, but it was someone of which we know nothing of.

 

[Sile]

Sile you totally do not understand how ethnogenesis works and what it is.

All major haplogroups are older than any of modern European ethnic groups.

But if R1a M458 is Lugian, Z280 is Baltic and I2a is Baltic then Poles are mostly Germano-Baltic.*

How silly (or sile?) such claim is I don't need to explain.

*Arvistro claimed that Z280 and I2a are Baltic.

BTW - check this discussion on another forum, especially posts of Niklot and Authun:

R1a and R1b migrated to Europe shortly after the end of the Stone Age.They are older than Balts, Slavs, Germanics, etc.- everyone:

http://historum.com/european-history/2379-brits-more-german-celtic-47.html#post1986613?postcount=468

your numbers mean nothing, its an issue with terminology, slavic, germanic, celtic lay claims to people purely via linguistic means. you have no idea how much % of any original populace was absorbed into a society.

 

[Taranis]

About the Lugians, in my opinion they were Celtic, or mixed Germanic-Celtic, based mainly on the tribal name (Lugus or Lugh was a widespread Celtic deity), and also Celtic place names recorded from the area (e.g. Lugidunum, Carrodunum, Calisia).

On the genetics side, R1a-M458 might be associated with the Lusatian culture, since its geographic extend seems to match up reasonably well. And I'd like say that this is entirely independent from the linguistic affiliation of that culture.

 

[mihaitzateo]

Some things:
According to some map posted on Eupedia,Eastern Europe have lots of R1A which is said to be Indo-European.
While R1B is said to be Eurasian.
So I was wondering,if anyone can say ,with around 500 years maximum error,what is the period when first Slavs as ethnic group appeared.
Because if we see at almost all Slavs,except Montenegrins a significant percentage of R1A ,we could suppose that those who brought Slavic language in Europe were R1A bearers.
While those who brought Centum languages were R1B bearers.
I know that the written inscriptions in Slavic language are quite late from around 1000 AD and Slavs are not found in the writings of historians,they start to appear from 500 AD,but I do not think this can tell that the Slavs did not existed till than.Slavs appeared in the writings of historians when they got in Roman Empire,Byzantine Empire and Greeks range,which had historians.
An interesting method will be to search clues about Slavs using archaeology . Since Slavs were in NE Europe,which area was quite hard to get to,because I suppose,harsh climate,lots of forests,very aggressive populations like Huns and others,is possible that the historians could not get information about this area.
I doubt are writings about Scandinavia and what people were living there,from let us say 100 AD or earlier.

 

[Taranis]

Some things:
According to some map posted on Eupedia,Eastern Europe have lots of R1A which is said to be Indo-European.
While R1B is said to be Eurasian.
So I was wondering,if anyone can say ,with around 500 years maximum error,what is the period when first Slavs as ethnic group appeared.
Because if we see at almost all Slavs,except Montenegrins a significant percentage of R1A ,we could suppose that those who brought Slavic language in Europe were R1A bearers.
While those who brought Centum languages were R1B bearers.

I think its wrong to generalize like that and say "R1b = Centum", "R1a = Satem", because 1) there's enough areas were this isn't the case - for example Scandinavia has approximately even amounts of R1a and R1b 2) you're looking at modern distributions. Also, we do have ancient samples of R1a, from the Corded Ware culture, and from the Urnfield Culture. In other words, we know that R1a was in Central Europe long before the Slavic languages arrived there.

I know that the written inscriptions in Slavic language are quite late from around 1000 AD and Slavs are not found in the writings of historians,they start to appear from 500 AD,but I do not think this can tell that the Slavs did not existed till than.Slavs appeared in the writings of historians when they got in Roman Empire,Byzantine Empire and Greeks range,which had historians.

I would say, its simple: the identity/ethnic group "Slavs" did not exist before the Migration period. Speakers of (early) Slavic very much existed before that, but their "homeland" did not border on the Graeco-Roman civilization.

An interesting method will be to search clues about Slavs using archaeology . Since Slavs were in NE Europe,which area was quite hard to get to,because I suppose,harsh climate,lots of forests,very aggressive populations like Huns and others,is possible that the historians could not get information about this area.

Actually, we do know quite about the early Slavic from linguistics: Proto-Slavic started out as part of Balto-Slavic, and many of the key sound changes occured only later, after the Proto-Slavic speakers already had contact with Germanic.

As for their homeland, I've suggested before in this thread, the Milograd culture is a good candidate for the early Proto-Slavic speakers, due to the best-match.

 

[arvistro]

I think its wrong to generalize like that and say "R1b = Centum", "R1a = Satem", because 1) there's enough areas were this isn't the case - for example Scandinavia has approximately even amounts of R1a and R1b 2) you're looking at modern distributions. Also, we do have ancient samples of R1a, from the Corded Ware culture, and from the Urnfield Culture. In other words, we know that R1a was in Central Europe long before the Slavic languages arrived there.

My guess was that Germanic-ish very oldest forms was created when Celtic speaking R1b clans from Globural Amphora met Satem speaking R1a clans from Corded.

 

[Aberdeen]

My guess was that Germanic-ish very oldest forms was created when Celtic speaking R1b clans from Globural Amphora met Satem speaking R1a clans from Corded.

Since the Globular Amphora Culture preceded the Corded Ware Culture, which existed from the late Neolithic into the early Bronze Age, I'm curious as to why you think that some combination of the two created Proto-German during the Iron Age. And how do you know that the people of the Globular Amphora Culture had R1b as their paternal haplotype?

 

[arvistro]

Since the Globular Amphora Culture preceded the Corded Ware Culture, which existed from the late Neolithic into the early Bronze Age, I'm curious as to why you think that some combination of the two created Proto-German during the Iron Age. And how do you know that the people of the Globular Amphora Culture had R1b as their paternal haplotype?

Just a theory and speculation

I also did not say "proto-Germanic", I avoided that term in purpose, since it was rather new thing. By old forms of Germanicish I thought in these lines:
Germanic Parent Language (GPL) is a term used in historical linguistics to describe the chain of reconstructed languages in the Germanic group referred to as Pre-Germanic Indo-European (PreGmc), Early Proto-Germanic (EPGmc), and Late Proto-Germanic (LPGmc). It is intended to cover the time of the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE.

My mind went something like this - if Corded expansion sent away R1A folk that spoke already Satemized version of IE (just an assumption based on modern), then to return to Centum R1A clades (those that in modern times are related to Germanics) would have to meet some other IE culture, which would happen when Corded met and replaced Globural Amphora. My guess Centum folk that was found in Globural was R1B, simply because in modern days Euro-Centum matches with R1B, except Germans.

Other option that is also valid is that Corded was not Satemized then. And only Z280 and its Indo-Iranian cousins got Satem features somewhere after Corded expansion. Then Satem would have to develop somewhere before Z280 and Indo-Iranian split their ways and after Corded expansion.

Probably there are also other options. My guess is that first one happened.

Just speculating That is what I am doing here in hopes someone will notice any mistakes and correct if wrong.