How did I2a-Din get to the Balkans?

[Tomenable]

Now lets look at average heights in some of Slavic lands other than southern ones:
Russia 176, Ukraine 176

Russia and Ukraine both have a lot of Non-Slavic minorities. Ukraine is also very poor (= bad nutrition).

And even ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are mixed with Ugric, Turkic, Tatar, Romanian, Asian, etc. peoples.

I don't think Slavs would even look to settle there too (because land is totally unsuitable for farming).

Slavs were very good in farming on land which is hard to farm:

"(...) In more recent literature on the subject more and more clearly the old opinion about the widespread use or even exclusive use of slash-and-burn agriculture among first Slavs is being questioned, while a more complex picture of their articulture is presented. Early Slavic agriculture simultaneously knew and used various directions of arable farming, starting from intensive manual cultivation of infield allotments, through fallow system of farming, to peripheral slash-and-burn system. Realizing the many-sidedness of early Slavic agriculture allows to understand its considerable elasticity and its ability to adapt to changing conditions, (...) Slavs, while colonizing the Balkan Peninsula as well as some parts of Eastern Alpine countries, initially settled mainly in abandoned territories, which had not been in agricultural use already for long time and were often overgrown by forests. Due to this fact activity of settlers had to be directed first of all towards recultivation of those areas with use of traditional method of burning forests. In this sense we can talk about intensification of slash-and-burn agriculture in initial period of Slavic colonization of the Balkans. Excerpts from Nomos georgikos (Farmer's law) cited to support this theory, refer to the use of fire in order to cleanse and reclaim from nature pieces of land for agriculture. About this kind of activity of Slavic settlers we are informed also by document of Bavarian duke Tassilon from year 777 written for monastery in Kremsmunster: "We grant also this land, which had been brought to condition suitable for cultivation by these Slavs (...), below the place which is called Las, near Todicha and Sirnik" (...)"

Garden plants - especially leguminous plants - had a very important place in Slavic agriculture.

Someone also claimed in this thread, that agriculture was "everything" for Slavs.

This is not true. Slavs were known as farmers because they were good farmers. But it doesn't mean they couldn't do other things.

Slavs also worked as artisans during Slavic-Avar military campaign.

Slavic carpenters and boatbuilders constructed the fleets which attacked Constantinople in 624 AD and Thessaloniki in 614-616 / 620 AD.

Slavic fleet also blockaded the harbour of Thessaloniki in years 674-677.

Slavic piracy was very widespread in the Aegean Sea and in the Adriatic Sea. They plundered Greek islands and parts of Italy.

L. II, IV, 190, 102 of Miracula S. Demetrii writes that Slavic people had many skilled artisans - carpenters, joiners and smiths.

L. II, IV, 190, 101 - 102 says about a Slavic foreman and his artisans - who were ordered to construct a sophisticated siege tower. The same source says about specialization among Slavic smiths. For example, some of them specialized in producing arrowheads.

Kurnatowska also writes, that there are proofs for existence of goldsmiths and other metal-workers in early Slavic settlements.

While Slavic carpenters, joiners, smiths and producers of arrows were skilled, it seems that there were no professional potters in Slavic societies.

Slavic pottery was produced by each family on its own, rather than by artisans specialized in producing pottery (Kurnatowska, page 69).

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

Slavs also lived much more westward than the source of Vistula you mentioned.

Not in 500 AD.

Slavs started moving westward and northward into Poland and East Germany only after year 518 AD. Here are two maps from "Germanie na ziemiach polskich w zaraniu średniowiecza" ("Germanic peoples in Polish lands at the beginning of the Middle Ages") by Polish historian Adam Sengebush:

A recent study on mtDNA in Iron Age Poland confirms that there is continuity of maternal lineages in Poland from ancient times to now:

"Ancient DNA Reveals Matrilineal Continuity in Present-Day Poland over the Last Two Millennia":

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

So expanding Slavic invaders (maps posted above) perhaps decimated Germanic males, but took Germanic females as their wifes.

The same could later happen in the Balkans and that's why we don't see much Germanic Y-DNA there.

 

[clintCG]

discussed the history of Slovenes with several Slovenes, and they told me that most of Slovenes came from east Slavic lands.
They quoted sources.
They wrote that there were two migrations to Slovenia - first (earlier) from East Slavic lands. Second (later) from West Slavic.
But first was more numerous.

No. First one came from Moravia (west Slavic lands) around 550, and second one from east came after Lombards retreated from Italy.
I don't know for sources which claim that one from east Slavic lands was more numerous. After all Slovene (and other Yugoslavian) populations have much higher linguistic similarity to western Slavs.

There was of course migration from eastern Slavic lands- but every Byzantine historian says that ancestors of Croats and Serbs came from western ones.
East Slavic migration, too, cannot explain such a high presence of I2a Din. Ukraine conc of I2a is 13%, and deduct conc of I2a2 and other groups in Ukraine and you will get even lower presence of I2a Din in Ukraine. You still can't explain why does I2a1b Din steadily fall with conc as we go from mountains to plains...

Explain me why would Slavs settle in rocky, unfertile mountains (where our clans live).

Serbian academic dr. Miloš Blagojević in book „Serbia in time of Nemanjići“ (Belgrade, 1989):

It is clear that Serbs, when coming to new homeland were farmers, andthat’s why they, by rule, settled in areas which were farmed in Roman times:in river valleys and karst fields- or župas, as they called them. Aboutagricultural profession we also have existence of so called “Grain pits” (Žitnejame), which were used for storing grains, and for using stone mills. It isproven that they grew millet, and most probably wheat and other grains.

Pre-Slavic population was collectively called "Vlasi" (not to be confused with modern-day Vlachs) and they lived in Dinaric mountains (Lika, Herzegovina, Montenegro), uninterested in agriculture (except livestock), that is, in exact areas where we find most of I2a1b.

Xavier Marmier, after his stay in Montenegro 1854. Published in Paris book about his impressions. About agriculture he writes like this:

“Nevertheless, most often it is the women that dig, sow and reap… Because of small interest for agriculture, and lacking crafts and trading skills, Montenegrin people can not be rich”.

Same thing Tacitus writes in "Germania"

Compare that with what Francise Conte writes in “Les Slaves”:

“Eastern part of our continent had more stable village society, which kept all the way up until modern age, in comparison to way of life we had in Western Europe. Villager was for a long time a symbol of Slavic civilization, whether it is word about Pole, or Slovak, Serb or Ukrainian, or, before everyone, about famous Russian muzhik. From start of new era Slavs were mostly occupied with agriculture and on that way they made their living, although importance of cattle, and of hunting in forests rich with animals were not underestimated. To this we should add three important elements: honey gathering, mushrooms gathering and fishing on rivers and lakes which are plentiful in eastern Europe. Arab traveler-writers (in many ways our best sources from 9^th to 12^th century) gave us precious informations: trader Ibrahim Ibn Jakub, Spanish Jew travelled around 965. through Poland, Bohemia, Slavic territories on Elbe and Baltic and wrote that this people “took up agriculture with special joy and interest”, and that their country is “very rich with food”.

Russia and Ukraine both have a lot of Non-Slavic minorities. Ukraine is also very poor (= bad nutrition).
And even ethnic Russians and Ukrainians are mixed with Ugric, Turkic, Tatar, Romanian, Asian, etc. peoples.

Well, why does not poor nutrition matter in us? We were (untill 1945) among poorest in Europe.
Check this out (Montenegro- a land of warriors, Trevor Roy, 1913):

Considering the remarkable stature and strength of the men, the quantity of their daily food is incredibly meagre. At daybreak they breakfast on a piece of heavy maize bread, and take absolutely nothing more until sunset, when they eat more bread, this time with a little milk. They seldom eat meat, except at a feast, for they cannot afford such luxury. Upon this scant diet they are able to make wonderful journeys showing the stamina of the race climbing almost inaccessible mountains, and traversing paths at giddy heights, where seemingly only mountain goats would find footing; and they will maintain this most arduous travelling for hour after hour without the least sign of fatigue.

Map from "The Races of Europe" is most precise because it shows what was height like before people started eating industrialized junk food packed with hormons:

You said it is "inaccurate" and "obsolete" yet you quote choniclers from 6th to 10th century who only give information about pigmentation and height. Anthropological research is much more than that. Subracial classification is dependent on lots of factors and I already explained where are racially closest people to us located...

 

[Tomenable]

Map from "The Races of Europe" is most precise because it shows what was height like before people started eating industrialized junk food packed with hormons:

It is not about eating "industrialized junk food packed with hormons", but about eating things in proper amounts and proportions (balanced diet).

Moreover, the data for each country which you posted does not account for ethnic diversity and ethnic differences in height.

In Poland, Baltic countries and western part of the USSR before WW2 about 10% (in some regions more) of the population were ethnic Jews.

And Jews were on average much shorter than Non-Jews - even Jewish sources (written by Jewish scholars) confirm this, such as this book:

"Żydzi w Polsce Odrodzonej. Działalność społeczna, gospodarcza, oświatowa i kulturalna."

In English (plus a table of contents translated to English - author of each chapter is given):

"Jews in the Reborn Poland. Social, economic, educational and cultural activity":

VOLUME ONE, Warsaw 1933:

Publisher's Note
Introduction - Dr Ozjasz Thon

PART I - Jews in the old Polish Rzeczpospolita [Commonwealth]:

1. Growth of Jewish population in the lands of old Polish Commonwealth - Dr Ignacy Schiper
2. External history of Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr Emanuel Ringelblum
3. Internal Organization of Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr I. Schiper
4. Economic history of Jews of the Crown and of the Grand Duchy in pre-partitions times - Dr I. Schiper
5. Fundamental rights of Jews in pre-partitions Poland - Dr Mojżesz Schorr
6. Jewish taxes to the state and to patrons - Dr I. Schiper

PART II - Jewish culture in Poland before the partitions:

7. Rabbinic literature of Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr Jeremjasz Frenkel
8. Vernacular languages of Polish Jews and their folk literature in the old Commonwealth - Dr I. Schiper
9. Jewish apologists and polemicists in the old Commonwealth - Dr I. Schiper
10. Secular sciences among Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr I. Schiper
11. Misticism and messianic movements among Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr I. Schiper
12. Chasidism among Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr Jeremiasz Frenkel
13. Jewish doctors in the old Commonwealth - Dr Majer Bałaban
14. Plastic arts among Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr I. Schiper
15. Jewish education in the old Commonwealth - Dr Majer Bałaban
16. Customs and private life of Jews in the old Commonwealth - Dr Majer Bałaban

PART III - Polish Jews in the post-partitions period until year 1918:

17. History of Jews in Galicia (1772 - 1918) - Dr Filip Friedman
18. Galician Jews during the World War (1914 - 1918) - Dr I. Schiper
19. History of Jews in the Duchy of Warsaw and in the Kingdom of Poland (1795 - 1863) - Dr I. Schiper
20. History of Jews in the Kingdom of Poland since 1864 until 1918 - Samuel Hirszhorn
21. Development of Chasidism among Jews in post-partitions Poland (1795 - 1918) - Dr Jeremiasz Frenkel
22. History of Zionism in Polish lands (until 1918) - Dr Ignacy Schiper
23. Jewish working class movement in pre-war period - Arjeh Tartakower
24. Jews in Polish Legions (1914 - 1917) - Władysław Konic
25. Jews under the Prussian partition (1772 - 1918) - Dr I. Schiper
26. Jews in northern and eastern Kresy in post-partitions times - Dr I. Schiper

VOLUME TWO, Warsaw 1933:

PART III - Polish Jews in the post-partitions period until year 1918 (continued):

26. Jews in northern and eastern Kresy in post-partitions times (continued) - Dr I. Schiper
27. Participation of Polish Jews in science (19th century and early 20th century) - Mateusz Mieses
28. Modern Hebrew literature in Poland - Dr Jeremiasz Frenkel
29. Jewish contribution to Polish literature (until year 1918) - Dr Wilhelm Fallek
30. Development of Jewish literature in post-partitions Poland - Dr I. Schiper
31. Rabbinic literature of Polish Jews in post-partitions times - Izaak Lewin
32. Polish Jews and fine arts until year 1918 - Aleksander Hafftka

PART IV - Jews in the Rzeczpospolita [Republic] of Poland in period 1918 - 1933:

34. Racial structure of Polish Jews - Dr Henryk Szpidbaum
35. Numbers and natural development of Jewish population in Poland - Dr Arjeh Tartakower
36. Fundamental rights of Jewish minority in Poland and their history - Dr Michał Ringel
37. Legislation of the Reborn Poland concerning its Jewish national minority - Aleksander Hafftka
38. Legislation of the Reborn Poland concerning Jewish communities - Dr Michał Ringel
39. Jewish political parties in the Reborn Poland - Aleksander Hafftka
40. Parliamentary life of Jews in the Reborn Poland - Aleksander Hafftka
41. Parliamentary and political activity of Jewish deputies and senators in the Reborn Poland - A. Hafftka

PART V - Economic life:

42. Occupational and social structure of Jews in the Reborn Poland - Dr Arjeh Tartakower
43. Issues concerning pauperization of Jewish population in Poland - J. Borenstein
44. Jews in agriculture in the areas of former Congress Poland and Eastern Kresy - Engineer Bernard Dobrzyński
45. Jews in agriculture in the region of Lesser Poland - Dr Ignacy Schiper
46. Jews in Polish banking - Adolf Peretz
47. Jews in banking and credit (Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Wilno Region, Eastern Kresy) - Dr Ignacy Schiper
48. Participation of Jews in trade of the Reborn Poland - Engineer Maurycy Zajdeman
49. Participation of Jews in the branch of dealership and commission - Leon Perl
50. Jews in Polish industry - Dr Ignacy Schiper & Aleksander Hafftka
51. Participation of Jews in communication and transport - Dr Ignacy Schiper
52. Jewish artisans in the Reborn Poland - A. Hafftka
53. Jewish working class in Poland - Dr Arjeh Tartakower
54. Jewish cooperatives in the Reborn Poland - Abraham Prowalski

 

[Tomenable]

After all Slovene (and other Yugoslavian) populations have much higher linguistic similarity to western Slavs.

And Montenegrins have much higher linguistic similarity to other Slavs than to Goths... :grin:

Macedonians and Bulgarians have higher linguistic similarity to East Slavs. Serbs probably too.

Not sure about Croats. Slovene is similar to Slovakian but also to South Slavic languages.

 

[Tomenable]

From start of new era Slavs were mostly occupied with agriculture

It is clear that Serbs, when coming to new homeland were farmers
(...)
It is proven that they grew millet, and most probably wheat and other grains.

Goths were also mostly occupied with agriculture. And they grew millet as well:

"Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analysis of Human Diet Change in Prehistoric and Historic Poland":

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:osu1330969837

People of the Wielbark culture had a lot of millet in their diet according to this study.

 

[clintCG]

Goths were also mostly occupied with agriculture. And they grew millet as well:
"Stable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotope Analysis of Human Diet Change in Prehistoric and Historic Poland":
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ap:10:0::NO...su1330969837
People of the Wielbark culture had a lot of millet in their diet according to this study

Most peoples in Europe at that period were occupied with agriculture, they were not hunter-gatherers, for God's sake... the real question is: to what extent were they occupied with agriculture? Read Germania, then read sources about Slavs.

It is not about eating "industrialized junk food packed with hormons", but about eating things in proper amounts and proportions (balanced diet).
Moreover, the data for each country which you posted does not account for ethnic diversity and ethnic differences in height.
In Poland, Baltic countries and western part of the USSR before WW2 about 10% (in some regions more) of the population were ethnic Jews.
And Jews were on average much shorter than Non-Jews - even Jewish sources (written by Jewish scholars) confirm this, such as this book:

From his writings you can clearly see he examined native inhabitants of areas that were examined- otherwise those researches would make no sense.
Even if Jews in Poland were examined- they for sure could lower average for max 1cm. Those just sound like claims that Finns are not tallest because they have Samis... and Samis are like only 10.000, even if they all were 150cm they could not move Finn average even for 0.1cm...

I am still waiting for explanation of how could I2a1b Din be spread with East Slavic migration (I2a1b Din in Ukraine is like 11 percent) and make such a huge conc in Dinaric mountains... as well as increasing R1a and decreasing I2a Din as we move towards northern plains... those things don't just happen by "pure accident".

 

[Tomenable]

From his writings you can clearly see he examined native inhabitants of areas that were examined- otherwise those researches would make no sense.
Even if Jews in Poland were examined- they for sure could lower average for max 1cm.

Jews were native inhabitants in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - they lived there for several centuries.

every Byzantine historian says that ancestors of Croats and Serbs came from western ones.

Croats and Serbs came from West Slavic lands, but they did not come to empty space. They came to lands inhabited by other Slavic tribes before.

So Serbs and Croats mixed with other Slavic tribes, who had come from East Slavic lands. Especially Serbs appear to be a highly mixed group.

I2a1b Din in Ukraine is like 11 percent)

In Western and North-Western Ukraine it is over 22 percent. Ukraine is not genetically homogeneous.

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

As for Slovene language - the reason why it is so similar to West Slavic, is because it was originally spoken as far north as the Danube:

Green area = extent of Slovene-speaking populations in the Early Middle Ages (times of the Slavic Principality of Carantania):

Hrvati = Croats (Slavic)
Moravski Slovani = Moravians (Slavic)
Bavarci = Bavarians
Langobardi = Langobards
Romani = Romans / Romance-speakers
Obri = Avars

By the way Slovenes are called "Alpine Slavs" - they also settled in the mountains which were largely unfavourable for agriculture.

 

[Tomenable]

One more thing from page 31:

Germanic tribes migrated en-masse, taking all of tribe members with them, so what we got after they left were only small leftovers.

Actually Jordanes wrote that it was "Gothic army with families" which migrated (under the leadership of Filimer).

So only warriors and families of warriors. Not entire society.

And we don't even know if those were all warriors - because "army" doesn't necessarily mean "all armed forces".

Hannibal destroyed a Roman army at Cannaea but it was only one army, and Rome had more armies.

 

[clintCG]

In Western and North-Western Ukraine it is over 22 percent. Ukraine is not genetically homogeneous.

They did not came from specifically those parts... so Ukraine has 11 percent. And even if whole Ukraine had 22 percent it still would not explain lack of R1a and great regional differences here.

By the way Slovenes are called "Alpine Slavs" - they also settled in the mountains which were largely unfavourable for agriculture.

I am talking about Slavs in general... and, it is not just about mountains. It is about type of ground. Dinaric mountains in this area are mostly karstic. There are mountain areas here which are at about 1400m of elevation and very steep but still farmable. Compare:
Slovenia:

Herzegovina:

This is getting pointless... if you support Slavic theory, you need to give explanation of these regional genetic differences.

Actually Jordanes wrote that it was "Gothic army with families" which migrated (under the leadership of Filimer).So only warriors and families of warriors. Not entire society.
And we don't even know if those were all warriors - because "army" doesn't necessarily mean "all armed forces".
Hannibal destroyed a Roman army at Cannaea but it was only one army, and Rome had more armies.

If they headed only for conquest he would says "warriors". But it is clear that people migrated (besides that Jordanes has some errors like identifying Dacian tribes with Goths).
When Goths crossed Danube they were Gothic people. In "Chronicles of Priest of Duklja" it is Gothic people that came from north. In "Historia Salonitana" it is also Gothic people that came from Poland.
So are you trying to say that Goths were outbred even before they hit the Ukraine? That they were no more Germanic? That they incorporated various peoples into them? That is simply not true- as Tacitus says, Germanics have no tendencies towards large-scale mixing with other peoples. Good luck with that propaganda...

BTW IMO Goths also lived in more fertile lands until they were pushed by Slavs and Avars.

And I am not saying that Gothic theory is only possible one. I just think it is most possible while Paleolithic continuity is least possible.

There is also smaller possibility that I2a1b originated in some of east-Germanic tribes that joined Slavic tribes who came to Balkan and eventually became Slavic.
This is theory of Serbian DNA administrators of Serbian DNA project at poreklo.rs which is largest database on Yugoslavian DNA. Their theory says that I2a1b is Bastarnae in origin but eventually became Slavic.

 

[Tomenable]

So are you trying to say that Goths were outbred even before they hit the Ukraine? That they were no more Germanic? That they incorporated various peoples into them?

Well the Gothic kingdom was certainly not mono-ethnic.

It was inhabited by various tribes, whether allies or subjects of Goths, or integral elements incorporated into the Gothic nation.

That is simply not true- as Tacitus says, Germanics have no tendencies towards large-scale mixing with other peoples.

As you admitted above, Tacitus has some errors.

If Germanics have no tendencies towards mixing then why do you (and several other members on this forum) claim that every haplogroup is Germanic ???

Some people claim: I1 Germanic, I2b Germanic, R1b Germanic, R1a Germanic, I2a-Din Germanic, N1c1 (some "Varangian" branch) Germanic. What else ??? And yet no mixing ???

You - people who claim "Germanicness" of everything - already made Germanics a mongrel people by such claims, that they had every kind of haplogroup.

Each of these haplogroups is older than the ethnogenesis of Germanic people, which took place no earlier than the Bronze Age. So they had to mix, if they ever really carried all of these haplogroups.

Recent research on Langobard DNA also supports the mixing theory:

"Lombards on the Move – An Integrative Study of the Migration Period Cemetery at Szólád, Hungary", November 2014:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110793#pone-0110793-g005

Abstract:

In 2005 to 2007 45 skeletons of adults and subadults were excavated at the Lombard period cemetery at Szólád (6th century A.D.), Hungary. Embedded into the well-recorded historical context, the article presents the results obtained by an integrative investigation including anthropological, molecular genetic and isotopic (δ15N, δ13C, 87Sr/86Sr) analyses. Skeletal stress markers as well as traces of interpersonal violence were found to occur frequently. The mitochondrial DNA profiles revealed a heterogeneous spectrum of lineages that belong to the haplogroups H, U, J, HV, T2, I, and K, which are common in present-day Europe and in the Near East, while N1a and N1b are today quite rare. Evidence of possible direct maternal kinship was identified in only three pairs of individuals. According to enamel strontium isotope ratios, at least 31% of the individuals died at a location other than their birthplace and/or had moved during childhood. Based on the peculiar 87Sr/86Sr ratio distribution between females, males, and subadults in comparison to local vegetation and soil samples, we propose a three-phase model of group movement. An initial patrilocal group with narrower male but wider female Sr isotope distribution settled at Szólád, whilst the majority of subadults represented in the cemetery yielded a distinct Sr isotope signature. Owing to the virtual absence of Szólád-born adults in the cemetery, we may conclude that the settlement was abandoned after approx. one generation. Population heterogeneity is furthermore supported by the carbon and nitrogen isotope data. They indicate that a group of high-ranking men had access to larger shares of animal-derived food whilst a few individuals consumed remarkable amounts of millet. The inferred dynamics of the burial community are in agreement with hypotheses of a highly mobile lifestyle during the Migration Period and a short-term occupation of Pannonia by Lombard settlers as conveyed by written sources.

Unfortunately no Y-chromosomes could be examined - only mitochondrial DNA.

And here some more details:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...stria-hungaria?p=449309&viewfull=1#post449309

The paper is basically a confirmation of the historical record: the Lombards were a migratory group who spent some time in Pannonia before continuing onward and eventually reaching Italy. (...) The reproduced data of 28 individuals exhibited a high variability of mitochondrial haplotypes (78.6%). Twenty-two different lineages were identified. This composition includes a large number of hgs that commonly occur in present-day European populations. There are signs of a lot of violence:

"Four skull fractures and eight traumata on the postcranial skeleton were identified in a total of eight adults and one juvenile individual (Table E in File S1). The skull injuries were exclusive to male remains and included three cases of sharp-force trauma (Ind. 4, 13, 27) as well as one case of a depressed fracture (Ind. 43). Three skull fractures bore traces of healing, whilst one had occurred around the time of death."

It's also clear that they were a heavily militarized group, with a lot of wealth, as exhibited in the grave goods. (...) Although there seems to have been malnourishment among the children and some of the adults (lower status ones?), no attempt was made to access the fresh water fish in a near by lake. If their ultimate origin was around the Baltic Sea, doesn't that seem a little peculiar - Scandinavians who don't like fish? (...)

This is their conclusion from all the data:

The biological evidence suggests that the residents of Szólád were not a close reproductive community. This is in agreement with the notion of a partnership of convenience that resembled Germanic tribe formations with people of different cultural backgrounds maintaining regular contact with other contemporary gentes. Influence from several different European regions is supported archaeologically by the grave constructions that included ledge graves and graves with straight walls, some of which were surrounded by rectangular or circular ditches. The stylistic analysis of the grave goods, such as brooches and weaponry, revealed parallels to south-western and central Germany, Moravia and the middle Danube as well as to Italy. The latter also indicates the possible presence of members of the Roman population of Pannonia, who had settled the area prior to the Lombard period.

So authors of this paper claim that Lombards were a mongrel group of several origins already before settling in Italy.

After that they got even more mongrelized by mixing with Italians.

Of course Langobards =/= Goths, but they were also Germanic-speakers (or at least a significant part of them).

Their theory says that I2a1b is Bastarnae in origin but eventually became Slavic.

That's good to know because - if true - then at least this confirms, that I2a1b is not Germanic.

The Bastarnae (Peucini) were originally Celtic, and later became Germanized (started to speak a Germanic language).

 

[Tomenable]

And I am not saying that Gothic theory is only possible one.

And I'm not saying that it is 100% impossible... I'm just tired of people who see "Germanicness" everywhere. :grin:

But maybe you are right - in such case when and why did Goths stop speaking Germanic and start speaking Slavic ???

For example in Crimea Gothic language is attested as late as the 16th century. But in the Balkans not.

So in the Balkans they started speaking Slavic much earlier than they started speaking Tatar in Crimea:

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

Were Slavs and Goths good friends and allies against the Byzantine Empire, or did Slavs and Avars conquer Goths ???

 

[Tomenable]

if you support Slavic theory, you need to give explanation of these regional genetic differences.

I don't need to explain anything. I already did (see previous posts).

And there are similar - or even greater - differences between Germanic peoples. Norwegians are ca. 30/30/30 mix of I1/R1b/R1a.

But almost all of Norwegian R1a is Z284 (unlike for example in case of German and Austrian R1a - which are totally different clades).

English people are ca. 70% R1b on the other hand. Germans are 40-45% R1b. Swedes have a lot of I1 and N1c1, but not much of R1.

Etc., etc.

And now you claim that people who are over 50% I2a-Din are also Germanic. It adds even more confusion to the already huge mix. If you claim that people with so different genetics can all have common origin, why do you expect Slavs to all have identical genetics ???

I have already seen attempts to reduce Slavic genes as much as possible.

At first it was claimed that only R1a is originally Slavic. Then it was claimed that most of R1a is not even Slavic.

Perhaps Slavic people don't exist.

But Slavic languages have more speakers than Germanic and Romance among Europeans.

Slavic language is not Esperanto - it is not invented, and real people were responsible for spreading it around Europe.

 

[clintCG]

I do not try to make "Germanicness" of everything. Of course Goths did mix with other peoples, but what are you trying to say is that they got mongrelized and mixed with other people before they even arrived to eastern Europe, which of course, is not true.

That's good to know because - if true - then at least this confirms, that I2a1b is not Germanic.The Bastarnae (Peucini) were originally Celtic, and later became Germanized (started to speak a Germanic language).

No. They were Germanics who later received Celtic influence.

http://www.archaeology.ru/Download/Liachin/Lyakhin_2010_K_voprosu.pdf - E.V Lyahin- K voprosu o prarodine Bastarnov (About question of Bastarnae proto-homeland)

Here I will translate main points from this study translated by Serbian DNA project administration:

1. Tribal group of Bastarnae is formed at area between rivers Oder- Nisa and upper Vistula, area of today Silesia in Poland.

2. Bastarnae belong to Jastorf archaeologic culture which is considered proto-Germanic.

3. In period 5-4. century B.C Celts arrive to Czech area (attracted by lots of ore). Celts have developed society with already formed aristocracy and are carriers of La Tene culture.
4. Neighboring proto-Germanic tribes in Silesia (ancestors of Bastarnae) receive intensive influences from their Celtic neighbors, society of Bastarnae becomes diferentiated by classes, receiving influences of developed La Tene culture. That culture of La Tene-ish Germanics in Silesia will separate in 4th century B.C as Gubin archaeological culture, that is, Jastorf Germanic with La Tene Celtic influences.

5. Starting with 5th century B.C climate in northern and central Europe begins to change, cold periods increase and hunger threatens Jastorf culture, which is very numerous. Ancestors of Bastarnae in old homeland try with sacrificing animals, and then people. Practice of sacrificing people was soonly replaced by exile of young, capable warriors out of tribe.
6. Area of Pridnestrovie (modern day Moldova?) in that period (3rd century B.C) represents empty land between Sarmatians which subdued Scythians on east and Celtic settlements in Panonia. In that so called "Getic desert" Bastarnae start to settle at half of 3rd century B.C. Sources from antiquity mention them 220. B.C

7. Bastarnae mix with Sarmatians and other peoples in area of Moldova and western Ukraine.
8. At around 180. B.C Bastarnae, on invitation of Macedonians cross Danube and come to Balkans to fight against Romans, as fully organised society with their own "principes" and "rex". In their conquests they are joined by Scordisci Celts.

9. Bastarnae will then return again to Podniestrovie (Moldova), bringing with them Panonian-Balkan elements in culture which will together with local cultures and their own La Tene-ized Jastorf Culture will create Zarubnitsy culture which will be main culture of proto-Slavic homeland in next centuries.

That is, in short, what Lyahin describes, and Serbian administrator adds this:

10. Gothic invasion from north will break continuity of Zarubnitsy culture and on her place will appear new cultures, Chernyakhov before all

11. Elements of Zarubnitsy culture reappear again in first authentic Slavic culture Prague-Korchak.

12. Arabian writer-traveller Massudi in 9th century mentions Bastarnae as Slavic tribe near Serbs and others.

13. Bastarnae and Germanic tribe similar to them Sciiri (Odoacer is half-Sciirian) are mentioned even during Migration period

This might be the answer on why Tacitus specifically mention Bastarnae as ones who had mixed marriages (in this case with Sarmatians), while for other Germanics he explicitly says that they did not form such marriages. Maybe Bastarnae were descended from those expelled young warriors, that married girls from areas they came to. Sarmatian here has, I would say, geographical meaning ("from European Sarmatia") and I think girls they married were, in most cases, proto-Slavic or proto-Balto-Slavic.
According to them, this can explain how did some Germanics bring their domination (in meaning of Y-DNA genetics) in some Slavic tribes with I2a Din, and they lost their language and partially lost culture, or in other words, they accepted language and partially accepted culture of R1a1 carriers. That is why we call our language "mother tongue" (Muttersprache, maternji jezik), because mothers are those who teach children language.

Plus those interesting notices:


"First, from eyes of genetics, area on which Isles, and then Disles separated from Dinaric matches more northern Germany and Poland than Balkans or eastern Europe. Except that continental forms of Isles are found on exactly that area. It would be logical that right there we find people that are M423, and not neither Disles, nor Isles nor Dinaric. Those people do not exist in public bases, but AFAIK Nordtvedt mentioned a few haplotypes that he has and that can be classified as M423*, and which are found exactly in Poland and northern Germany. If this assumption is correct then we should search for oldest branches of I2a1 Din right in area of eastern Germany and western Poland.

Second, from eyes of archaeology, all archaeological cultures have their genesis, that is, it can be seen from which previous culture they were formed, as we see Russian archaeologists clearly find Zarubnitsy and other cultures connected to Bastarnae. Đorđe Janković, too, considered Zarubnitsy culture as oldest Slavic, claiming origin of Prague culture from it and connecting material culture of dalmatian Serbs with upper cultures.

Third, from eyes of history, there is plentiful of antiquity sources which describe migrations of Bastarnae, and then Arabic source from 9th century which clearly mentions Bastarnae as one people among Serbs and Slavs.

And last, linguistically, Serbo-Croatian shtokavian and language of Macedonian and Bulgar Slavs can be made as one common proto-language, which shows some characteristics different to all other Slavic languages, which shows one foreign (I2a1b) component in big sea of R1a1."





In my opinion, I2a1b is of ancient Germanic origin, but question of how did it appear in modern-day Slavic-speaking populations and how so unusual different concentration regions of I2a1b and R1a1 are found in Yugoslavia are questions which are yet to be answered.

If Bastarnae carried I2a1b then probably some other east-Germanic tribes also did, which has led me to conclusion of Gothic origin, and Gothic retreat from Avars and Slavs would also explain this concentration pattern. What has also led me to such conclusion was that concetration of I2a1b would be unsually high for a few young warriors expelled from Gubin-Jastorf culture... and as I already explained before conc and diversity patterns of I2a1 Din fit nice in Gothic migrations... but that may and may not be true...

Who knows........

 

[Tomenable]

9. Bastarnae will then return again to Podniestrovie (Moldova), bringing with them Panonian-Balkan elements in culture which will together with local cultures and their own La Tene-ized Jastorf Culture will create Zarubnitsy culture which will be main culture of proto-Slavic homeland in next centuries.

I'm not familiar with this theory. I have read that the emergence of the Zarubintsy culture is associated with an eastward migration of people belonging to the Pomeranian culture into territory occupied by people of the Milograd culture, and the subsequent mixture between those cultures, which lasted for quite a long time (W. W. Siedow, Седов В. В., Славяние верхнево Поднепровья и Подвинья). The Zarubintsy culture is considered by some scholars Proto-Slavic as it seems to correspond with archaic Slavic hydronymy (Третьяков П. Н., Памятники зарубинецкой культуры). Milograd culture is considered by many scholars Balto-Slavic (before its differentiation into Proto-Slavic, West Baltic and East Baltic) or West Baltic, but Siedow wrote: "В лингвистической литературе высказывались предположения о формировании праславянского на основе одного из окраинных западнобалтийских диалектов или, наоборот, о происхождении западнобалтийских диалектов от одной из групп праславянских говоров." Also Bernstein wrote: "Нет сомнения в том, что балто-славянская сообщность охватила прежде всего праславянский, прусский, ятвяжский язык". So Proto-Slavic and West-Baltic were more closely related than was Proto-Slavic with East Baltic (let's remind you that according to more recent theories, there was no such a thing as a unified Baltic, which later splint into West Baltic and East Baltic - but there was Balto-Slavic which split directly into three branches: West Baltic, Slavic and East Baltic). By the end of the 1st century AD the Zarubintsy culture - according to Siedow - was conquered by Sarmatians, but part of their population escaped northward as refugees and settled in Prussia (archaeological prove of this are supposed to be the type of fibulae which had been previously produced by the Zarubintsy culture, and which start to appear in Prussia in the 2nd century AD). Before that, the Lusatian culture fell to Scythians (see page 76 here: http://www.parzifal-ev.de/uploads/media/gimbutas.pdf), so most likely the Pomeranian culture - which evolved out of the Lusatian culture (see below) had some Scythian admixture as well.

https://archive.org/details/TheBalts

If we add also your info about contribution of Gubin culture (I guess it contributed more to southern part of that culture than to its northern part), then we have a picture of Proto-Slavs emerging from a mixture of the following archaeological cultures: Milograd (West Balts? or Balto-Slavs?), Pomeranian ("Lusatian" - whoever those Lusatians were - mixed with Scythians) and Gubin (Germano-Celtic Bastarnae?). This would mean that those four peoples contributed to the ethnogenesis of Slavs. So they would be ancestors of Slavs, not some later addition to Slavs. So even if Bastarnae (or maybe Celts who influenced them) originally carried I2a-Din, then still it was part of Slavs since the beginning of their ethnogenesis. A later addition to Slavs - on the other hand - would be Sarmatians, to which the Zarubintsy culture fell by the end of the 1st century AD (according to Siedow). When it comes to the Pomeranian culture:

About 650 BC, it evolved from the Lusatian culture between the lower Vistula and Parseta rivers,[2] and subsequently expanded southward.

But it evolved as the result of Scythian influence on the Lusatian culture (see Marija Gimbutas in the link above).

The study by Haak et. al. 2015 found R1a Z280 in an individual of the Lusatian culture from Halberstadt in Germany.

I quoted all the details about that Z280 individual here (what is interesting, that guy was probably a redhead):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...istoric-Europe?p=451553&viewfull=1#post451553

R1a Z280 is today present in all Slavic and Baltic populations in frequencies between ca. 10% and ca. 50% of all males.

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

All of this suggests that Proto-Slavs evolved out of an interesting mix of Balts (or Balto-Slavs as they are also called - but Balto-Slavic language was rather more similar to modern Baltic languages than to modern Slavic), Lusatians (maybe they spoke some unknown Indo-European language - Venedic, if such a language existed - some scholars hypothesize the existence of Venedic languages as yet another branch of IE), the Bastarnae or Peucini (Germano-Celtic), Scythians and - the final addition - Sarmatians.

I am probably starting to sound like Germanophiles who see "Germanicness" everywhere. :grin:

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

As for the Balto-Slavic past. There are several theories about this:

The graph illustrates several models of Balto-Slavic interactions, trying to explain similarities between the two groups (Schleicher - common ancestral language separating into Baltic and Slavic; Endzelins - two separate languages which came under influence of each other at some point; Rozwadowski - common ancestry, then separation, followed by becoming close neighbours again; Meillet - prolonged close influences despite lack of common ancestry; Kromer - common ancestry with Baltia never constituting a linguistic unity, but East Baltic and West Baltic groups separating directly from Balto-Slavic). Rozwadowski's model is also interesting.

Currently the mostly commonly accepted model when it comes to differentiation of Baltic is this first suggested by Kromer in 2003 - namely that there was no unified Baltic language (from which later West Baltic and East Baltic emerged), but that Balto-Slavic (which, however, was more similar to Baltic than to Slavic) split directly into three parts - West Baltic (now extinct), Slavic and East Baltic.

Here the theories of Schleicher and Endzelins are outlined:

The close relationship of the Baltic and Slavic languages is indicated by a series of common innovations not shared with other Indo-European languages, and by the fact that the relative chronology of these innovations can be established. Furthermore, there are also many correspondences in vocabulary: the Baltic and Slavic languages share many inherited words. These are either not found at all in other Indo-European languages (except when borrowed) or are inherited from Proto-Indo-European but have undergone identical changes in meaning when compared to other Indo-European languages.

Baltic and Slavic share many close phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic and accentological similarities. The notable early Indo-Europeanist August Schleicher (1861) proposed a simple solution: From Proto-Indo-European descended Proto-Balto-Slavic, out of which Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic emerged. The Latvian linguist Jānis Endzelīns thought, however, that any similarities among Baltic and Slavic languages were a result of an intensive language contact.

There is also no perfect agreement on when did the separation of Slavic and Baltic (or both Baltic groups) take place.

Proposed dates range from ca. 1500 BCE to ca. 500 BCE (3500 - 2500 years ago):

Atkinson - 1400 BCE
Novotná & Blažek - 1400–1340 BCE
Sergei Starostin - 1210 BCE
Chang et. al. - 600 BCE (http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf)

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

As for the Balto-Slavic past. There are several theories about this

Or maybe something like this:

In my opinion, I2a1b is of ancient Germanic origin

Except that I2 is Non-Indo-European and Germanic people are Indo-European (despite Non-IE admixtures).

So it can only be Pre-Germanic rather than Germnaic. Or it can be Pre-Slavic.

I1 is also Pre-Germanic (it was probably absorbed by Proto-Germanic Indo-Europeans from LBK culture).

 

[Ezio]

Slavs, Balts, Baltic Finns, and Germanics are taller than others - not just Germanics.

This is confirmed by Byzantine (not just Arab) sources describing Slavs as well:

Procopius of Caesarea (born in ca. 490 died in 565), "De Bello Gothico":

"(...)Nay further, the Slavs do not differ at all from one another in appearance. For they are all exceptionally tall and stalwart men, while their bodies and hair are neither very fair or blond, nor indeed do they incline entirely to the dark type (...)"

Theofylaktos Simokattes, "Oikumenike Historia" (written in years 585 - 641), describing events from 595:

"(...) The Emperor was with great curiosity listening to stories about this tribe, he has welcomed these newcomers from the land of Slavs, and after being amazed by their height and mighty stature, he sent these men to Heraclea. (...)"

Theophanes the Confessor (describing the same event from 595):

"(...) The Emperor was admiring their beauty and their stalwart stature. (...)"

Countries/regions with above 178 cm tall males (on average) according to wikipedia - no data was given for Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine:


While Russia's average (176 cm in year 1992) includes Asian minorities in Russia:

There is also one mistake in this graph - data for Dinaric Alps is from Croatia and Herzegovina (from a 2005 study), not from Bosnia and Slovenia. The average was also less than 185,6 cm, but authors added one centimeter because the sample consisted of young men (some could be still growing).


Height = genes + nutrition. Nutrition is important too - therefore with genes being equal, richer (with better nutrition) country will have taller people.

Sweden should be higher up. The average male height is 181.4 cm.

 

[clintCG]

Except that I2 is Non-Indo-European and Germanic people are Indo-European (despite Non-IE admixtures).So it can only be Pre-Germanic rather than Germnaic. Or it can be Pre-Slavic.
I1 is also Pre-Germanic (it was probably absorbed by Proto-Germanic Indo-Europeans from LBK culture).

Please... Germanic peoples are linguistically Indo-Europeans, ethnically (or should I say genetically) they are mix of Indo-Europeans and proto-Europeans. Slavic peoples are mainly Indo-European both linguistically and ethnically.
BTW Germanic languages have lots of words of non-Indo-European origin.
I2 and I1 were indeed formed before Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Celtic or any of European peoples were formed.
But when I2a1b Din branch was formed it was already a part of proto-Germanic peoples, and since it was most likely brought to Balkans by east-Germanic tribes, I see no problem in calling it "Germanic".

I don't need to explain anything. I already did (see previous posts).

I saw your explanations of Slavic origin, but I did not hear explanation of why I2a Din grows as we approach Dinaric Alps and R1a drops to very small numbers (5 percent). Some members said it is "pure coincidence", but such pattern is impossible, especially when we consider the fact that modern east-Slavic populations of Ukraine have about 11 (some regions are higher) percent of it, while at same time they are huge in R1a.

I just posted theory of Bastarnae origin, but it still cannot explain it very well. If Bastarnae slavicized (in terms of language) and settled in Balkans as separate tribe, it would make sense, but since they just blended in east-Slavic population it makes no sense.
That is why, in my opinion, I2a Din was brought by some other east-Germanic tribe (in this case Goths), as they were known to have settled in this area since 370's. According to medieval sources all of pre-Slavic populations in Yugoslavia retreated before Slavs and Avars to inaccesible areas (they collectively were called "Vlasi"). Also I explained that only Gothic soldiers went to Italy and settled there as its conquest was purely political (re-establishment of Roman administration and removal of Odoacer by account of emperor Zeno).
Plus there are plentiful of our medieval sources that describe settling of Goths here. And also anthropological similarity to other Germanic peoples...


And about "attacking Slavdom": haplogroup diversity does not mean genetical diversity, nor does it mean that peoples with haplogroup diversity are "mongrels" (as it is non-functional part of DNA), and it certainly does not mean that Slavs are not diverse. Just compare Bulgarians and Poles for example. And Slavs are still largest European group of peoples and largest in territory, too... I don't see why are you offended by this.

The problem at us is many times when someone does not like a theory- he prohibits it (by force). Here is part from famous Yugoslav song "Uz Maršala Tita" (With Marshal Tito):

"[...]Of an ancient kindred we are, but Goths we are not
Part of ancient Slavdom are we.
Whoever says otherwise slanders and lies,
will feel our fist."

"Rod prastari svi smo, a Goti mi nismo,
Slavenstva smo drevnoga čest.
Ko drukčije kaže, kleveće i laže,
Našu će osjetit' pest"

In Yugoslavia it was prohibited to speak about it, and even after fall of it, as one of our historians say, if you research on it you will most likely be stigmatised as "fascist and traitor".

Sweden should be higher up. The average male height is 181.4 cm.

Yes, that's why I put it as higher (but I recalled it bad so I circled it at 182).

 

[mihaitzateo]

@clintCG
Dacians are said to have been very tall people also.
As for Jordanes telling that Dacians and Goths were same,I am not that sure about it.
And Dacians were also mountain people. And Goths I do not think were mountain people.
Since you are from Montenegro,I heard that from all Slavs,only Montenegrins,Serbians,Bosnians have some folk customs related to wolves and some of the Serbians telling that a folk custom tells that Serbians are descending from a grey wolf . Dacians = wolf people.
So another theory is that Romanians are Dacians latinized as language and mixed more with different populations,Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians,Dacians with strong Slavic language influence (Romanians have part Slavic influence,in language).There is known that lots of Dacians moved south of Danube,after Roman Empire conquest,fearing barbarian invasions.
I do not know about Croatians but I understand that Serbians,Bosnians,Montenegrins are all mountain loving people and they also have quite closed paternal lines.

 

[mihaitzateo]

@Tormenable:
Go do a little research about consonants/vowels number in Serbo-Croatian and Russian,Ukrainian,Polish.
If I remember exactly,Serbo-Croatian has like 46% consonants,54% vowels,being a very melodious language.
Russian has like 60% consonants,now how come Russian and Serbo-Croatian are said to be from same group of IE languages,I have no idea.

 

[gyms]

@clintCG
Dacians are said to have been very tall people also.
As for Jordanes telling that Dacians and Goths were same,I am not that sure about it.
And Dacians were also mountain people. And Goths I do not think were mountain people.
Since you are from Montenegro,I heard that from all Slavs,only Montenegrins,Serbians,Bosnians have some folk customs related to wolves and some of the Serbians telling that a folk custom tells that Serbians are descending from a grey wolf . Dacians = wolf people.
So another theory is that Romanians are Dacians latinized as language and mixed more with different populations,Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians,Dacians with strong Slavic language influence (Romanians have part Slavic influence,in language).There is known that lots of Dacians moved south of Danube,after Roman Empire conquest,fearing barbarian invasions.
I do not know about Croatians but I understand that Serbians,Bosnians,Montenegrins are all mountain loving people and they also have quite closed paternal lines.

http://www.imninalu.net/myths-Vlach.htm

The supporters of the Daco-Roman continuity assert that the Dacians were colonized by Romans in such a way that they adopted Latin language and became the ancestors of present-day Romanians (or even dare to say that the Dacians' language was close to Latin, which is utterly improbable). The occupation lasted about 160 years only, a period that was characterized not by an idyllic relationship between the two peoples but by violent rebellions of the Dacians against the invaders with consequent retaliation and repression. After the Romans evacuated Dacia because of the imminent Barbaric invasions, which actually happened, the hypothetical Daco-Romans were supposed to have survived for about a millennium hidden in caves and forests in Transylvania, not being noticed by the different peoples that populated the land in successive waves of immigration. Of course, there is not a single document that might prove such a theory, and from a logical viewpoint is quite unlikely that an entire people would be completely ignored by all Germanic and Eurasian settlers for such a long period.

http://www.ceupress.com/books/html/HistoryAndMythInRomanianConsciousness.html

This book stems from the idea that there is a considerable difference between real history and discourse history. Boia points out that history is constantly reconstructed, adapted and sometimes mythified from the perspective of the present day, of present states of mind and ideologies. Boia closely examines the process of historical culture and conscience in nineteenth and twentieth century Romania, particularly concentrating on the impact of the national ideology on history. Based upon his findings, the author identifies several key mythical configurations and analyses the manner in which Romanians have reconstituted their own highly ideologized history over the last two centuries.
The strength of History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness lies in the author's ability to fully deconstruct the entire Romanian historiographic system and demonstrate the increasing acuteness of national problems in general, and in particular the exploitation of history to support national ideology.

 

[clintCG]

@clintCG
Dacians are said to have been very tall people also.
As for Jordanes telling that Dacians and Goths were same,I am not that sure about it.
And Dacians were also mountain people. And Goths I do not think were mountain people.
Since you are from Montenegro,I heard that from all Slavs,only Montenegrins,Serbians,Bosnians have some folk customs related to wolves and some of the Serbians telling that a folk custom tells that Serbians are descending from a grey wolf . Dacians = wolf people.
So another theory is that Romanians are Dacians latinized as language and mixed more with different populations,Serbians,Montenegrins,Bosnians,Dacians with strong Slavic language influence (Romanians have part Slavic influence,in language).There is known that lots of Dacians moved south of Danube,after Roman Empire conquest,fearing barbarian invasions.
I do not know about Croatians but I understand that Serbians,Bosnians,Montenegrins are all mountain loving people and they also have quite closed paternal lines.

Of course Goths were not mountain people, but they, as a pre-Slavic population of western Balkans settled mountains and unaccessible areas when Slavs and Avars came, and that is where we find up to 70 percent of I2a1b (Herzegovina Croats, west Montenegro, etc...). In other words, they inhabited mountains out of necessity.
When we start moving towards plains we see R1a increase and I2a Din decrease.

Don't be offended, but most of your post is BS pseudo-history. Paleolithic continuity theory is dead anyways.