"I believe that the reason is that the Goths stayed for many centuries in Eastern Europe and nearly two more centuries in the Balkans before invading Italy and Iberia and could have assimilated a lot of non-Germanic people, notably R1a and I2a1b Slavs and predominantly E1b1b, I2a1b and J2 Balkanic people."
For the lack of genetic evidence from Goth's genome, and lack of central and north european admixtures in Iberia, we are almost shooting blanks here.
This is incorrect Maciamo. I just read this thread, which was started one year ago, and found it interesting but with inaccuracies. I have read extensively on the Visigoths since my ancestors came from the same region they settled. If you would have read the history of the goths more carefully you would have known that they settled in Poland along the Vistula River (Weilbark Culture) and lived there for about 200-300 years, from about 100 BC to 200 AD (Jordanes who is unreliable claims 400 years). Either way the Slavic homeland has now been accepted by historians to have been in the Pripet Marshes around Belarus and western Ukraine. Thus they were never near the Goths. When the Goths migrated into "Oium" (southern Ukraine) in the second century AD they did meet the Slavs living in what is today western Ukraine, but they never settled there (Jordanes states that the Goths offered the Slavs battle but the Slavs refused). Therefore no Slav DNA was absorbed.
I was reading some time ago that in Wielbark Culture there were examples of coexistance of distinct villages (different cultures) close by. It might be true that Goths didn't mix much with locals from Vistula region, whoever lived there at the time.
Even if there were no Slavs by Vistula, the population must have been rich in R1a, I assume.

When the Goths arrived at the steppes (somewhere near Uman or south of Kiev) they split up into several groups -- the West Goths went into what is now Moldova and eventually into southern Romania. The Visigoths lived there about 200 years. The Gepids, Heruli, and Rugii seem to have followed the Visigoths but then went into Hungary and Slovakia, (but some seem to have followed the Ostrogoths, since they are mentioned as raiding Greece and Anatolia). The Ostrogoths went and settled in what is now southern Ukraine, between the Prut and Dnepr River. There were never any Slavs in the Ukrainian steppes or in Moldova or Romania or Hungary at that time. There were only Sarmatians and Scythians in that region and the Goths did conquer them. So any DNA the Ostrogoths picked up was R1a from the Sarmatian and Scythian peoples. But I doubt they altered the DNA of the Ostrogoths. The Visigoths on the other hand absorbed 0% Slavic genes, but I will admit they must have absorbed some J2 and E1b1 from Greeks and other Balkan peoples.
Interesting thought. If Goths mingled with locals in Balkans, they should have picked up lots of J and E. Then again we are not sure if they did.

In conclusion, I believe very little J2 and E1b1 or Slavic I2b were absorbed by the Goths. No slabs ever lived in the Balkans before the 7th century AD. And any people who lived in the southern Balkans who had J2 and E1b1 must have been negligible unless they lived in the Roman Empire. In other words, the Balkans were depopulated by neolithic peoples outside the Roman frontiers. Only Germanic and Dacians lived there. But since the Dacians were exterminated then only the Germans occupied it for 200-300 years.
The extermination of ethnicities is rather unlikely. From beginning of neolithic we can see substantial genetic continuation of locals in Europe. Cultures changed but people mostly stayed the same.

I don't believe that invasions of Goths, Vandals or Swabians to Iberia exceeded more than 5 percent of total Iberian population, probably even less and Vandals left anyway. Not numerous enough to change local genetics or local culture.
Probably when future genetic research analyzes village by village (small regions), with bigger definition than what we have right now, we should start seeing some more germanic haplotypes popping up in Iberia in some enclaves.
 
"I was reading some time ago that in Wielbark Culture there were examples of coexistance of distinct villages (different cultures) close by. It might be true that Goths didn't mix much with locals from Vistula region, whoever lived there at the time.
Even if there were no Slavs by Vistula, the population must have been rich in R1a, I assume."

Yes, archaeologists have found sites that were near or next to the Wielbark Culture that were different. The problem is that it was hard to differentiate ethnicity because the skulls were very similar. However, the Vandals lived to next to the Goths on the left bank of the Vistula. On the right bank lived Balts and Slavs (Veneti).
Historians and archaeologists do not know exactly who were the Veneti -- German or Slav? Do you know what was the original or oldest DNA of the Slavs -- R1a or I2a1b? Since the Goths already contained a lot of R1a it did not alter their DNA considerable. Perhaps made it higher than other western Germans.


"Interesting thought. If Goths mingled with locals in Balkans, they should have picked up lots of J and E. Then again we are not sure if they did."

The Goths and their relatives -- the Gepids, Heruli, and Rugians -- never lived in the Balkans for a long time. They did live for a long time in the north of the Danube River. The Balkans are defined as all territories south of the Danube River up to Croatia and Serbia (following the Danube River). Hungary and Romania are not considered part of the Balkans. Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Moldova were sparsely populated when the German tribes came to occupy them. Any Neolithic farmers who stayed and lived in the forests of Transylvania and plains of Hungary and Wallachia were either fools or very brave because any Neolithic farmers would have been killed and/or enslaved. Worse: if the Huns would have gotten a hold of them it would have been hell. In fact the Huns are the ones who exterminated many of the peoples who lived in these areas, including Gothic peoples. So we must infer that the population was low at the time.

At that period people do't mix their DNA by shaking hands and dating. Peoples almost always mixed due to the effects of force and rape. Even when they are related by blood and culture. For example, the Romans and Sabines. Thus people who were invaded by more powerful nations usually left their villages or submitted to their will.

"The extermination of ethnicities is rather unlikely. From beginning of neolithic we can see substantial genetic continuation of locals in Europe. Cultures changed but people mostly stayed the same."

Well if you read the History of Romania you will learn that Emperor Trajan exterminated all the male Dacians and most of the women. Roman soldiers later married Dacian women and created the proto-Romanians. Dacia was then repopulated with a lot of Italians and others from Europe and Middle East. So they must have reintroduced a lot of G, J2 and E1b. But then Dacia was abandoned after the Goths attacked it in the middle of the 3rd century AD. Thus almost all of the population moved to the safe cities and towns below the Danube River. Thus very little mixture occurred between Germans and locals.

"I don't believe that invasions of Goths, Vandals or Swabians to Iberia exceeded more than 5 percent of total Iberian population, probably even less and Vandals left anyway. Not numerous enough to change local genetics or local culture.
Probably when future genetic research analyzes village by village (small regions), with bigger definition than what we have right now, we should start seeing some more germanic haplotypes popping up in Iberia in some enclaves."

When a master nation rules over another they usually increase their numbers. Why? because they get the best land, more wealth, and more women. Granted that the population of Iberia declined from 4 million to 3 million from the 4th to 5th centuries, due to famines, plagues and economic depression, the Germanics would have been affected -- but less. In the center and north of Iberia they did alter the DNA somewhat. I am sure if they do a careful and complete study of the northern Portuguese, Old Castilians, Leonese, and the Aragones you will find higher percentages than they have now. The reason why Germanic DNA is low in Iberia is due to low test numbers and includes the whole of Iberia. Iberia is much bigger than England or Germany or the Low Countries.
 
Do you know what was the original or oldest DNA of the Slavs -- R1a or I2a1b?

R1a, presumably, owing to the fact that Slavs descend from Balto-Slavs, and Balts have high R1a but low I2a1b. It's possible that the Slavic ethnogenesis postdates the blending of R1a-carrying Balto-Slavs and some unknown I2a1b population, or that Balto-Slavs carried I2a1b earlier than that and I2a1b expanded within the subset of their population that became Slavs. Of course, we don't have ancient samples to confirm any of this yet.
 
It's possible that the Slavic ethnogenesis postdates the blending of R1a-carrying Balto-Slavs and some unknown I2a1b population, or that Balto-Slavs carried I2a1b earlier than that and I2a1b expanded within the subset of their population that became Slavs.

Recently I'm becoming a fan of this scenario. Looking at available ancient samples, it becomes obvious to see huge swings in Y-DNA haplogroups, especially connected to new variety of subclades expanding dramatically, while general autosomal admixtures don't point to population replacement, or other catastrophic changes. Other words, it is very natural and popular phenomenon.
 
Well if you read the History of Romania you will learn that Emperor Trajan exterminated all the male Dacians and most of the women. Roman soldiers later married Dacian women and created the proto-Romanians. Dacia was then repopulated with a lot of Italians and others from Europe and Middle East. So they must have reintroduced a lot of G, J2 and E1b. But then Dacia was abandoned after the Goths attacked it in the middle of the 3rd century AD. Thus almost all of the population moved to the safe cities and towns below the Danube River. Thus very little mixture occurred between Germans and locals.
When Romanians are analyzed autosomally or even with uniparental DNA they fit nicely into Balkans. They are not being located genetically in Italy or Near East. Whatever killing of dacians happened it wasn't as bad as historians say, or Dacians were strangers to this area anyway. We don't really see obvious correlation and relation between Italian and Romanian DNA. Obviously cultural Roman imprint on Romania was much bigger than genetic one.


When a master nation rules over another they usually increase their numbers. Why? because they get the best land, more wealth, and more women. Granted that the population of Iberia declined from 4 million to 3 million from the 4th to 5th centuries, due to famines, plagues and economic depression, the Germanics would have been affected -- but less. In the center and north of Iberia they did alter the DNA somewhat. I am sure if they do a careful and complete study of the northern Portuguese, Old Castilians, Leonese, and the Aragones you will find higher percentages than they have now. The reason why Germanic DNA is low in Iberia is due to low test numbers and includes the whole of Iberia. Iberia is much bigger than England or Germany or the Low Countries.
I believe there will be some statistical differences.
 
R1a, presumably, owing to the fact that Slavs descend from Balto-Slavs, and Balts have high R1a but low I2a1b. It's possible that the Slavic ethnogenesis postdates the blending of R1a-carrying Balto-Slavs and some unknown I2a1b population, or that Balto-Slavs carried I2a1b earlier than that and I2a1b expanded within the subset of their population that became Slavs. Of course, we don't have ancient samples to confirm any of this yet.

correct me if I am wrong, but did'nt KenN state recently that the "east prussians" where I2a1.
He was referring to iron-age east-prussians..................mostly likely aestii and venedi, galidians also
 
correct me if I am wrong, but did'nt KenN state recently that the "east prussians" where I2a1.
He was referring to iron-age east-prussians..................mostly likely aestii and venedi, galidians also
Who is KenN and based on what did he state East Prussians were I2a1? I don't disagree, because I have no data to agree/disagree, just curious, because there is very little I2a1 in Lithuanians or Latvians.
 
Who is KenN and based on what did he state East Prussians were I2a1? I don't disagree, because I have no data to agree/disagree, just curious, because there is very little I2a1 in Lithuanians or Latvians.

I was in error , Ken meant I1 was latvian (perhaps) from east prussia

From: "Kenneth Nordtvedt" <[email protected]>

Overnight two more members of CTS6364+ L22- showed up in FTDNA reports.
This is a gateway branch to the robust L22+ sector of the tree, as L22+
seems to be all CTS6364+
The two new 67 marker haplotype members have Polish surnames. There is an
eastern German surname which I am close to sure will test positive for this
haplogroup. This reinforces my hunch that the origins of I1 some 4500 years
ago will be more to the east than earlier expectations --- maybe Prussia or
Pomerania.

But by Prussia I mean the geographical heartland of the peoples once called
Prussians, not the political empire that the Prussians built up among the
German peoples in historic times.

There was even originally a language of the Prussians
I believe, not part of the standard Germanic or Slavic language group,
although part of the Indo-European language group. Perhaps related to
Latvian?

The Old Prussian language is extinct like all other closely related
Western Baltic languages (Curonian, Galindian and Sudovian) - Lithuanian
and Latvian are surviving Eastern Baltic languages, to which Old
Prussian was more distantly related
 
Like I said, can't comment much. I have neither knowledge on I1 tree, nor its age estimates. 4,500 years ago some I1 tribe from Prussian whereabouts manages to survive and enter general IE world. Why not?
Modern Balts however have very little of any I. On other hand Lithuanians are outliers (as being among tallest populations wihout I haplo), which might mean that I folk haplos got replaced by R1A/N1C1 mix at some point(s).
 
Germanic haplotypes in North of Portugal particularly around Porto must be close to 20 percent or even more. Braga itself accounts for I not specified haplogroup of about 18%. The suebi who invaded north of Portugal were about 40000. Plus the Viking input in Povoa de Varzim. Those estimations about N Portugal are wrong.
 
Germanic haplotypes in North of Portugal particularly around Porto must be close to 20 percent or even more. Braga itself accounts for I not specified haplogroup of about 18%. The suebi who invaded north of Portugal were about 40000. Plus the Viking input in Povoa de Varzim. Those estimations about N Portugal are wrong.
 
Germanic haplotypes in North of Portugal particularly around Porto must be close to 20 percent or even more. Braga itself accounts for I not specified haplogroup of about 18%. The suebi who invaded north of Portugal were about 40000. Plus the Viking input in Povoa de Varzim. Those estimations about N Portugal are wrong.s
 
Well maybe a little underestimation but you have to remember that north portugal is not just braga and porto it also includes tras-os montes which is probably much less germanic, for example even the buri contingent that separated from the suebi stayed in amares and terras de bouro (lands of the buri) though probably their center was in aplace where it is nowadays amares, the villages of Bouro or Buri. In conclusion the numbers maciamo gave are not necessarily wrong but the samples were simply not taken in areas that were as much affected by the germanic migrations as in braga and porto. For example in beleza et al there is much probably an overestimation on the germanic samples because they were only taken in areas largely affected by both the suebi, the vandals( the ones who stayed with the suebi and those who ran from north africa), some visigoths due to the reconquista and even the most underestimated the vikings who founded a fishing community in a somewhat large lenght of coast, vikings who are most times forgotten and their lineages just taken as part of the suebi and others contingent.
 
These estimations must be wrong about the I. Please check my comment in you thread.
 
Spain and Portugal are fairly well studied countries for Y-chromosomal lineages. Unfortunately no study so far has tested for the Germanic S21/U106 subclade of R1b, and few papers even distinguish subclades of I (those who did only tested for I2a1a-M26).

I have analysed the raw data from Adams et al. (2008) and attempted to identify by myself the subclades of I as well as R1b-S21 by looking for the DYS390=23 values. About 80% of R1b-S21 has the value 23 at DYS390, which corresponds generally to the Frisian L48 subclade (close to 100% of which have DYS390=23). It's not a perfectly reliable method since DYS390=23 is also found at low frequency among some other R1b subclades - although I have excluded those found among the M153 and SRY2627 subclades.

Consequently it is important to compare the frequencies for haplogroups I1 and I2b1 with those of DYS390=23 so as to get a reasonable idea of the impact of Germanic peoples (Visigoths, Suebi, Vandals, Franks) on the Iberian gene pool.

Here is the data.


Aragon (n=34)

I1 = 2 (6%)
I2b1 = 1 (3%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (14.7%)

Asturias (n=20)

I1 = 1 (5%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 2 (10%)


Basque Country (n=116)

I1 = 1 (0.85%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 14 (12%)


Catalonia (n=80)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (6.25%)


Castilla La Mancha (n=63)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 9 (14.2%)


East Andalusia (n=95)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 8 (8%)


Extremadura (n=52)

I1 = 3 (6%)
I2b1 = 1 (2%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 4 (8%)


Galicia (n=88)

I1 = 4 (4.5%)
I2b1 = 2 (2.2%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 8 (9%)


Northeast Castille (n=31)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 3 (9.6%)


North Portugal (n=60)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1.6%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (8.3%)


Northwest Castille (n=100)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 8 (8%)


South Portugal (n=78)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (6.4%)


Valencia (n=73)

I1 = 3 (4.1%)
I2b1 = 1 (1.3%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 7 (9.5%)


West Andalusia (n=73)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 1 (1.3%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 7 (9.6%)


Ibiza (n=54)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 5 (9.2%)


Majorca (n=62)

I1 = 3 (4.8%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 6 (9.6%)


Minorca (n=37)

I1 = 0 (0%)
I2b1 = 0 (0%)
R1b3 S21 (DYS390=23) = 4 (10.8%)


The frequency of R1b with DYS390=23 is surprisingly homogeneous all over Iberia, oscillating around 8% and 10% of the male population. Only South Portugal and Catalonia have less than 8%. Three regions exceed 10%: Aragon (14.7%), Castilla La Mancha (14.2%) and the Basque country (12%).

The Basques, however, have less than 1% of I1 and no I2b1 or R1a at all (this was confirmed by other, larger studies on the Basques), an almost undeniable proof that they have close to no Germanic ancestry, if proof was needed. The Basque DNA Project at FTDNA does not have a single R1b-U106 among members who tested for deep clades, and the U106 Project also lacks any member in or near the Basque country. The high percentage of DYS390=23 can therefore be considered to be due exclusively to the extremely high percentage of R1b (85%) among the Basques. If there is 12% of DYS390=23 among the 85% of Basques R1b and none of it is S21, that would give a ratio of 14% of non-Germanic R1b in Iberia that would misleadingly show up as DYS390=23. If I take an average of 9% of DYS390=23 for Iberia and 65% of R1b, we get about the same ratio of 14%. So it is well possible that very little DYS390=23 in Iberia corresponds to actual R1b-S21. Overall I think it is safe to consider that the percentage of R1b-S21 should always be a bit lower than I1.

My analysis of Germanic Y-DNA in Italy has assessed that the Lombards and Vandals at least, who both originated in southern Sweden, carried around 40% of I1, 30% of R1b, 25% of R1a and 5% of I2b1, not unlike modern Swedes. The Vandals probably didn't have much impact on the Iberian population. It is especially the Suebi who left a clear genetic print around Galicia, Portugal and Extremadura. Based on all the Y-DNA studies on Iberia (and not just Adams et al.) the peak of I1 in Iberia is to be found in Extremadura (3.5%) and Galicia (3%), while I2b peaks in Portugal at 3% (although that could include some Celtic I2b2). The Old Castile, founded by the Visigoths, has precious little I1 or I2b1 - one of the blanks on the map of Iberia along with Andalusia and Murcia.

There have been plenty of discussions on the reasons why the former Suebi kingdom had so much Germanic Y-DNA compared to the former Visigothic kingdom. Of all the Germanic peoples from the migration period the genetic impact of Visigoths is the most elusive. I believe that the reason is that the Goths stayed for many centuries in Eastern Europe and nearly two more centuries in the Balkans before invading Italy and Iberia and could have assimilated a lot of non-Germanic people, notably R1a and I2a1b Slavs and predominantly E1b1b, I2a1b and J2 Balkanic people. It would be pretty complicated at the moment to untangle the Balkanic E1b1b and J2 from all the others (Neolithic, Phoenician, Greek, Roman, Jewish, Arabic) found in Iberia. But it is remarkably easy to check the Eastern European I2a1b (M423). It is all the I2a that is not M26. And I cannot reasonably imagine who could have brought it in any number to Iberia besides the Eastern European populations assimilated by the Goths. The I2a Project at FTDNA has three M423-Dinaric-N and one M423-Isles-B2 from Spain.

It's a pity that no study looks at the subclades of R1a in Iberia, and that no member at the House of Spain DNA Project deemed necessary to test for deep clades. The Phoenicians and Jews could have brought some R1a-Z93 to the Mediterranean coast. Apart from that, all the R1a in Spain should have come with the Germanic migrations. It would be interesting to see how much of it is truly Germanic (L664, Z284) and how much is Slavic. By doing the same for Italy, and combining the figures with the percentage of I2a1b (M423), we could get a fairly accurate imagine of how Slavicised the Goths had become before invading the Roman Empire. It's probably no coincidence that the highest concentrations of R1a in Iberia, aside from the Mediterranean coast, are found in northern Castile, Asturias and Cantabria, the core of the old Visigothic kingdom before the Reconquista. The R1a in Cantabria is accompanied by typically East European mtDNA haplogroups like T1, T3, T5, U2, U3, U4 and U5b.
Maciamo, you are wrong aboutnorthern Portugal. The region was barely studied. You write the Germanic I1 iszero, knowing that 40000 suebi settled around Porto and Braga. The culturalimpact of the Vikings and suebi tribes in northern Portugal is huge. Bragaaccounts for 18% of I not specified haplogroup. Some Portuguese from Povoa looklike Norwegians. You may know a lot about European history but not about myregion. People are always underestimating the impact of the Germanic tribessince this is a southern European region. England before the invasion of theanglo-saxons was so Germanic as northernPortugal before the invasion of thesuebi. But in your works you point out heavily the Germanic influence ofdifferent regions in England and you do not do the same for Portugal. I wouldappreciate an answer of yours. Please check my comments in the thread suebiinput in Northern Portugal and Galiza.
 
...England before the invasion of theanglo-saxons was so Germanic as northernPortugal before the invasion of thesuebi....

Do you have any evidence of England being Germanic before the Anglo-Saxon invasion?
 
As for Northern Portugal, I agree that there was not Germanic dominance in the area before the Suebi.
So the same happens with England before the anglo-Saxons right? Understood?
 
As for Northern Portugal, I agree that there was not Germanic dominance in the area before the Suebi.
So the same happens with England before the anglo-Saxons right? Understood?

In a way, England was invaded before the Anglo-Saxons, but not by Germanic tribes but by the Romans and they called The Brythoic tribes of England & Wales Brittania (43-410 AD). In 410 the Romanized-Britians were left to their own devises and were soon invaded by Anglo-Saxons

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Britain
 

This thread has been viewed 88874 times.

Back
Top