Y-DNA from Germany in the 300s-400s AD shows 58% frequency of I1 and not much R1b

[Fire Haired14]

Also to compare actual mean german genetics with old ones is to me a very gross mistake taking into account that Germany is a political product of the XIX-XX Centuries and that such territory suffered various known migrations: celts in the south, germanics coming gradualy from the north, romans ruling the south, slavs occuping the east, and then germans colonizing slavic lands in the east till reaching Wien and so.

Germany is a young idea, but people in Germany are suppose to be the descendants of the various nations that lived in "Germania" from the Iron age to Early Middle Ages. Genetic continuum between Early Medieval Eastern Germany and modern Eastern Germany is expected. Germany is very distinct from their neighbors(France, Italy, Poland, and Britain) in terms of Y DNA. Their Y DNA though is similar to linguistically relatives in Scandinavia. So, that alone is good evidence that modern German Y DNA is mostly descended from Iron age Germania, not Celts or Slavs or anyone else.

The country Germany is in a similar situation as big countries like Italy and Spain and France. The idea of those countries isn't 2,000 years old but the people there are suppose to be the descendants of the people who lived there from when the earliest writing(circa 500 BC-0 AD) referring to those places came about.

 

[Tomenable]

Genetic continuum between Early Medieval Eastern Germany and modern Eastern Germany is expected.

Well, archaeology and palynology don't support this idea. They show a depopulation in areas between the Elbe and the Oder during the early 5th to early 6th centuries, followed by repopulation from the East during the late 6th and 7th centuries, followed by the Northern Crusades - at first during the 8th and 9th centuries against Pagan Saxons and Thuringians who lived to the west of the Elbe; then during the 10th, 11th, 12th and early 13th centuries against Slavs who lived between the Elbe and the Oder. During and after those Northern Crusades a re-population of areas devastated by war took place, driven by settlers coming from the West. Here is a summary of pollen data posted by user Frank N. from Hamburg:

This analysis refers to areas of present-day East Germany (i.e. between the Elbe and the Oder):

1. At the beginning of the migration period, there is a widespread, sudden and massive drop in settlement along the Baltic Sea coast and its extended hinterland. This drop starts sometimes during the early fifth century somewhere in Eastern Pomerania, and progresses westwards over the next century until it comes to a halt around 550 AD in Middle Holstein, at the Ilmenau river in Lower Saxony, and near (probably east of) the Harz mountains.

2. Repopulation, driven by Slavic immigration, takes place during the seventh century. Pollen diagrams suggest a westward movement along or parallel to the Baltic coast [i.e. from Poland], other movements (up the Oder and Elbe) might have also occurred, but can't be traced from the pollen diagrams that I have examined. By the end of the seventh century, the migration reaches the middle Elbe and East Holstein [see also the map below].

Then there was this:

3. The Northern Crusades (at first Frankish conquest of Saxons & Thuringians, then German conquest of Slavs).

And back to Frank N:

This below refers only to colonisation of areas to the east of the Elbe (to the west of the Elbe it started earlier):

4. In the second half of the twelfth century, a strong and steady increase in settlement begins, which peaks by the late 14th century. This increase starts in East Holstein around 1150 and moves eastwards. It reaches the Oder around 1250. The geographical spread and the timeline correspond well to the German colonisation.

So it was a pretty turbulent time, and the final stage of that sequence was immigration from the West.

Map:

After the migration period, this black-orange line (map below) was the Slavic-Germanic ethnic border:

Görzig is located almost exactly at that ethnic borderland.

Our 12 Y-DNA samples discussed in this thread are from Görzig, but they are from the 300s-450s AD, so they pre-date the depopulation and the Slavic expansion, which took place during the 450s-600s AD in this region:

 

[berun]

Genetic continuum between Early Medieval Eastern Germany and modern Eastern Germany is expected. Germany is very distinct from their neighbors(France, Italy, Poland, and Britain) in terms of Y DNA.

Tomenable includes information to doubt about the degree of continuity; of course conquest/colonization rarely wipes out the previous population, but you can take the example of Anglo-saxons invading Britons and how nowadays English people have a 30% or so of Germanic DNA. If taking things even less dramatic, East Germany was occupied by X tribes, then in the II Iron Age was occupied by Germanics (you can count a +15% foreign DNA), then occupied by Slavs around 500 AD (+15% foreig DNA), and then again occupied by Germans around 1000-1200 (+15% foreig DNA that came mainly from Old Saxony); suming up it would be that between X DNA and actual DNA you can count as minimum that half of it is not so ancient.

As an example, that from Procopius' History of Wars (7, 38), how after the slavs won the Byzantine local garrison of Topirus, in the Thracian coast: "Then they slew all the men immediately, to the number of fifteen thousand, took all the valuables as plunder, and reduced the children and women to slavery. Before this, however, they had spared no age, but both these and the other group, since the time when they fell upon the land of the Romans, had been killing all who fell in their way, young and old alike, so that the whole land inhabited by the Illyrians and Thracians came to be everywhere filled with unburied corpses." In The Secret History (18): "But the Gepides control Sirmium [near Belgrad] and the country thereabout, which is all, roughly speaking, completely destitute of human habitation. For some were destroyed by the war, some by disease and famine, the natural concomitants of war. And lllyricum and Thrace in its entirety, comprising the whole expanse of country from the Ionian Gulf to the outskirts of Byzantium, including Greece and the Thracian Chersonnese, was overrun practically every year by Huns, Sclaveni and Antae, from the time when Justinian took over the Roman Empire, and they wrought frightful havoc among the inhabitants of that region. For in each invasion more than twenty myriads of Romans, I think, were destroyed or enslaved there, so that a veritable ‘Scythian wilderness’ came to exist everywhere in this land."

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Interesting idea but i'd hold back for a while. If you look at a relief map

http://www.indiecartographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Germany-Relief-CM-wm.jpg

Germany is clearly two zones: mountainous south, north European plain in the north. So if the ydna I were the paleos covering the whole area and the R1b originally came from the east I'd suggest the ydna I people would be more likely to carry on being the majority in the mountain south.

(even more so if they'd been displaced by the farmers first and the then the R1b replaced the farmers)

so I wouldn't be surprised if you're at least partly right (the R1b maps always looked mostly west to east to me) but I wonder if in the particular case of Gorzig the direction may have been north->south rather west->east?

 

[Templar]

I1, or at least his immediate ancestor is exceedingly old in northern or central Europe, so it's highly unlikely they were the Indo European speakers. This leaves only R1a or R1b, Battle Axe and Atlantic Bronze/BB specifically to have brought Germanic speaking languages to central/northern Europe.

To Tomenable's point that I1 was more frequent, I think that's jumping to conclusions a little bit. Let's not forget this is still a very small sample which could also be overestimated with kinship. We also see samples 2 of 2 which were R1b in a Berlin sample, and 1 of 1 as I1 in Anglo-Saxon England. The only thing this suggests is that I1 was likely brought with Germanic speakers, not the relative percentages of the population around 400 AD.

Germanic languages are known to have a higher percentage of non-indoeuropean words compared to the surrounding language families. I think Germanic languages originated as fusion between the local languages spoken by the I1 and the incoming r1b and r1a invaders, while other IE language families were more "pure" indoeuropean in their vocabulary. This could have been caused by higher pre-indoeuropean ancestry in Scandinavians due to the cold and inhospitable terrain (especially since Indoeuropean used chariots and other wheeled vehicles during their migrations, which would have been difficult to use in battle in Scandinavia). A very high I1 % would make a lot of sense for the original Germanic language speakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age

 

[Fire Haired14]

@Tomenable, berun.

Ok, sure there could have been a lot of population replacement in East Germany after the Iron age. Tomenable, I still don't think U106 is mostly a Belgea marker. It peaks in Dutch, who are Franks. Belgium probably has a lot because they're of largely Germanic-origin. The relatively high amount of U106 in Scandinavia(10-15%), can't be explained by Belgea. U152 and DF27 were certainly the main Y DNA haplogroups of Belgea and Gauls.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Germanic languages are known to have a higher percentage of non-indoeuropean words compared to the surrounding language families. I think Germanic languages originated as fusion between the local languages spoken by the I1 and the incoming r1b and r1a invaders, while other IE language families were more "pure" indoeuropean in their vocabulary. This could have been caused by higher pre-indoeuropean ancestry in Scandinavians due to the cold and inhospitable terrain (especially since Indoeuropean used chariots and other wheeled vehicles during their migrations, which would have been difficult to use in battle in Scandinavia). A very high I1 % would make a lot of sense for the original Germanic language speakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Bronze_Age

the non european probably didn't come from I1
I1 has one single ancestor 4700 years old, that time first IE people were allready in Scandinavia

 

[Ukko]

Baltic Finnish has earlier linguistic contacts to Proto-Germanic than Celtic or Balto-Slavic have, Finns have I1 that is related to Saxon lines in Germany and Britain.

You can throw in the archelogical evidence also, seax finds etc.

Do the math.


PS, Baltic Finnish word for Germany is Saksa.

 

[ElHorsto]

Interesting idea but i'd hold back for a while. If you look at a relief map

http://www.indiecartographer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Germany-Relief-CM-wm.jpg

Germany is clearly two zones: mountainous south, north European plain in the north.

I also see in Germany more north-south division rather than east-west.
It might be a coincidence, but the relief map above fits to the dialect border lines:
Uerdinger line
Benrath line

North of these lines is the area of the Plattdeutsch language (Low German), which is essentially ancient Saxon language and is much more similar to English than is standard German. Plattdeutsch is barely understandable by germans not knowing Plattdeutsch. Few people in the north still speak it. Before Martin Luther, all northern Germany spoke Platt.
The Saxons were not decimated at all, quite to the contrary, after they have been defeated by the Franks, they soon overtook the rule from the frankish Merowingians and Karolingians, and were called Ottonians. Later, Henry the Lion from Brunswick significantly drove the east colonization. Although he was again from a frankish aristrocratic line, he was considered a saxon king (Duchy_of_Saxony, with Westfalia and Lower-Saxony/Eastfalia as core areas). "Falen/Falia" literally means Saxony.

Even in the later colonised east of Germany, the north-south division remained mostly intact, because north of the Erzgebirge mountains, mostly Saxon colonists settled, whereas in the mountains there settled mostly south Germans. The southernmost east-german province "Saxony" is ironically the least saxon settled colony in the east.

So if the ydna I were the paleos covering the whole area and the R1b originally came from the east I'd suggest the ydna I people would be more likely to carry on being the majority in the mountain south.

That might apply to I2, but not I1. I think I1 is too much bottlenecked and recent, and it probably spread by germanic or funnelbeaker agriculture in the lowlands in general - in north german, south swedish and danish plains. At the same time Norway and South Germany have less I1 and are mountainous.
I think I2 is the mesolithic remnant that survived in mountainous pockets like north Sweden, Harz mountains, Thuringia and somewhat Bavaria. R1b was also well enough adapted to mountains due to cattle and perhaps also metallurgy. I1 possibly had multiplied by agriculture in fertile plains (Görzig is situated in the higly fertile "Magdeburger Börde"). I wonder whether it has a connection to Funnelbeakers and the much older neolithic farmer I1 from the Hungarian plain, and possibly Goseck near Görzig (Goseck_circle).

(even more so if they'd been displaced by the farmers first and the then the R1b replaced the farmers)

so I wouldn't be surprised if you're at least partly right (the R1b maps always looked mostly west to east to me) but I wonder if in the particular case of Gorzig the direction may have been north->south rather west->east?

 

[Goga]

Six ancient human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf in Germany belonged to R1b and the R1b people were present in modern-day Germany by 2,000 BCE (Lee et al. 2012). The Germanic tribes were originally from Scandinavia and they settled in present-day Denmark by 750 BC and their settlements were expanded to Southern Germany by AD 1. The German article (Harthun et al. 2015) concludes that these ancient individuals were Central Europeans, arguing that haplogroups I, J and E were introduced from the Middle East to Europe around 10,000 years ago, but the Görzig site could have been one of those Norse settlements, considering the high percentage of hg I1. Some regions of modern-day Germany may have been largely inhabited by the Germanic tribes with haplogroup I1 and they gradually admixed with the R1b population before the emergence of a common German identity. Today, R1b and I1 account for 36% and 16% in East Germany respectively and R1b is the majority haplogroup in South Germany and West Germany (47-48%).

You are a great mind. Are you a scientist?

I think that the Germanic race and language were born after hg. I (I1 & I2) and R1b mixed with each other. At the first early stage, R1b was much more dominant in Germanic lands. Later there was a hg. I gene flow from Scandinavia into Germania. So the balance between hg. I and hg. R1b was shifted in the advantage of hg. I.

But hg. R1b from Yamnaya was still the most dominant haplogroup in Central Europe. So hg. R1b gradually replaced hg. I in Germania. +There was some R1a migration from the east, (R1a tribes from the Slavonic lands started to arrive in Germania), so hg. R1a & R1b were growing in population, while hg. I was declining in population in Germania.

 

[Garrick]

It is probably there were more I1 in Germany in past, maybe not so long ago.

There is interesting story for two Serbian men with I1 haplogroup.

It is proved that they are descendants of Saxons whose ancestors worked as miners in Serbian mines in Middle Age (13th, 14th century).

Although it is small sample, there is assumption based on evidence of haplogroups that Saxons who came to the Balkans as miners were mostly or dominantly I1 carriers.

I have an assumption.

Maybe I1 carriers in Saxon areas in Germany and surrounding were starving due to black death (1346-1671).

About 1/3 of European population extinct and it can be possible that among them are Saxon I1 carriers.

 

[MOESAN]

Not yet. Not to my knowledge at least.



Ptolemy (lived in 90-168 AD) placed the Angles (Suebi Angili) rather deep inland:

Of course during the next few centuries they could possibly move towards the north:

Homelands of Angili, Frisii and Saxones according to Ptolemy

Albis = River Elbe

I answer you principally here, without having read the numerous last posts.
Sorry for my "prose", a bit hard to digest I suppose.



[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]-Sax/Nieder-Sachsen today is THE NORTHWEST of Germany. Sax-Anhalt inEastern Germany is only a bit, and it could be a lately extension ofthe western Sax (???)[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]-The Ptolemeus map is very uncertain for geographic precise locations.And it mentions Longobardi, Suebi Longobardi, SuebiSemnonesandSuebi Angili. These« Suebi something » names are in line so I suppose it'sthe name of composed tribes under the Suebi rule, inevery casenot a hazard of writing on the map confusing us about the reality(for Ptolemeus) of these « composed » tribes ?If it's not an error, itimplies Suebi Longobardi was a new compound of tribes distinct fromthe original Longobardi : Suebi Longobardi seems placedby him south the Ruhr region, south the Sugambri tribe whenLongobardi is situed by him in North, south the Angrivari and northhis Suebi Angili and Cherusci (today german historians placedLangobarden north Angrivari). I 'm not sure it's of worth discussingtoo much about locations because some tribes had changed placed overtime. What is interesting is seeing Longobardi separated from SuebiLongobardi : so we can imagine someAngili existed apart fromSuebi Angili, and were situated more northernly ? Unseasyto prove or disprove. Allthe way Angles stayed plenty of time in Southern Jutland since beforethe end of Roman times.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]-Concerning sample size andaccuracy I have in mind the Liechtenstein (Harz Unstrut culture)people where, upon STRsit's true, 12 men wereclassified Y-I2a2 (L38) vs 2 Y-R1a and 1 Y-R1b(U106). There has beenmentioned 4 lignages for Y-I2a2 there, at first, but later, someonessaid this human group show family links. So the reasoning of Y-I2a2there = % of 12/15 males could be without sense. By the way too,the 2 R1a would have been of an unic lignage. So I hold with Maciamowhen he says the sample for East Saxons in question here isunreliable to establish ratio's of I1>< R-U106 among theGermanics.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- Interesting, thanks toFireHaired : I suppose its%s are reliable : the ratio U106/totalR1b-M269 :[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Eire : 7,5 % - Wales :6,0 % - France : 13,5 % - Scotland : 16,5 %(no surprise here)- [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Switzerland : 22,4 %*-England : 35,1 % - Belgium : 42,0 % - Germany :44,2 % -The Netherlands : 64,8 % - Denmark :50,0 % - Norway : 60,0 % - Sweden : 66,6 %(!) - Austria : 85,2 % (!) -[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Finland : 50,0 % -Balts+Estonians (low numbers?) : 40,0 % -[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Czechs : 50,0 % (!) -Ukraina : 36,0 % - Poland : 34,8 % - Belarus :10,0 % - Slovakia : 8,6 % - Hungary : 20,0 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Italy : 10,8 % -Spain : 11,5 %- Portugal : 9,3 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]my ones : U106/M269,surely upon littler samples, but more regional, just for info :[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]North-England : 31,8 %- Central England : 30,6 % & 50,0 % -Northwest-England : 27,1 % - East-England : 40,1 %- East-Anglia : 41,1 % - Southeast-England : 34,1 %- Southwest-England : 32,4 % & 31,6 %-Northeast-Ireland : 15,7 % - North-Ireland (+ Donegal?) :4,7 % - East-Ireland : 0,0 % (?) - Southeast-Ireland :7,5 % & 9,9 % - Southwest-Ireland : 5,4 % &3,9 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Northwest Scotland:9,5 %- East-Northeast Scotland : 7,5 % - WestScotland (Lallands ? More?): 12,2 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Wales : 11,6 % [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Switz.Northeast alemannic :33,3 % - Switz. Northwest-alemannic : 15,9 % (NearElsass) – Switz. Southeast alemannic:22,2 % - Switz. Southwestalemmanic : 30,0 % -Northwest Switzerland (romance) :6,6 % BUT : 13,5 % L21/S145 ![/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Denmark : too lowsamples, all Jutland : respectively : 37,5 % &44,4 % & 60,0 % …[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Netherlands : 69,5 %- North Germany : 57,1 % - West Germany : 44,4 % [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]West Flanders : 52,1 %- East Flanders : 40,9 % - Antwerpe : 38,2 % -N-E Äntwerpe :34,4 % - Limburg : 38,1 % -North-Brabant (germanic) : 61,7 % - South-Brabant(walloon) : 38,4 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Romania : 9,9 % -Hungary : 17,2 % - Greece : 0,0 % (! BUT Creta :5,8 %) - Albania : 4,3 % - Macedonia : 0,0 (!) -Croatia : 7,0 % - Serbia : 18,6 %-Montenegro :0,0 % - Bosnia : 0,0 % - Bulgaria : 16,2 %(!) - Czechia : 26,1 % - Slovakia : 24,5 %(closer between them here) –West Ukraina : 38,5 %- Center Ukraina : 17,7 % - Belarus:33,3 % &29,7 % (closer to West Ukraina, then)- [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]South-Sweden nly 20,6 % … Estonia : 59,3 % - Finland :47,6 % - Poland : 32,2 % - North Russia:22,4 %Center Russia 19,3 % South Russia 30,3 %[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Spain Valencia (East) :2,0 % - North Italy 13,4 % - South Italy 3,7 % (surelyexceptions around West Sicilia and Campobasso...)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]concerningAustria don't find my %, but I remember it was around the66,6 % close to The Netherlands, so not so higheven if very high...Anerror in FireHaired statesconcerning the totalof Y-R1b ?: Maciamogives 32 % -I know Tyrol gives higher %s of U106 but...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Whatever the samples, we seethat the Y-R1b-U106 ratio's cline within Y-R1b is finally moreNorthern/Southern (except Austria) than Western/Eastern even if indetails things are a bit more complicated : and we see theCeltic lands are not the strongest as a whole, compared not only togermanic regions but also to other ethnic groups. It's confirmed inthe Benelux as a whole, in France, in Iberia (the Northwest andWestern lands have more than the Southeast ones)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The southern Sweden % isvery low : sample size ? + upstream SNPs ? :don't forget M269's in different geographic areas have differentstories : some are ancestors of U106, some others to P312... Isee nothing in all these%s which copuld deny a germanic origin forthe bulk of Y-R1a.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- surely some subclades ofY-R1b-U106 and Y-I1 had stories different from the story of bulk oftheir ancestral lignage. I don't refuse the thought of some U106 andsome I1 incorporated amon Celts and others at the mergins. By theway, Y-I1 is old in North and some clades could have been inNorth-West before Celts and Germanics, and here I cannot speak of« mergin ». For U106 I think it's at the mergin thatsomeones were incorporated among Celts, Belgae come from Bohemiasurroundings for the most.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]- I was interested by theTomenable hypothesis concerning Hallstatt, U106 and Austria-Bohemia eople (future rich Tumuli) interested in metals who descended therivers network towards the Saale region and the Harz/Thuringen? Verysensible at first sight. Question : is the today frequency ofU106 reflecting this ? And reflecting more ancient stages ?I think Corded reached Saale Thuringen region, almost sure so somekind of Y-R1a (R1a seems more ancient than Y-R1b and than the most-not the whole- of Y-I1 in Norway : see other threads) ;but I suppose Corded came more through East plain than through theBohemian mountains.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ButU106 ? I think the clear enough cut between it and P312can be explained by an isolation at some stage of the Y-R1b-L11level. Where were the 2 pools ? U106 vs P312 ? ForP312, East of France-Bavaria-Switzerland (future « poor »Tumuli under Unetice influence culturally only) seem good enoughcheck ; for U106, South Bohemia-North Austria could be righttoo, before later moves West-East (Celts) and then East-West(Slavs) : infiltration from the Danube and then the riversnetwork (Elbe and Co); a northwards colonization for metals withThuringen/Saale for target, cutting R1a of Scandinavia off the R1a ofEast... ??? It deserves a knowledge of R1a subclades I have notnow. Austria richness in U106 could be linked to an old Danube cradleas well as to a « bridge head » of Germanics warriorsafter the Volker Wanderungen. Classical anthropology showed theGermanics tribe coming down in Southwest Germany could be distinguishfrom the more meso-brachycephalic people of Pre-Celtic+Celtic origin.Salzburg region is blonder and less brachycephalic than a lot ofSouthern Germany regions : an anterior state or more Germanicscolonizators ? It needs more accurate and precise auDNA for thediverse Austrian regions. I avow I'm not completely convinced bythe U106/Danube connexion as a primal stage ; not isolatedenough, when we know the Danube boulevard leads to Rhine mouth ;I've hard work to explain the still existing opposition in R1b's %safter centuries of moves even if war conquests are not always checkedby important population shifts. I wonder if a more northeasternposition was not the case for U106??? Rhine was more a link atBB's times than a frontier. Spite this it became a kind of frontieror a sort of hurdle at Celtic-Germanic pre-Roman times, at least inits lower part, visible in a « today » bunch of closeisolosses or gradiants in The Netherlands concerning U106 vs P312 ifI rely upon STR's, what could prove the Germanics people did notexterminate all the Celts on their way South. It's true someGermanics tribes were already infiltred among Celtic tribes in oldBelgia at Roman times. [/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]-Now, my suppositions : As I wrote previously I think R-U106 andI1 were already mixed in Denmark-North Germany before Roman Era. Onlythe respective %s changed, apparently R-U106 dominant more westernly,I1 dominant more easternly. Thuringen and Sax-Anhalt, regionsattracted a lot of tribes of divers horizons at LN-EBA. By the way,the geographical link of this cradle with Hallstatt (more than to LaTène) could prove all Hallstatt at first was not ONLYCeltic, my doubts based upon what was said by more than an ancientarcheologist and historian and antrhopologist. More than aTumuli/Barrows culture existed there in Europe, and the link maybewas not too tight between rich tumuli of Saale regions and the« poorest » tumuli of Bavaria-East France which (theselast ones) could be linked more properly to proto-Celtic culture. LaTène culture showed a great change in hyerarchization andsettlements places after Hallstatt, I see personally as a return to amore ancient situation after absorbtion of new elites not Celtic byforce.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Iresume ( needed!) : Y-R-U106 among Celts ? Yes, atlight dosis. But Y-I1 too, at light dosis. But for me Germanics attheir daybreak after I-Eanization by R1b (more U106) were already amix of R-U106+I1, centered around Denmark and in a lot of Southernand eastern countries, the 2 are roughly traces of Germanics people,whatever their respective%s.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Futurewill tell us ?[/FONT]

 

[ElHorsto]

It is probably there were more I1 in Germany in past, maybe not so long ago.

There is interesting story for two Serbian men with I1 haplogroup.

It is proved that they are descendants of Saxons whose ancestors worked as miners in Serbian mines in Middle Age (13th, 14th century).

Although it is small sample, there is assumption based on evidence of haplogroups that Saxons who came to the Balkans as miners were mostly or dominantly I1 carriers.

I have an assumption.

Maybe I1 carriers in Saxon areas in Germany and surrounding were starving due to black death (1346-1671).

About 1/3 of European population extinct and it can be possible that among them are Saxon I1 carriers.

It is possible, but there are widespread confusions regarding the term "Saxon", even among Germans. The east-german provinces "Saxony" and Saxony-Anhalt are not the ancestral Saxon land and were only partially settled by Saxons. Even Mecklenburg is certainly more saxon than "Saxony". Especially Erzgebirge mountain in Saxony was populated more by franks and bavarians than saxons.

The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxons, they were probably unknown germanic tribes that moved elsewhere. It is also possible that they moved to north-west and their offspring returned later as part of the saxons who had probably much less than 58% I1.

Another confusion is that outside of Germany germans were called "Saxons" even if they came from franconian, austrian or swabian lands. I'm not sure but many of these "Saxons" from Serbia that you mention might have actually come from any part of Germany. For instance the "Saxons" from Banat in Romania mostly came from the french border and Luxemburg, which was ancestral Franconia.

 

[Templar]

the non european probably didn't come from I1
I1 has one single ancestor 4700 years old, that time first IE people were allready in Scandinavia

Even so it would be an unknown I* predecessor of I1. A paleolithic remnant that merged with the coming Indoeuropeans. I1 was the specific clade that benefited from the resulting mix and it expanded like wildfire due to Bronze age technology and weaponry.

 

[LeBrok]

The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxons, they were probably unknown germanic tribes that moved elsewhere. It is also possible that they moved to north-west and their offspring returned later as part of the saxons who had probably much less than 58% I1.

Saxons or not, definitely some Germanic people were there at that time. I'm not sure, but gathering info from posts, first arrival of Saxons in Saxony is rather unknown. So who knows what was the name of the tribe there by said time.

Another confusion is that outside of Germany germans were called "Saxons" even if they came from franconian, austrian or swabian lands. I'm not sure but many of these "Saxons" from Serbia that you mention might have actually come from any part of Germany. For instance the "Saxons" from Banat in Romania mostly came from the french border and Luxemburg, which was ancestral Franconia.

Interesting is the fact that most Slavs refer to Germans as Svabi (Szwaby). It might be the case that at some point they battled Suabs the most of other tirbes, hens such identification of Germans. It is mystery however, when and where the contact happened. Looking at maps of ancient tribes and chronology of their movements, it shouldn't be the case. Suabs have left before Slavs arrived. Go figure.

 

[ElHorsto]

Saxons or not, definitely some Germanic people were there at that time. I'm not sure, but gathering info from posts, first arrival of Saxons in Saxony is rather unknown. So who knows what was the name of the tribe there by said time.

The first arrival of Saxons together with other Germans in Saxony happened when it was already slavic, and the "Holy-Roman-Empre/Germany" already existed. The Görzig samples are from 300-400 years before the slavs arrived. I'm not even sure if Görzig later became slavic at all, it looks like it was close to the border.
[EDIT: Görzig was slavonic: Gorizka]
In either case they were neither saxons nor slavs for sure.

Interesting is the fact that most Slavs refer to Germans as Svabi (Szwaby). It might be the case that at some point they battled Suabs the most of other tirbes, hens such identification of Germans. It is mystery however, when and where the contact happened. Looking at maps of ancient tribes and chronology of their movements, it shouldn't be the case. Suabs have left before Slavs arrived. Go figure.

I'm sure it has nothing directly to do with the original suabian tribe. Those germans who are called Svabi in the Balkans have been moved there by the Habsburg monarchy 200 years ago (Schwabenzug). Actual Svabians (Schwaben) do exist still today in Baden-Württemberg, and they represented only a small fraction of the "Svabi", but they apparently provided the name for all these german migrants. I don't know about Poland though.

 

[berun]

Svabi ressembles suebi, a group of mobile germanic tribes:

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

 

[MOESAN]

It is possible, but there are widespread confusions regarding the term "Saxon", even among Germans. The east-german provinces "Saxony" and Saxony-Anhalt are not the ancestral Saxon land and were only partially settled by Saxons. Even Mecklenburg is certainly more saxon than "Saxony". Especially Erzgebirge mountain in Saxony was populated more by franks and bavarians than saxons.

The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxons, they were probably unknown germanic tribes that moved elsewhere. It is also possible that they moved to north-west and their offspring returned later as part of the saxons who had probably much less than 58% I1.

Another confusion is that outside of Germany germans were called "Saxons" even if they came from franconian, austrian or swabian lands. I'm not sure but many of these "Saxons" from Serbia that you mention might have actually come from any part of Germany. For instance the "Saxons" from Banat in Romania mostly came from the french border and Luxemburg, which was ancestral Franconia.

good precisions

 

[MOESAN]

from Wikipedia:

Généralités[modifier | modifier le code]

Le terme Suèves (latin Suebi, Suabi ou Suevi) fait référence à un groupe germanique, peuple qui vivait jadis dans le nord-est de la Magna Germania sur la mer Baltique. Dans les sources romaines, la mer Baltique est désignée comme Mare Suebicum d'après les Suèves. Le géographe Claude Ptolémée (vers 100, † environ 175) dans sa Géographie. localise à l'emplacement des rivières actuelles Swine et Oder le fleuve Συήβος (Suebos, lat.: Suevus). Ainsi, le nom tribal des Suebi peut se laisser interpréter comme provenant de la zone de peuplement d'origine en tant que «peuple de l'Oder» ou encore le nom de la rivière Suevus comme le nom du fleuve des Suèves.
Comme l'historien Reinhard Wenskus l'a expliqué, l'apparence et la tradition des Suèves a marqué la perception ethnographique et la description de nombreuses tribus germaniques dans le monde antique avant que cette empreinte ne passe aux tribus gothiques. Beaucoup de tribus germaniques ont fait en sorte de se présenter comme suèves.
Étymologiquement, le nom des Souabes dérive directement du terme suève. De nombreuses tribus d'ascendance celte et/ou germanique ont été désignées de façon arbitraire par les romains (probablement pour des raisons géostratégiques et politiques), comme étant des tribus suèves à l'époque de Tacite: ainsi, les Marcomans, les Semnons lesHermundures, les Quades et les Lombards, et parfois les Angles1. Sur le plan archéologique, ils se laissent identifier, au plus tôt, dans les Germains de l'Elbe. L'archéologie les désigne comme appartenant à la fois à la culture de Jastorf et à la culture d'Harpstedt1.
Les sources antiques perdent leur trace au ii^e siècle avant notre ère avant que ne réapparaisse leur nom dans des sources plus tardives. Ils ont participé aux grandes migrationset pour certains d'entre eux sont parvenus jusqu'à la péninsule Ibérique.
Tacite, dans la Germanie, 39, témoigne que les Semnons passaient pour le fondement du peuple suève, vetustissimi Sueborum.
Les Suèves selon César[modifier | modifier le code]

En 58 av. J.-C., dans une bataille sur le Rhin, César défait les Suèves qui avaient pénétré en Gaule conduits par Arioviste. Dans ses rapports, il conçoit comme Suèves les peuples germaniques habitant à l'est des Ubiens et des Sicambres et indique qu'ils comptaient 100 groupes avec 1 000 hommes capables de combattre, mais qui se seraient retirés, lors de sa traversée du Rhin, vers la forêt de Bacenis (le massif d'Allemagne centrale, qui, selon César sépare les Suèves des Chérusques). Cette localisation est néanmoins considérée comme incertaine. Ils n'auraient pas connu de résidence fixe, mais se seraient déplacés chaque année dans le cadre des campagnes armées. La taille de l'alliance tribale suève est probablement due, dans la majorité des cas, à l'intégration d'autres tribus attirées par la gloire des Suèves à la guerre. Dion Cassius signale dans tous les cas, que « beaucoup d'autres manifestent la prétention d'être Suèves».
Selon les sources archéologiques, on observe des colonies tout à fait permanentes au nord du Main et le long de celui-ci. De même, les oppida celtiques ont été occupées dans la région peu de temps après l'immigration germaniqune. Ces soi-disant Suèves du Main qui furent en 9/10 av. J.-C. soumis par Drusus, sont d'après les fouilles archéologiques un mélange de peuples germaniques du Rhin-Weser et de peuples germaiques de l'Elbe.
Les Suèves du Neckar[modifier | modifier le code]

Selon des inscriptions trouvées, auraient vécu, sous la domination romaine, dans la région de Lopodunum (aujourd'hui Ladenburg) au i^er et ii^e siècles ap. J.-C., les Suèves Nicrenses (Suèves du Neckar). D'après ces peuples suèves, est nommée la Civitas Ulpia Sueborum Nicretum qui se trouve près de Ladenburg. Il s'agit probablement de restes, qui étaient demeurés après l'expulsion de 58 av. J.-C. ou encore de volontaires ou même de réinstallations forcées. Dans une carte routière romaine de l'Antiquité tardive, laTabula Peutingeriana, on trouve également, entre Alamannia et les Burcturi (= Bructères), le nom Suevia, qui est probablement lié aux peuplements des Suèves du Neckar.

from that we can deduce:
Suèves/Suebi/Schwaben are the same thing - they were (seemingly) based in East-Germany very early and then this explain why all Germanics are named after their own tribe name by Slavs.
Powerful as they were, they incorporated other littler tribes (so maybe the compound names we find on some maps) and even , their name was "usurpated" by some more obscure germanic tribes.
By the way, Zeeland (# sea-land) would have been Zeeuws-land, land of the Suebi: so a stam of this great powerful tribe or group of tribes could have colonized this ancient celtic region too. I 'll try to say more about language if it's of some worth.
I'm not sure all that could disentangle the question" of supposed Y-I1 Saxons! With so much moves in some centuries among Germanics (dissolution, recomposition) I'm not sure the II/IV/V centuries would have seen so dramatic differences about haplo's in Northern Germany (not the case for Southern germany, been preceltic and Celtic before...
Franks themselves were numerous, but also incorporated some Belgae and Gauls tribes: they were, like Alamans and Suebi, recomposed big tribes.

 

[ElHorsto]

from that we can deduce:
Suèves/Suebi/Schwaben are the same thing - they were (seemingly) based in East-Germany very early and then this explain why all Germanics are named after their own tribe name by Slavs.

They were the same thing 1500 years ago, but concerning the Balkans, their name has a much more recent story. They pronounce it "Shvabi", which hints to the more recent sound shift from 'S' to 'Sh'.

I'm still not so sure the ancient Suebi explains Germans being called Svabi by the other Slavs. When Slavs arrived in east Germany and Poland they found empty land in the north, and the Thuringian kingdom in the south, which they destroyed. At that time the Suebi already had left east Germany. It is possible that some Slavs fought the Suebi further south. In any case 'Nemci' was the most common slavic name for Germans or Germanics.