What Are Slavic countries?

[Tomenable]

Either way N1c1 is a Siberian DNA and its common among the North Russians, Karelians and Finns (including many Siberians). The Balts could have easily absorbed N1c1 long after the Germans conquered by the Lithuanians/Latvians. If we are talking about 6-9th centuries then the Balts had little or no contact with Siberians.

You are not up-to-date with Ancient DNA finds.

There are aDNA samples of N from Eastern Europe from the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, and even from Neolithic sites.

Most of these findings are from the Belarusian-Russian borderland, where Balts lived in the past.

There is also a sample of N from Iron Age Hungary.

long after the Germans conquered by the Lithuanians/Latvians.

The Germans never conquered Lithuanians.

It was the other way around, Poland-Lithuania defeated the Teutonic Order in the 15th century.

The Teutonic Order had conquered Prussians - which was another Baltic ethnic group, not Lithuanians.

 

[Tomenable]

Sorbs are a very small minority in East Germany. Are about 60.000 Sorbs.

Used to be much more numerous before they adopted German language and identity:

The shrinking process of the Sorbian-speaking areas:

Even as recently as the 1800s there were much more Sorbs:

In the 1700s there were about 250,000 Sorbs (according to Madlena Norberg).

The distribution of Sorbs in the census of 1861:

According to source a flag of the Sorbs was first mentioned in the second half of 19th century. At the same time the anthem (Sorb: Rjana Luzica; German: Schöne Lausitz; English: Beautiful Lusatia) had been composed. As German pressure increased at the beginning of the 20th century, the Sorbs tried to gain rights of autonomy within the German Empire. After the end of WW1 there had been made attempts to establish an own Sorbic state. On 1 November 1918 a national committee of the Sorbs was established (German: Wendischer Nationalausschuss), led by Arnošt Bart with the goal of generating autonomous structures for the Sorb people in Germany. As these attempts had been ignored consequently by German government, the position of Sorbs became more radical. Finally at the beginning of 1919 the national committee first suggested either 1) to incorporate the sorb's region into the newly established Czecho-Slovakian Republic or 2) to establish an independent Sorbo-Lusatian Republic. Therefore Bart and his companion Jan Bryl travelled to the negotiations held in Versailles. Though there were many sympathies for the Sorb people, the idea of an own independent republic was not favoured by the winners and the Sorbo-Lusatian Republic never came to existence. The powers were afraid that tensions might increase and destabilize the whole region by establishing an independent state of Sorbs.

After the German defeat in World War II, again national alternatives were considered by Sorb's representatives, such as being incorporation into the CSR as an autonomous region, foundation of their own state including membership in the UNO. PECH, however, clearly said, that the Sorb's never had been really independent and often were only puppets of Slavistic movements in Eastern Europe. And, as in 1946, the Soviet Union had refused every attempts to separate Lusatia from Germany, Lusatia also after World War II remained part of Germany.

But now they don't really need independence because the Minister-President of Saxony since 2008 has been Sorbian:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Tillich

 

[Sile]

This is based on data from Kalevi Wiik's study - green shows cities with over 20% R1a inhabitants:

You do understand that R1a was in the areas of the map before germanic or slavic languages appeared or where even created and also that these ancient R1a where related to each other at that ancient time

 

[Tomenable]

Sile,

We know that I1 was in Hungary 7500 years ago - wrong time and wrong place for Germanics - yet people claim that it is Germanic.

Facts are: 1) Germanics didn't yet exist 7500 years ago; 2) Hungary is not Scandinavia, and Germanic language evolved in Scandinavia.

Today 8,5% of Hungarians have I1.

Are they descendants of that Neolithic Non-Germanic farmer from 7500 years ago, or of Germanic immigrants? Any clues about this?

There is a similar problem with R1a, with R1b, and in fact with any other haplogroup.

 

[Angela]

Sile,

We know that I1 was in Hungary 7500 years ago - wrong time and wrong place for Germanics - yet people claim that it is Germanic.

Facts are: 1) Germanics didn't yet exist 7500 years ago; 2) Hungary is not Scandinavia, and Germanic language evolved in Scandinavia.

Today 8,5% of Hungarians have I1.

Are they descendants of that Neolithic Non-Germanic farmer from 7500 years ago, or of Germanic immigrants? Any clues about this?

There is a similar problem with R1a, with R1b, and in fact with any other haplogroup.

Y dna I2a is just another example. The earliest samples we have were autosomally similar to Loschbour, while later samples were totally EEF. Did it then move and become "Slavic" before it returned, or did it stay and remain "EEF"?

None of this makes sense to me. A uniparental marker doesn't have an ethnicity or a language; only people have that. All the uniparental markers can do is help us track migrations from point "A" to point "B" at a very specific time, and only then if we know the specific sub-clades involved. unambiguously.

 

[Tomenable]

100-200,000 Slavs (the same with Prussians)

You estimated the number of Baltic Prussians correctly (they numbered about 170,000 around year 1200 AD). But Slavs in lands subjected to Germanization were much more numerous, as I wrote above. Slavic lands marked below cover in total at least 250,000 km2 (including 168,000 km2 of areas which are today still parts of Germany/Austria). By contrast Baltic lands (green) cover only up to 40,000 km2:

Here the north-western limit of majority Slavic lands (black broken line):

This religious map shows a later period (after Christianization of the Sorbs and of the westernmost Obodrites):

Areas in Germany with Slavic settlement names ending with suffix -itz:

Western boundary of Slavic lands was from Wendtorf in Holstein to Windisch Matrei in Osttirol.

 

[Sile]

Sile,

We know that I1 was in Hungary 7500 years ago - wrong time and wrong place for Germanics - yet people claim that it is Germanic.

Facts are: 1) Germanics didn't yet exist 7500 years ago; 2) Hungary is not Scandinavia, and Germanic language evolved in Scandinavia.

Today 8,5% of Hungarians have I1.

Are they descendants of that Neolithic Non-Germanic farmer from 7500 years ago, or of Germanic immigrants? Any clues about this?

There is a similar problem with R1a, with R1b, and in fact with any other haplogroup.

You know that IJ was once in a union ( one haplogroup ), they did not split apart in Europe, so the origin of I and J are not germanic, hungarian or european

I do not know why you think I1 is germanic and R1a is slavic............this is old school propaganda from 10, 20, 30 years ago

 

[Johannes]

That label "Celto-Germanic" only describes CTS4385 / L664 subclades, not entire R1a.

These subclades are present in North-Western Europe. And Germanic subclade Z284 is mostly in Scandinavia.

Indo-European =/= Aryan. Aryan = Indo-Iranic, they were only one of several branches of Indo-Europeans.

"Aryan" only applies to Indo-Iranic subclade Z93. And this one is not common in Europe.

Indo-European, on the other hand, is everything descended from M198 / M417.

Most of R1a in Germany belongs to subclades of R1a common in Slavic and Baltic countries.

Greeks aren't a Slavic people, their language has nothing to do with Slavs.

Nope. Vast majority of R1a in Germany belongs to M458 and Z280 - so it is no different than Slavic clades of R1a.

Polish people have both of these subclades, in proportions roughly between 40-60 and 60-40 (depending on sample).

So Germans have a lot of Slavic ancestry. And also some, but much less, of Baltic (Old Prussian & Lithuanian) ancestry.

You should decide whether we are talking about language or about ancestry / genetic origins.

Modern Greeks are partially of Slavic origin, because a lot of Slavs used to be assimilated by them - check this thread:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?131244-The-Slavs-in-Greece

That thread was started by Scholarios Chiotis, who is an ethnic Greek user, by the way.

I dont know why people get all upset about the term "Aryan." its probably all the brainwashing that been happening by the liberals since WWII. I like to use that term because I dont like or agree with the term "Indo-European." Indo-European sounds ridiculous as Europeans have very little to do with Indians. Anyway I know everything you said. You dont have to tell me again. You clearly exaggerate when trying to say Germans are heavily Slavic. I wonder what a German would think and say to you if he heard it.

 

[Tomenable]

 

[Tomenable]

Indo-European is a language family, not a "race".

 

[Johannes]

That label "Celto-Germanic" only describes CTS4385 / L664 subclades, not entire R1a.

These subclades are present in North-Western Europe. And Germanic subclade Z284 is mostly in Scandinavia.

Indo-European =/= Aryan. Aryan = Indo-Iranic, they were only one of several branches of Indo-Europeans.

"Aryan" only applies to Indo-Iranic subclade Z93. And this one is not common in Europe.

Indo-European, on the other hand, is everything descended from M198 / M417.

Most of R1a in Germany belongs to subclades of R1a common in Slavic and Baltic countries.

Greeks aren't a Slavic people, their language has nothing to do with Slavs.

Nope. Vast majority of R1a in Germany belongs to M458 and Z280 - so it is no different than Slavic clades of R1a.

Polish people have both of these subclades, in proportions roughly between 40-60 and 60-40 (depending on sample).

So Germans have a lot of Slavic ancestry. And also some, but much less, of Baltic (Old Prussian & Lithuanian) ancestry.

You should decide whether we are talking about language or about ancestry / genetic origins.

Modern Greeks are partially of Slavic origin, because a lot of Slavs used to be assimilated by them - check this thread:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?131244-The-Slavs-in-Greece

That thread was started by Scholarios Chiotis, who is an ethnic Greek user, by the way.

I dont know why so many people get all worried or upset by the use us "Aryan." Ilike to use it because it is moire accurate than "Indo_Europeans" in describing Europeans. "Indo European" actually sounds ridicupous because there is very little connection between Europeans and Indians through DNA. I am aware that Sanskrit and the Vedas is very similar to Europeans languages and culture. But that does not make Indians similar.

I dont agree with you that Germans have a lot of Slavic DNA. They do have some but certainly no a lot. Germany is a genetic barrier to the Slavs. Why that is I dont know. I wonder what the Germans would think if they read your statement.

Of course Greeks are not Slavs but they have a lot of DNA. You probably know. How much Slavic DNA do Greeks have?

 

[Tomenable]

What do you define as "Slavic DNA"? Germans have more R1a than Greeks.

And nearly all of German R1a is typically Slavic, except for a few rare clades.

 

[Tomenable]

I dont know why so many people get all worried or upset by the use us "Aryan."

I already told you that "Aryans" refers only to Indo-Iranic people, because this is how Indo-Iranic people called themselves.

Germans never called themselves Aryans until the 19th - 20th centuries, including especially the Nazis.

Indo-Iranic people originally lived in the Eurasian steppe - from there they invaded and conquered the Middle East and India.

But before Aryans, there were also other waves of Indo-European invaders, notably the speakers of Proto-Anatolian branch of IE.

I made a map which shows Non-Indo-European languages in the Middle East and India, prior to Anatolian and Aryan invasions:

 

[Johannes]

This is based on data from Kalevi Wiik's study - green shows cities with over 20% R1a inhabitants:

If you average out all the percentages of the R1a in Germany it comes to 20%. That is hardly "a lot." A lot would be more than 30% in my opinion. Even so R1a could have been ancient before the Germans and Slavs existed. I imagined that the "Aryans" or "Indo-Europeans" were basically the same in physical appearance and culture.

 

[Johannes]

You are not up-to-date with Ancient DNA finds.

There are aDNA samples of N from Eastern Europe from the Iron Age, the Bronze Age, and even from Neolithic sites.

Most of these findings are from the Belarusian-Russian borderland, where Balts lived in the past.

There is also a sample of N from Iron Age Hungary.



The Germans never conquered Lithuanians.

It was the other way around, Poland-Lithuania defeated the Teutonic Order in the 15th century.

The Teutonic Order had conquered Prussians - which was another Baltic ethnic group, not Lithuanians.

yes I am aware that N1c1 was present during the Bronze Age. But was in significant amounts??? I am more of a historian and I know that after the Balts, Slavs and Finns were converted to Christianity they mixed more easily. Before that we dont know. The average N1c1 for Lithuanians and Latvians is 40%!!! For Russians is 25% and Finns, of course, 60%.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I dont know why people get all upset about the term "Aryan." its probably all the brainwashing that been happening by the liberals since WWII. I like to use that term because I dont like or agree with the term "Indo-European." Indo-European sounds ridiculous as Europeans have very little to do with Indians.

I guess you can give IE languages any name you want. Indians and most Europeans speak an IE language, so that's how they're connected. Obviously because of WW11 the term Aryan has a bad reputation. That's why people get worked up. Because of WW11, fear of using the word Aryan isn't overreacting. You should just use Indo European, because that's the term everyone else uses. I call pencils pencils not tabkus, because I need people to understand what I'm saying.

 

[Johannes]

I already told you that "Aryans" refers only to Indo-Iranic people, because this is how Indo-Iranic people called themselves.

Germans never called themselves Aryans until the 19th - 20th centuries, including especially the Nazis.

Indo-Iranic people originally lived in the Eurasian steppe - from there they invaded and conquered the Middle East and India.

But before Aryans, there were also other waves of Indo-European invaders, notably the speakers of Proto-Anatolian branch of IE.

I made a map which shows Non-Indo-European languages in the Middle East and India, prior to Anatolian and Aryan invasions:

By the way thanks for the posts, especially about the Slavs, during the Middle Ages. I have always been interested in Slavic history.

You use "Aryan" as only a linguistic construct. I go further because the Aryans no only had a similar language but also religion and culture to other Indo Europeans. Therefore I infer that they looked the same or very similar to Europeans. Long before the Germans and Slavs existed as nations, they were the same people who lived somewhere in southern Russia. The Aryans, as we know, originated somewhere in an area around Southern Russia or Turkmenistan and then migrated south. Therefore they were probably the same as the Skythians and to modern Europeans.

 

[Tomenable]

Even so R1a could have been ancient before the Germans and Slavs existed.

1. Subclades of R1a and R1b typical for these European language groups today:

a) Correlating with Germanic languages:

R1a Y2395 - formed around 4900 (5500-4400), TMRCA around 4500 (5100-3800) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y2395/
R1a Z284 - formed around 4500 (5100-3800), TMRCA around 4200 (4700-3700) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y2395/

b1) Correlating with Germanic and Celtic languages:

R1b U106 - formed around 4900 (5400-4500), TMRCA around 4900 (5400-4500) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

b2) Correlating with Celtic and Germanic languages:

R1a CTS4385 - formed around 5400 (6200-4700), TMRCA around 4600 (5600-3700) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-CTS4385/

c) Correlating with Italic and Celtic languages:

R1b P312 - formed around 4900 (5400-4500), TMRCA around 4600 (5000-4300) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

d) Correlating with Slavic and Baltic languages:

R1a Z280 - formed around 4900 (5400-4500), TMRCA around 4800 (5400-4200) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z280/
R1a PF6155 - formed around 4900 (5500-4400), TMRCA around 4500 (5500-3700) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF6155/
R1a M458 - formed around 4600 (5500-3700), TMRCA around 4500 (5300-3700) ybp: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF6155/

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

2. When "proto languages" ancestral to these linguistic groups split from each other:

According to the study by Chang 2015, proto-Balto-Slavic, proto-Italo-Celtic and proto-Germanic languages split ca. 5000-4500 years ago.

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

It seems that time when those subclades split seems to correlate well with time when languages split.

Or rather proto-languages (even pre-proto-languages; but still ancestral to respective modern language groups).

 

[Angela]

I dont know why so many people get all worried or upset by the use us "Aryan." Ilike to use it because it is moire accurate than "Indo_Europeans" in describing Europeans. "Indo European" actually sounds ridicupous because there is very little connection between Europeans and Indians through DNA. I am aware that Sanskrit and the Vedas is very similar to Europeans languages and culture. But that does not make Indians similar.

I dont agree with you that Germans have a lot of Slavic DNA. They do have some but certainly no a lot. Germany is a genetic barrier to the Slavs. Why that is I dont know. I wonder what the Germans would think if they read your statement.

Of course Greeks are not Slavs but they have a lot of DNA. You probably know. How much Slavic DNA do Greeks have?

How about because it's a total misuse of the word and shows an abysmal ignorance about genetics, history and linguistics? Will that do?

Aryans are Indo-Aryans, i.e. people who spoke Indo-Aryan languages. Genetically they are very far removed from Germans or Poles or whomever you visualize when you decide to misuse the word. Is that simple enough?

 

[Vukodav]

Greeks have a lot of Slavic dna. Right but they have also a lot of Turkish, Levantine, Egyptian, Caucasian, Albanian,... DNA. Greece was the center of the Eastern Roman empire for nearly 1000 years and before that, the center of Alexander's empire. Every kind of people moved into Greece and mixed with the natives.