Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

[Tomenable]

Was River Lygis named after the Lygii / Lugii ???

Is there a sound change that could change River Lygis into River Lech?

Is there a link between River Lech and the Lechites?

 

[arvistro]

I am not sure about Lugii as the initial versions of their name is so wide..

But it looks like I found Antes
Antes ->
1. Nasalization:
An -> o
2. t-> tj (as in Zentas -> Zjatj)
3. Further developments, o-> u (like Zobj -> Zub)
4. Prothesis: adding v before u at the beginning of word
We get Vutj, which is exactly how Polish Lodz is spelled. Crazy

It really seems like magic and wishful thinking, but I am in no way Polish patriot or something. If anything I am pro-Baltic person
It is all in there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Proto-Slavic

Only thing why someone should be careful is absolute amateurism on my side. And maybe I did not properly applied something.

 

[arvistro]

Ptolemy mentions the Lugi Omani (Λοῦγοι οἱ Ὀμανοὶ), the Lugi Diduni (Λοῦγοι οἱ Διδοῦνοι) and the Lugi Buri (Λοῦγοι οἱ Βοῦροι) located on or near the upper Vistula in Germania Magna in what is now south Poland (Book 2, Chapter 10, 4th map of Europe). Ptolemy does not mention the Vandals at all.

Lougoi Omanoi
Lougoi Didounoi
Lougoi Bouroi

Now Slavic changes:
Lougoi -
1) ou - there is no such sound in Balto-Slavic. It must have been either uo or au. Let's try with au. Au in Slavic produced u. Like draugs - drug. Ļaudis - Ļudzi.
It should be Laugi (suspiciously similar to Latvian "ļauži", "ļaudis", Lithuanian "liaudis" - Russian "ljugji" simply "folk", Polish "ludzie").

Didounoi - without discussion it comes from same route as Diženie (apparently Latvian ž sound comes from dje - originally it would be didjenie, from didys - great). Probably at that point it was spelt as 'Did-aun-ie'.

Omanoi - without discussion it comes from same route as Slavic Um, Lithuanian aumuo. Probably at that point it was already 'Oum-en-ie' (Sumanos - smart in modern Lith).

Bouroi - This is interesting. It is no more -ounoi, -anoi hence it maybe is not adjective. But rather tribal name of some Bauri tribe or they were located near natural object called Bauri something (in modern times it would be named burj if Slavic). No idea.

I don't see how Lougoi could produced Lech though. Maybe there was some route, developing from some grammar form of Ludzie or previous Laugi, Lugi, etc. But no idea.

Also, must be careful, because wictionary does not mention laug form:
From Proto-Baltic *lyaudi-, from Proto-Indo-European *leidʰi (“descendants, offspring”), from *leidʰ- (“to grow up”). Cognates include Lithuanian liáudis (“people, nation”), Old Prussian ludis (“owner, landlord”), ludini (“owner, landlady”), ludysz (“person”), Old Church Slavonic людиє (ljudie, “people”), людинъ (ljudinŭ, “free man”), Russian лю́ди (ljúdi, “people”), Bulgarian лю́де (ljúde), Czech lidé, Slovak ľudia, Polish ludzie, Gothic ?????????????????????????????? (liuþs, “man”), Old High German liotan (“to grow”), liut, liuti (“people”), German Leute, Ancient Greek ἐλεύθερος (eleútheros, “free”) (< *leudʰeros (“free man”)), Latin liber (“free”) (also < *leudʰeros).[

 

[Taranis]

Ptolemy mentions the Lugi Omani (Λοῦγοι οἱ Ὀμανοὶ), the Lugi Diduni (Λοῦγοι οἱ Διδοῦνοι) and the Lugi Buri (Λοῦγοι οἱ Βοῦροι) located on or near the upper Vistula in Germania Magna in what is now south Poland (Book 2, Chapter 10, 4th map of Europe). Ptolemy does not mention the Vandals at all.

Lougoi Omanoi
Lougoi Didounoi
Lougoi Bouroi

Now Slavic changes:
Lougoi -
1) ou - there is no such sound in Balto-Slavic. It must have been either uo or au. Let's try with au. Au in Slavic produced u. Like draugs - drug. Ļaudis - Ļudzi.
It should be Laugi (suspiciously similar to Latvian "ļauži", "ļaudis", Lithuanian "liaudis" - Russian "ljugji" simply "folk", Polish "ludzie").

Didounoi - without discussion it comes from same route as Diženie (apparently Latvian ž sound comes from dje - originally it would be didjenie, from didys - great). Probably at that point it was spelt as 'Did-aun-ie'.

Omanoi - without discussion it comes from same route as Slavic Um, Lithuanian aumuo. Probably at that point it was already 'Oum-en-ie' (Sumanos - smart in modern Lith).

Bouroi - This is interesting. It is no more -ounoi, -anoi hence it maybe is not adjective. But rather tribal name of some Bauri tribe or they were located near natural object called Bauri something (in modern times it would be named burj if Slavic). No idea.

I don't see how Lougoi could produced Lech though. Maybe there was some route, developing from some grammar form of Ludzie or previous Laugi, Lugi, etc. But no idea.

The name "Lugii" is, in my opinion, Celtic: first, because you have clear parallels in Celtic (Irish "Lugh", Gaulish "Lugdunum", the "Lougoi" of Caledonia), second because of the Celtic place names (Lugidunum, Carrodunum, Calisia) that Ptolemy assigns to that area.

 

[LeBrok]

Most Slavic tribal names, if not all, are toponyms and hydronyms, the landmark based.

 

[arvistro]

I found one source:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/2/10.html

Interesting that Greek 'ou' is constantly written as 'u' in Latin text. Apparently that was the way it was supposed to be. So, it would be Lugi initially not Lougi. Didunoi not Didounoi. Ok, it does not seem so Balto-Slavic anymore. Could be Celtic.
Apparently left of Vistula there were Germanic/Celtic tribes in Ptolemy's times. AD 90-168.

 

[LeBrok]

I found one source:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/2/10.html

Interesting that Greek 'ou' is constantly written as 'u' in Latin text. Apparently that was the way it was supposed to be. So, it would be Lugi initially not Lougi. Didunoi not Didounoi. Ok, it does not seem so Balto-Slavic anymore. Could be Celtic.
Apparently left of Vistula there were Germanic/Celtic tribes in Ptolemy's times. AD 90-168.

Supposedly in Silesia and above there are quite few towns with Celtic origin names, plus Vistula and Oder might be Celtic names too.

 

[Sile]

I found one source:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/2/10.html

Interesting that Greek 'ou' is constantly written as 'u' in Latin text. Apparently that was the way it was supposed to be. So, it would be Lugi initially not Lougi. Didunoi not Didounoi. Ok, it does not seem so Balto-Slavic anymore. Could be Celtic.
Apparently left of Vistula there were Germanic/Celtic tribes in Ptolemy's times. AD 90-168.

The only known "slavic" people that had the numbers of people to push from the upper vistula area through southern Poland and into the shores of Mecklenburg , eliminating celtic names on the way and being the first to be know as wendish where the VELETI people. The later Wendish crusade was clearly targeted at the Veleti people firstly then the Sorbs.

Some recent Slavic scholars claim the Veleti are associated with the Lugi tribe/confederation.

 

[arvistro]

Most Slavic tribal names, if not all, are toponyms and hydronyms, the landmark based.

Definately not all. Here is the list of East Slavic tribal names:
Polans, Drevlyans, Dregovichs, Radimichs, Vyatichs, Krivichss, Slovens, Dulebes (later known as Volhynians and Buzhans), White Croats, Severians, Ulichs, Tivertsi.
Radimichs, Vyatichs, Krivichs, Slovens, White Croats, Dulebs, Ulichs, Tivertsi (8 of 12!) do not have their names toponym, hydronym or landmark based, at least not according to mainstream explanations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Slavs

Btw, reading on East Slavs, here is interesting ethnic name for modern East Slavs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polekhs
It is near Ukraine, Belarus in Russia. Near Lechs lands

 

[Tomenable]

Sile, you got it wrong in the last post - the Sorbs were conquered by crusaders earlier than the Veleti. And apart from the Veleti there were also the Obodrites, who lived west of the Veleti. The Sorbs and Lusatians lived to the south of areas inhabited by the Veleti and the Obodrites.

There were also West Slavs in north-eastern Bavaria, who became Christianized even before Sorbs-Lusatians. They became part of the Frankish Empire at some point after year 740 but before 800, and became Christianized by Charlemagne around year 800, who ordered to construct 14 churches for them. Those Slavic tribes were called Moinwinidi and Radanzwinidi and they lived along the rivers Mainz and Regnitz and, as Charlemagne's document from year 794 reveals:

"in terra Sclavorum, qui sedent inter Moinum et Radentiam fluvios, qui vocantur Moinwinidi et Radanzwinidi."

Assimilation of those Slavs in Bavaria lasted several centuries. In year 1162 we still have Slavic names among them (for example certain guys Dragan and Gleische from Effelder near Coburg); in 1233 in Herzogtum Meranien we have a certain important guy Konrad Slavir. Slapansgereute (Schlappenreuth) near Bamberg is a settlement founded by Slapan, who was Slavic. His descendants can be traced in sources until the 15th century. According to historian Erwin Herrmann the family of Walpoten from Franconia was also Slavic - their castles have names of Slavic origin (Trebgast, Zwernitz). Medieval von Slawendorf family were also Franconian Slavs. Slavic population of Slawendorf (later called Altenstadt, today part of Bayeruth) preserved their language until the 14th century, as there are 14th century documents which say about Slavic inhabitants there. Near Weichenwasserlos there is a toponym Grotze suggesting existence of a Slavic castle. This Grotze is surrounded by settlements with names of Slavic origin - Granitz auf der Dobrich, Dobdansdorf in den Tibitzen, in der Peusteritz. Graitzstein, Greyczberg near Staffelstein, Marktgraitz, Teunz are other former Slavic castles in the region.

German summary of the article about this by historian Jerzy Strzelczyk:

More info here (interesting thread): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=535483&page=4

Next thread to start: "Germany, more Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, Italic or Germanic?".

 

[LeBrok]

Definately not all. Here is the list of East Slavic tribal names:
Polans, Drevlyans, Dregovichs, Radimichs, Vyatichs, Krivichss, Slovens, Dulebes (later known as Volhynians and Buzhans), White Croats, Severians, Ulichs, Tivertsi.
Radimichs, Vyatichs, Krivichs, Slovens, White Croats, Dulebs, Ulichs, Tivertsi (8 of 12!) do not have their names toponym, hydronym or landmark based, at least not according to mainstream explanations...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Slavs

Btw, reading on East Slavs, here is interesting ethnic name for modern East Slavs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polekhs
It is near Ukraine, Belarus in Russia. Near Lechs lands

Some of these are very archaic slavic names, some bed translations, so it is hard to deduct how the name originated. More recent west Slavic names are mostly toponyms/hydronyms. Vislanie, Pomorianie, Polanie, Obodrites, Polabians, etc.

White Croats (Hrvati) could be related to mountains, or even name Karpaty (Carpathians).

 

[Sile]

Sile, you got it wrong in the last post - the Sorbs were conquered by crusaders earlier than the Veleti. And apart from the Veleti there were also the Obodrites, who lived west of the Veleti. The Sorbs and Lusatians lived to the south of areas inhabited by the Veleti and the Obodrites.

There were also West Slavs in north-eastern Bavaria, who became Christianized even before Sorbs-Lusatians. They became part of the Frankish Empire at some point after year 740 but before 800, and became Christianized by Charlemagne around year 800, who ordered to construct 14 churches for them. Those Slavic tribes were called Moinwinidi and Radanzwinidi and they lived along the rivers Mainz and Regnitz and, as Charlemagne's document from year 794 reveals:

"in terra Sclavorum, qui sedent inter Moinum et Radentiam fluvios, qui vocantur Moinwinidi et Radanzwinidi."

I got nothing wrong in my article, my comment was that the target was veleti, if the sorbs fell first it was not the main threat.

..........

The rivers where the MAIN and REGNITZ and they only touch in the modern town of Bamberg

German summary of the article about this by historian Jerzy Strzelczyk:

More info here (interesting thread): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=535483&page=4
.

I don't care about this period , it is well documented

 

[Tomenable]

"Ancient DNA Reveals Matrilineal Continuity in Present-Day Poland over the Last Two Millennia", published in October 2014:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

The study compares samples of fossil mtDNA from Ancient Poland (200 BC - 500 AD) and Early Medieval Poland (950 AD - 1250 AD), with samples of mtDNA from modern populations. Sample sizes are 23 individuals from 4 different burial sites of Ancient (Late Iron Age) Poland and 20 individuals from 2 different burial sites of Early Medieval Poland.

Those relatively small Ancient and Medieval samples were compared to a modern sample of 3595 individuals from 18 ethnic groups (300 Poles, 305 Belarusians, 307 Russians, 300 Czechs & Slovaks, 300 Bosnians, Slovenians & Croatians, 300 Bulgarians, 293 Macedonians & Serbians, 300 Ukrainians, 296 Swedes, 300 Germans, 277 Lithuanians & Latvians, 317 Finns & Estonians.

The study reveals that population of Ancient Poland (200 BC - 500 AD) shares the highest percent of mtDNA haplogroups with modern (in this order when it comes to % of shared DNA): Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Latvians.

While the population of Early Medieval Poland (950 AD - 1250 AD) shares the highest percent of mtDNA haplogroups with modern (in this order when it comes to % of shared DNA): Poles, Belarusians, Bulgarians and Ukrainians.

In both cases Ancient and Medieval DNA from territory of present-day Poland resembles modern Polish DNA most. However, Medieval DNA from area of present-day Poland is more similar to this of modern Belarusians, Bulgarians and Ukrainians; while Ancient DNA from area of present-day Poland is more similar to modern Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians and Latvians.

Here are the Ancient (stars) and Medieval (triangles) burial sites used in this study:

Stars are Kowalewko (K), Karczyn (KA), Gąski (G), Rogowo (R) - burial sites associated with Przeworsk Culture and Wielbark Culture.

Triangles are Ostrów Lednicki (OL) and Cedynia (C) - Early Medieval burial sites, associated with early history of the Polish Piast Realm:

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

Let's also add which of modern ethnic groups examined in this study are least similar to Ancient inhabitants of present-day Poland.

Out of 18 ethnic groups analysed in this study, least similar to population of Late Iron Poland (200 BC - 500 AD) are the following 6:

- Macedonians, Serbians, Belarusians, Finns, Estonians and Germans

 

[Tomenable]

Now it becomes quite hilarious that Adolf Hitler in his plans of expanding "Lebensraum" east claimed that the Vistula River was the river of his ancestors, as he treated the East Germanic tribes of Vandals, Goths, etc.

And now it turns out that modern Germans are in terms of mtDNA actually among the 30% of genetically LEAST similar people to inhabitants of Ancient Poland (no matter what languages did those ancient guys speak).

 

[LeBrok]

Thanks for posting the study.

Interestingly Iron Age K location people, almost exclusively Hg H, are so different than R location, with lots of Ws and Us. Different origin for sure, two different genetically peoples. It is hard to say different ethnicity, but possibly too. It would be very important to compare these two groups separately to recent populations. Clamping them together doesn't help much.
Perhaps R G and KA represent Prussians or Goths?

 

[Sile]

"Ancient DNA Reveals Matrilineal Continuity in Present-Day Poland over the Last Two Millennia", published in October 2014:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

The study compares samples of fossil mtDNA from Ancient Poland (200 BC - 500 AD) and Early Medieval Poland (950 AD - 1250 AD), with samples of mtDNA from modern populations. Sample sizes are 23 individuals from 4 different burial sites of Ancient (Late Iron Age) Poland and 20 individuals from 2 different burial sites of Early Medieval Poland.

Those relatively small Ancient and Medieval samples were compared to a modern sample of 3595 individuals from 18 ethnic groups (300 Poles, 305 Belarusians, 307 Russians, 300 Czechs & Slovaks, 300 Bosnians, Slovenians & Croatians, 300 Bulgarians, 293 Macedonians & Serbians, 300 Ukrainians, 296 Swedes, 300 Germans, 277 Lithuanians & Latvians, 317 Finns & Estonians.

The study reveals that population of Ancient Poland (200 BC - 500 AD) shares the highest percent of mtDNA haplogroups with modern (in this order when it comes to % of shared DNA): Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Latvians.

While the population of Early Medieval Poland (950 AD - 1250 AD) shares the highest percent of mtDNA haplogroups with modern (in this order when it comes to % of shared DNA): Poles, Belarusians, Bulgarians and Ukrainians.

In both cases Ancient and Medieval DNA from territory of present-day Poland resembles modern Polish DNA most. However, Medieval DNA from area of present-day Poland is more similar to this of modern Belarusians, Bulgarians and Ukrainians; while Ancient DNA from area of present-day Poland is more similar to modern Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians and Latvians.

Here are the Ancient (stars) and Medieval (triangles) burial sites used in this study:

Stars are Kowalewko (K), Karczyn (KA), Gąski (G), Rogowo (R) - burial sites associated with Przeworsk Culture and Wielbark Culture.

Triangles are Ostrów Lednicki (OL) and Cedynia (C) - Early Medieval burial sites, associated with early history of the Polish Piast Realm:

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

Let's also add which of modern ethnic groups examined in this study are least similar to Ancient inhabitants of present-day Poland.

Out of 18 ethnic groups analysed in this study, least similar to population of Late Iron Poland (200 BC - 500 AD) are the following 6:

- Macedonians, Serbians, Belarusians, Finns, Estonians and Germans

from the article and they have agreed on what Gimbatas states a long time ago

Additionally, more recent events such as migration and admixture might have also contributed to the observed genetic similarity. For instance, archaeological evidence and historical records show extensive cultural connections between populations over wide areas of Europe during the Iron Age [55]. In particular, the Roman Empire extended throughout the latitudinal breadth of Europe in the Iron Age. During this period, trade routes crossed the territories of modern Poland and eastern regions, inhabited by Baltic tribes [55] thus enabling contacts between RoIA populations (in particular those belonging to Wielbark culture) and neighboring Baltic groups, resulting not only in cultural exchange but, possibly, also in gene flow.

RoIA = Roman iron age

The area of the stars and triangle was the maximum extension of the baltic tribes in the late bronze age as stated by Gimbatas.

The text also says that the balts on the baltic coast was involved in trading through the area in question to rome( actually Italy )................the Amber trail started around 2000BC

the area as per the paper states Lituanians/latvians, then poles, then czechs are the basic genetic people.............the remainder are too far behind.

 

[LeBrok]

On other hand Medieval folks are in majority H with only one W and no U. Medieval guys carry some continuity with K location Iron Age, and almost none with R, G, KA.

Too bad they didn't select one of each location for autosomal testing.

 

[LeBrok]

Hey Tomenable, what do you make out of this chart below? Based on:

Figure 4. Multidimensional Scaling plot based on FST values calculated from mitochondrial haplogroup frequencies in sampled
European populations. Modern Slavic populations and other populations adjacent to Poles (black): for populations abbreviations, see Figure 2;
ancient comparative populations (green): Danish (Iron Age) (DIA), Danish (Medieval) (DM), Neolithic (LBK, Germany) (NEO); present study populations
(red): Roman Iron Age (RoIA), Medieval Ag

DE (present day Germans) are the closest match for Iron Age individuals. Am I reading it right?

 

[Tomenable]

I wanted to edit my previous to a more brief form but I see that you already replied, anyway - let's paste it:

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

Published on October 22, 2014:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

This study attempts to establish which of modern ethnic groups (18 were examined) are descendants of inhabitants of Iron Age Poland and of Early Medieval (first Piast dynasty rulers) Poland. The study compares samples of fossil mtDNA from Late Iron Age Poland (200 BC - 500 AD) and Early Medieval Poland (950 AD - 1250 AD), with samples of mtDNA from modern populations. Sample sizes are 23 individuals from 4 burial sites of Ancient Poland and 20 individuals from 2 burial sites of Medieval Poland. These Ancient and Medieval samples were compared to a large modern sample of 3595 individuals from 18 ethnic groups (300 Poles, 305 Belarusians, 307 Russians, 300 Czechs & Slovaks, 300 Bosnians, Slovenians & Croatians, 300 Bulgarians, 293 Macedonians & Serbians, 300 Ukrainians, 296 Swedes, 300 Germans, 277 Lithuanians & Latvians, 317 Finns & Estonians).

Ancient burial sites are Kowalewko (K), Karczyn (KA), Gąski (G) and Rogowo (R) associated with Iron Age Przeworsk & Wielbark Cultures.
Medieval burial sites are Ostrów Lednicki (OL) and Cedynia (C), both associated with the reigns of Mieszko I and Bolesław I (960 - 1025).

Briefly, the results of the study can be described like this:

The highest % of shared informative mtDNA lineages with people of Iron Age Poland is among modern: Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Latvians.

The highest % of shared informative mtDNA lineages with people of Early Medieval Poland is among modern: Poles, Belarusians, Bulgarians, Ukrainians.

The lowest % of shared informative mtDNA lineages with people of Iron Age Poland is among modern: Macedonians, Serbs, Finns, Estonians, Germans.

Out of 18 examined modern ethnic groups, Poles share the highest % of mtDNA with both Ancient Poland and Medieval Poland. Modern Germans appear to share only little of mtDNA with Iron Age Poland (samples from 4 burial sites of Przeworsk and Wielbark Cultures). So Ancient amber traders along the Amber Road were not biological ancestors of Germans. The study confirms continuity of many lineages between those traders and modern Poles. But it seems that there was also immigration of new lineages (similar to Bulgarians & East Slavs) between 400 AD and 900 AD.

 

[Tomenable]

Am I reading it right?

Rather not - you should download & check Table S4 "Haplotype sharing analysis".

In that Table S4 you can see that Germans have very little of informative matches (link):

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0110839#pone.0110839.s005