Germanic settlement in the southern Balkans ? ?

Visigoths actually correlate with lack of I2b1 in Iberia

220px-Hispania_476_AD.PNG


attachment.php


so, I think some other germanic people are related to spread of I2b1...
LeBrok rightly pointed to Franks...

entity_1225.jpg

entity_627.html

entity_1225.jpg


Franks have legend of origin relating them to Troy, which may explain I2b1 in
Asia minor...

Like many Germanic peoples, the Franks developed an origin story to connect themselves with peoples of antiquity. In the case of the Franks, these peoples were the Sicambri and the Trojans. An anonymous work of 727 called Liber Historiae Francorum states that following the fall of Troy, 12,000 Trojans led by chiefs Priam and Antenor moved to the Tanais (Don) river, settled in Pannonia near the Sea of Azov and founded a city called "Sicambria". In just two generations (Priam and his son Marcomer) from the fall of Troy (by modern scholars dated in the late Bronze Age) they arrive in the late fourth century at the Rhine. An earlier variation of this story can be read in Fredegar. In Fredegar's version an early king named Francio serves as namegiver for the Franks, just as Romulus has lent his name to Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks

Sicambri from whom Franks origin, might be related to Cimbri and Cimmerians...
entity_15248.jpg


Cimbri are also interesting as they cover Provence in south France and much of I2b1 area in west Europe...

300px-Cimbrians_and_Teutons_invasions.svg.png


Thraco-Cimmerians 700-800 BC
Thraco-Cimmerian.png
 
It's hard to pinpoint exact origin of Suebi/Suevi. One map shows here in south/west Germania:
1.jpg

One map shows in east of germania:

So lets say they are from central germania, and this is the strongest I2b1 signature. The migrated to Galicia in Iberia, and this is where we have the strongest signature of I2b1 in Iberia.


On other hand Goths started migration from Scandinavia where I2b1 is not that much. They didn't make much of the mark in rest of Iberia. Knowing that they lived few hundred years by Black sea where I2b1 is reach, that means that they left Black sea area to Iberia, before I2b1 showed there. Otherwise why they didn't leave mark on Iberia the way Suebi did?

The heighten I2b1 around Israel and Lebanon could be a mark of crusaders. Most of them came from Germany, France, Italy and England.
 
its interesting,as we ere usually say "Švabe" as nickname for all "Njemce"(Germans),and Švabe means Suebi(i think) in our way of saying,since it was our general or collective knowledge that Germans descended from Swabians(Suebi?)
 
There is one good argument in favor of Visigoth origin of I2b1.

I believe that Visigoths had to have significant frequencies of I1 also. But similarly I1 is not found in Iberian regions conquered by them.

This needs explanation and it could be like following one. Goths were forced to Pannonia and Balkans by Huns, and this migration was real and massive because it was the way for them to save their lives. Unlike that, conquests of Iberia and Italy would actually be result of ambition of Gothic elite followed by a minor part of the tribe loyal to them. Most of the ordinary Goths abandoned the elite in turbulent circumstances.
It should also be noted that between 418 AD and 508 AD, political center of Visigothic kingdom was Southern France (not Iberia) and this kingdom included larger part of Iberia. It was like that until Franks took control of the most of France.

In this scenario I2b1 was brought to Southeast Europe by Visigoths (but they brought I1 also), and Ostrogoths would’ve been predominantly I1. After downfall of the Hunnic Empire part of Ostrogoths moved to Balkans from Pannonia (approximately 80 years after Visigoths).

Here is one map of I1 distribution, it looks good to me:
 

Attachments

  • I1_DnaHeritage.jpg
    I1_DnaHeritage.jpg
    35.9 KB · Views: 642
hm, there is no match between spread of I1 and I2b1 in Balkans... (there is a match in area far north of Caucasus, but as far as we know Goths didnot live there but more to the west and south)

Visigoths must have left bigger impact in genetics of Spain than in the one of Serbia, but spread of I1 contradicts this... let's forget for a moment Goths as key donor of I1 to Balkans... after all they might have been dominantly some other haplogroup...

what do you think about Scordisci as a key source of I1 in Balkan? they fit well into haplogroup I tribal name pattern....

The Scordisci (Greek,"Σκορδίσκοι") were an ancient Celtic tribe centered in what would become the Roman Provinces of lower Pannonia, Moesia and present-day Serbia at the confluence of the Savus[1] (Sava), Dravus[2] (Drava) and Danube rivers. They were historically notable from the beginning of the third century B.C. until the turn of the common era. At their zenith, their influence stretched over regions comprising parts of the present-day Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Their tribal name may be connected to the name of the Scordus[3] mountain (Šar mountain) which was located between the regions of Illyria and Paionia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scordisci

Šar mountain extends over areas of southern Kosovo and the northwest of the Republic of Macedonia to northeastern Albania, which coincides with south most part of I1 hotspot in Balkans according to the map provided by Shetop...

and mention of tribal name does stretch all the way to Austria and Slovakia same as Balkan I1 hotspot does...




Celts_in_Illyria_%26_Pannonia.png

entity_94.jpg


btw. spread for Serbia of I1 in map has to be just approximation as I am not aware of any separate sampling done per different regions...
 
its interesting,as we ere usually say "Švabe" as nickname for all "Njemce"(Germans),and Švabe means Suebi(i think) in our way of saying,since it was our general or collective knowledge that Germans descended from Swabians(Suebi?)
Great observation, and it means that Suebi were the biggest-most eastern germanic tribe Slavs incounter expending west. Or the one that gave them most resistance.
In Poland word Shvab is more of a derogatory flavour, niemiec is neutral. Not sure how it is in other Slavic countries, or if negative meaning showed up recently and was neutral in the past?
 
There is one good argument in favor of Visigoth origin of I2b1.

I believe that Visigoths had to have significant frequencies of I1 also. But similarly I1 is not found in Iberian regions conquered by them.

This needs explanation and it could be like following one. Goths were forced to Pannonia and Balkans by Huns, and this migration was real and massive because it was the way for them to save their lives. Unlike that, conquests of Iberia and Italy would actually be result of ambition of Gothic elite followed by a minor part of the tribe loyal to them. Most of the ordinary Goths abandoned the elite in turbulent circumstances.

Here is one map of I1 distribution, it looks good to me:


I'm confused looking at this map. I don't sea even slightest elevation of I1 on North side of Black Sea. We know that Goths lived there for few hundred years as a ruling/dominant tribe, and they should have left their I1 there, the same way we see elevated I2b1 level there.
Did they isolate themselves from locals and never mingled?
Was I1 any dominant in Goths?
But if they had lots of I1 and they didn't leave a mark around Black Sea, it means that they couldn't possibly leave any I2b1 either, right? Can you leave one and not leave the other?
Maybe the map is low resolution?
 
Great observation, and it means that Suebi were the biggest-most eastern germanic tribe Slavs incounter expending west. Or the one that gave them most resistance.
In Poland word Shvab is more of a derogatory flavour, niemiec is neutral. Not sure how it is in other Slavic countries, or if negative meaning showed up recently and was neutral in the past?

in Serbia Nemci is also neutral and official, while Svabe can be somewhat derogative but I think is more jargon or casual speaking than offending...

good point, that for Slavs tribal name Suebs (Svabe) is identical to Germans(Nemci), and not part of Germans....meaning that Suebi were the core germanic tribe at least in area of contact with pre-Slavic people... they were dominantly I1 carriers, we can see that from their genetic imprint in Iberia





I'm confused looking at this map. I don't sea even slightest elevation of I1 on North side of Black Sea. We know that Goths lived there for few hundred years as a ruling/dominant tribe, and they should have left their I1 there, the same way we see elevated I2b1 level there.
Did they isolate themselves from locals and never mingled?
Was I1 any dominant in Goths?
But if they had lots of I1 and they didn't leave a mark around Black Sea, it means that they couldn't possibly leave any I2b1 either, right? Can you leave one and not leave the other?
Maybe the map is low resolution?

map is incorrect in sense that in Iberian peninsula there should be, as on other haplogroup I maps, lot of I1 in area of northwest Spain and north Portugal - that hotspot matches Suebi settlements...

if you go to familytreee dna I1 project, all except 1 of I1 samples for Spain are from that area...
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1/default.aspx?section=ymap
also in area north of Black sea where Goths lived for long time are no I1 samples

I think that Goths were not I1 carriers... maybe marginally but not as main haplogroup...
 
I'm confused looking at this map. I don't sea even slightest elevation of I1 on North side of Black Sea. We know that Goths lived there for few hundred years as a ruling/dominant tribe, and they should have left their I1 there, the same way we see elevated I2b1 level there.
Did they isolate themselves from locals and never mingled?
Was I1 any dominant in Goths?
But if they had lots of I1 and they didn't leave a mark around Black Sea, it means that they couldn't possibly leave any I2b1 either, right? Can you leave one and not leave the other?
Maybe the map is low resolution?

There are couple of issues about maps. One is that I1 map shows higher scale of frequencies than I2b1 map. And one more thing as a reminder, maps are not perfect tools and we can use them to get some ideas, but we should not blindly stick to them.

It is hard to answer your questions. It is not much known how many Goths remained on Black Sea shores after Huns came. I think that object of the interest here should be “when and with what people did I1 come to Balkans?”, simply because there are much more data about this region. If we answer that we may get answers about what happened further on the East.

I1 in Southeast Europe has its maximum values in Pannonia and Greek Macedonia. I think there is no way I1 could preserve these maximums during early middle ages. Migration waves were very strong and these two regions (Pannonia and Macedonia) were most interesting to newcomers, because of the land but also because of the wealth of close by Byzantine Empire. These same regions would later be settled by the Slavs also, and I think this is not a coincidence.

Mainly because of the reasons I’ve just wrote, my opinion is that I1 came to Balkans during Early middle ages, after Huns and before Slavs. Huns “cleaned” some regions for I1, but when Avars and Slavs came they pushed I1 and I2b1 to their present location. Only tribes which fit into this story are Germanic tribes, mostly Goths (both Visigoths and Ostrogoths), but also Gepids in Pannonia and some Heruli. I had (have) some doubts about I2b1, but I’m pretty sure about I1 is brought by these people.
 
Visigoths must have left bigger impact in genetics of Spain than in the one of Serbia, but spread of I1 contradicts this... let's forget for a moment Goths as key donor of I1 to Balkans... after all they might have been dominantly some other haplogroup...
It is good that you are trying to find some other source of I1, but saying that "Visigoths must have left bigger impact in genetics of Spain than in the one of Serbia" should be explained. For example my opinion is opposite.


what do you think about Scordisci as a key source of I1 in Balkan? they fit well into haplogroup I tribal name pattern.....
There is no way Scordisci would remain in the same region during Early middle ages. Changes in population of Southeast Europe were large, and in that region especially.

I think it is not that compliacted:
- There were indigenous people of SE Europe
- Than Germanic tribes came (4th-5th century pushed by Huns)
- Than Slavs came (6th-7th century partly pushed by Avars)
 
meaning that Suebi were the core germanic tribe at least in area of contact with pre-Slavic people... they were dominantly I1 carriers, we can see that from their genetic imprint in Iberia
This same region settled by Suebi (with maximum I1 in Iberia) also has maximum for R1b-U106 in Iberia. R1b-U106 is clearly Germanic subclade. This brings into question that Suebi were predominantly I1.
 
It is good that you are trying to find some other source of I1, but saying that "Visigoths must have left bigger impact in genetics of Spain than in the one of Serbia" should be explained. For example my opinion is opposite.

Last settlement of Visigoths was Iberia. They were not there in small numbers. They were initially settled in southwest Gaul as Roman federati. It was big settlement, not just brief military conquest, From there, they have slowly extended their influence to Spain. Later they were pushed out from southwest France by Franks. If they were I1 or I2b1 their genetic impact must be visible in all those areas...

there are two options:
1) they were not dominantly one or both of those clades
2) your maps are incorrect, as they shows that Visigoth settlement in southwest France and Iberia in fact correlates with complete lack of those haplogroups...

In Iberia Visigoths are last settlers and thus their genetical impact must be very clear...
In Serbia, after questionable settlement of Goths, there were equally questionable settlements of Gepids (mostly in Vojvodina), Avars, and later various Slavic people and in particular Serbs....


There is no way Scordisci would remain in the same region during Early middle ages. Changes in population of Southeast Europe were large, and in that region especially.
Scordisci were romanized... people stay living where they lived unless there is mass genocide and exodus... but this didnot happen in Serbia as obvious from preserved high E-V13 values... thus, elevated I1 levels can as well be due to previous inhabitants, in this case Scordisci, who by the way fit perfectly into haplogroup I tribal names pattern (Swedes, Suebi, Serbs, Sarbans, Sardinians)

Also spread of I1 matches exactly spread of Scordisci (from Sar mountains on south to and including Vojvodina on north and than towards west along south shores of Pannonian plain - Slavonia area)...

Goths I1 would show in Hungary, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, more or less equally strong as in Serbia...


I think it is not that compliacted:
- There were indigenous people of SE Europe
- Than Germanic tribes came (4th-5th century pushed by Huns)
- Than Slavs came (6th-7th century partly pushed by Avars)

Sure, that was my first way of thinking...
but now I think it might be oversimplified way of looking at it...
thing is we do not know genetics of indigenous people, we do not know whether Goths were Germanic only by culture or also by haplogroup I,
we do not know whether pre- south Slavs could have carried I1... if they carried abundance of I2a2 why would they not carry some I1 as well?
 
This same region settled by Suebi (with maximum I1 in Iberia) also has maximum for R1b-U106 in Iberia. R1b-U106 is clearly Germanic subclade. This brings into question that Suebi were predominantly I1.
that's not the point... point is that their I1 imprint is very clearly visible exactly in places of their settlement...... which seems not to be the case for areas settled by Visigoths...
 
Great observation, and it means that Suebi were the biggest-most eastern germanic tribe Slavs incounter expending west. Or the one that gave them most resistance.
In Poland word Shvab is more of a derogatory flavour, niemiec is neutral. Not sure how it is in other Slavic countries, or if negative meaning showed up recently and was neutral in the past?

Well its not derogatory per-se,but more a word that generalizezes German man strerotype,like you would say Yankee for US citizen.

Njemac is neutral and our word for German,country Germany/Deutchland we call Njemačka.



Now i wonder from who word "German" came from,German tribes didn't call them selfs like that as i can recall,was it from Romans perhaps?
 
Now i wonder from who word "German" came from,German tribes didn't call them selfs like that as i can recall,was it from Romans perhaps?

it's interesting that in ancient east Europe, linguistically closest match to Deutch and Dutch are Dacians..

name German comes from Germania... word Germania we find in Persia inside Iran of today, in the name of province Kerman/Germania/Zermanya... name there is ancient old and it meant meant "bravery/combat", likely related is the name Cimmerians or Gimmri which meant hero....Cimmerians in hostory appear in areas around Black sea and Caucasus area,
700-800 BC we find Thraco-Cimmerians in east Europe
Thraco-Cimmerian.png

however, Cimmerians were satem-speakers... they might have been second wave of haplogroup I settlers of Europe... likely I2a2 haplogroup...
I propose that Sarmatians is the name that came from them...

during Roman empire, areas north of Roman empire are divided in two parts:
1) area where people live in households - Germania
2) area where people live in nomadic way - Sarmatia...

btw. old but likely better maps of I1 and I2b1 than the posted ones by Shetop

I1a.jpg


I1 in Iberia matches Suebi, but not Visigoths
in Balkans its hotspot is more in Bulgaria than in Serbia...

I1c.jpg


I2b1 (former I1c) matches settlements of Goths match better...

it is very likely that both Goths and Suebi also had some strong R1b branches...
 
@Dalmat. It's possible that in Poland shvab became more impolite term after last war.

@Shetop
There are couple of issues about maps. One is that I1 map shows higher scale of frequencies than I2b1 map. And one more thing as a reminder, maps are not perfect tools and we can use them to get some ideas, but we should not blindly stick to them.
Yes, the current maps are with many mistakes and not great resolution. I'm not looking at scale of haplogroup, but more for contrasts between regions, in this case. For now we work with what we have, keeping in mind that the maps could be misleading.

@how yes no
thing is we do not know genetics of indigenous people, we do not know whether Goths were Germanic only by culture

I was considering this too. It's possible that after 500 year (from moment they left Scandinavia to leaving Black Sea) they lost their original y haplogroups and acquired local once. From polish archeology we know that Goths coexisted with local population. We surely know that they were not killing and scorching on big scale. If they were more friendly, or open tolerant culture, it's possible that they mixed quite a bit with indigenous population.
Let's say that it's true. Therefore they mostly enquired I2a and R1a from locals around the Black Sea. Let's see if there is an elevated level of these groups in Iberia in center of their settlements.

In Spain the capital of Visigoths was Toledo and this map shows lots of I2a there:
Haplogroup_I2a.gif

It's hard to say now if this I2a matches the Black Sea type. Is there a way to check it out? If in France there was a hot spot too, where they settled, the case would be sealed.
I can't find a decent R1a map for Iberia.
 
In Spain the capital of Visigoths was Toledo and this map shows lots of I2a there:
Haplogroup_I2a.gif

It's hard to say now if this I2a matches the Black Sea type. Is there a way to check it out? If in France there was a hot spot too, where they settled, the case would be sealed.
I can't find a decent R1a map for Iberia.

Watch out that this is a map of all I2a. The variety found in Spain, Sardinia and most of western Europe is I2a1, while in eastern Europe almost 100% is I2a2. There is therefore no connection between them.
 
there are two options:
1) they were not dominantly one or both of those clades
2) your maps are incorrect, as they shows that Visigoth settlement in southwest France and Iberia in fact correlates with complete lack of those haplogroups...

You forced me to serach for Visigoths. :)

This study http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181996/ showed 3.1% I1 in Catalonia and this one http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...944b9488099473deba71c9678116122d&searchtype=a showed 8.96% of I1+I2b1 in Midi-Pyrenees (France). Much of it could be from Visigoths.

Btw I was inprecise when talking about Visigoths in Serbia. I had I1 as a whole in mind when I wrote that.

My opinion is that I1 in Serbia is more from Ostrogoths than Visigoths.
 
in Balkans its hotspot is more in Bulgaria than in Serbia...

There are two results for I1 Serbia, and they show 5-8%.
Do you have some data for Bulgaria? Again, maps are not that reliable.
 
I2b1 (former I1c) matches settlements of Goths match better...
it is very likely that both Goths and Suebi also had some strong R1b branches...

Have you ever heard of Moesian Goths?
Were Ostrogoths mentioned in any other regions during their inhabitance of Moesia?
 

This thread has been viewed 103930 times.

Back
Top