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

[Tomenable]

The new I1 samples from Görzig are certainly no saxons

Probably Thuringians, Northern Suebi or Cherusci.BTW - Görzig is in Kreis Anhalt-Bitterfeld. After the Migration Period, this area was settled by Slavs, who built the stronghold of Ciervisti in that region (modern Zerbst).So we are looking at Pre-Slavic DNA from region which later became Slavic (even though very close to the western borderland of Slavic lands).

 

[Milan]

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.

I think that the one of the first names used for Germans and maybe wider populations near them in Slavic language is "Nemac" (murmuring people) from Nem (mute) which still dominate in the Slavic languages,Germany is called "Nemacka" from the same name,the "Roman name" Germania,Germans is used also.
Švaba is perhaps later term and is derived from the Suebi tribe,yes moved by the Habsburg monarchy in Balkans,still denote a German but is not used that much.
For the Franks older term is Fruzi.
Speaking here about the South-Slavic languages and people.

 

[Tomenable]

the ratio U106/totalR1b-M269 :Czechs : 50,0 % (!)

Myres et al. had this data for Czech Republic:L23(xM412) -------------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U106(xU198) ----------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U152 ---------------------- 0,034 (= 3,4%)M529(xM222) ------------ 0,011 (= 1,1%)R1b-M269 all ------------------ 0,218 (= 21,8%)Which means that U106 is only 26,1% of M269.

 

[MOESAN]

2 great germanic regions seem sharing a phonetic tendancy: NO diphtonging of long mid-germanic /I:/: Scandinavia, a lot of places in East Germany, and Zeeland/Flanders, Elsass Schwaben-Switzerland (these 3 last ones classified 'alemannic'. It concerns also long germanic /U:/ in some way. But considering vowels are as a rule less solid than consonnants/stops and that modern traits can be born late enough I 've doubt about the usefulness of this observation; and I think the western phenomenon is more related to remnants of Celtic substrata than to specific old Germanics tribes (Celts diphtonged long /E:/, almost never /I:/ if I'm right).
concerning Y-I1 and its ancestors in North-central Europe, a Russian scientist (Shtrunov) thought some Y-I's (I1 + maybe North-East Y-I2a2) could have been the carriers of the pre-I-Ean and pre-Finnic strata in Languages of Saami and Finland... I have not the knowledge to weight his affirmation.

 

[Milan]

Other terms used in the medieval Slavic languages in Balkans prior for the Saxons is "Sasi" they were mostly working as miners in mine industry.
Couple toponyms still survive from their name,the village of Sase, Srebrenica, and the Saška reka was named after the community,one of today mines in R. Macedonia is called Sasa,probably connected to this name but is much later name.

 

[LeBrok]

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.

You mean the first documented movement.

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.

I beg to differ on this one. Svab is panslavic word, therefore must have been coined before expansion. Also, unlike Nemec, it is used in derogatory form. I'm telling you, something bad had happened between Svabians and Slavs. Part of unknown history I guess.

 

[Milan]

You mean the first documented movement.




I beg to differ on this one. Svab is panslavic word, therefore must have been coined before expansion. Also, unlike Nemec, it is used in derogatory form. I'm telling you, something bad had happened between Svabians and Slavs. Part of unknown history I guess.

Svab is indeed used in derogatory form,but i think this had to do with ww2,in case of the Balkans at least the Germans back then and the soldiers were called Svabe mostly by Partisans,like Jerry in English.Other than that has no Slavic etymology neither i see something derogatory in it,by etymology Nemec(mute) would be kind of derogatory but we don't expirience it in that sense,is just a said word,no one think on it's etymology.

 

[LeBrok]

Svab is indeed used in derogatory form,but i think this had to do with ww2,in case of the Balkans at least the Germans back then and the soldiers were called Svabe mostly by Partisans,like Jerry in English.Other than that has no Slavic etymology neither i see something derogatory in it,by etymology Nemec(mute) would be kind of derogatory but we don't expirience it in that sense,is just a said word,no one think on it's etymology.

WW2 would seem like an explanation, but I think it is not. For instance, why would Serbs and Poles, and probably other Slavs, call all Germans taking part in the war, by the name of one German region? Too coincidental to happen. I'm sure Germans from Schwaben were not particularly more cruel than others to get any distinction.
I think it was vice versa, Germans were called Svabi, because it was already a derogatory term. If we have one, we'll use it, instead of inventing a new one.

 

[Garrick]

Other terms used in the medieval Slavic languages in Balkans prior for the Saxons is "Sasi" they were mostly working as miners in mine industry.
Couple toponyms still survive from their name,the village of Sase, Srebrenica, and the Saška reka was named after the community,one of today mines in R. Macedonia is called Sasa,probably connected to this name but is much later name.

There are more, for example in Serbia Šaška reka (Shashka river) near Zajecar, village Sase near Raška (Rashka), etc.

 

[MOESAN]

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.

Thanks El Horsto - I was just proposing a possible explanation. That said, approximations and assimilations are very common concerning ethnies or tribes names, in oral as in written culture. "Helvetes" and Swiss, "Dutch" for (Netherlanders) whose name would rather concern Germans, "Allemand" for German too, "Saxons" for Germans of Romania and so on... mix of scale, of places, of chronology.

 

[MOESAN]

Myres et al. had this data for Czech Republic:L23(xM412) -------------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U106(xU198) ----------- 0,057 (= 5,7%)U152 ---------------------- 0,034 (= 3,4%)M529(xM222) ------------ 0,011 (= 1,1%)R1b-M269 all ------------------ 0,218 (= 21,8%)Which means that U106 is only 26,1% of M269.

OK: it confirms my impressions. 50% was the ratio proposed by FireHaired, and it seemed too high for me; surely a technical error or a writing error: I added other ratios (in italic inclined letters) which fit your own ones for Czechs.

 

[Tomenable]

As for Ostsiedlung, I've recently bought two books (they are in Polish, but have also abstracts in English so I will cite English titles):

- D. Leśniewska, "German Colonization and Colonization on the German Law in Medieval Bohemia & Moravia in the Light of Historiography"
- Jan M. Piskorski, "The Rural Colonization of Western Pomerania in the 13th Century and at the Beginning of the 14th Century..." *

These books give interesting details which may give hints as to genetic structure of modern regional populations as well.

For example Piskorski writes, that the number of German settlers in the island of Rügen was very low.

So modern inhabitants of Rügen should be of mostly Polabian Slavic descend. It would be nice to collect DNA there.

* German title is: "Die Ländliche Kolonisation Pommerns im 13. und in den Anfängen des 14. Jahrhunderts auf dem Hintergrund der Siedlungsvorgänge im Mittelalterlichen Europa".

 

[Rethel]

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:

Now I get how you think.

But I think, that I1 rather increase in number in last 1700 years than deline, and such depopulation, whereever it had place in germanic speaking world, was in favor of I1. I1 at that time was totally assimilated, so no one cared, which people are settled where and how many children they had. The spread of I1 was unseeable and was systematicaly increasing during millenia, not only in Scandinavia but also in the continent. More than that, many other lineages went away with germanic tribes invading the Empire, and if more I1 left in place, then this clade had batter chances to be more spreading. This is my guess, and I have suspected it to be correct

 

[Rethel]

Germanic languages are known to have a higher percentage of non-indoeuropean words compared to the surrounding language families.

This is already non actual view. Most of the words can be easly explained on IE basis. Btw, some of the words, which were presented in this 1/3 are several times similar to slavic words, so, no problem. Of course some words can be inherited from locals, but some can be also self invented by Germans or twisted so much, that IE root is not recognizable - and in the case of these languages is very possible

A very high I1 % would make a lot of sense for the original Germanic language speakers.

But becasue of the age, he can be afterIE not preIE
Women also can influenced language, even more,
especially, that they are talking more and even to much:wink:

 

[Tomenable]

As for Ostsiedlung, I've recently bought two books (they are in Polish, but have also abstracts in English so I will cite English titles):

- D. Leśniewska, "German Colonization and Colonization on the German Law in Medieval Bohemia & Moravia in the Light of Historiography"
- Jan M. Piskorski, "The Rural Colonization of Western Pomerania in the 13th Century and at the Beginning of the 14th Century..." *

These books give interesting details which may give hints as to genetic structure of modern regional populations as well.

For example Piskorski writes, that the number of German settlers in the island of Rügen was very low.

So modern inhabitants of Rügen should be of mostly Polabian Slavic descend. It would be nice to collect DNA there.

* German title is: "Die Ländliche Kolonisation Pommerns im 13. und in den Anfängen des 14. Jahrhunderts auf dem Hintergrund der Siedlungsvorgänge im Mittelalterlichen Europa".

If German colleagues are interested - here is the table of contents in German (and references to German summary):

Table of Contents

German Summary

And Extended Table of Contents from the other book:

 

[MOESAN]

I could seem marginal:
a survey about East Tyrol of Austria, close to Carinthia and Italian (South) Tyrol, gave 42,2% for all Y-R1b's and 18,9% for U106 so a ratio of 44,78% for U106, not so dramatic. It's ture it is East Tyrol. But it is far from the almost 80% of U106/R1b... by the way Y-I1 was at 15,9%, so an equilibrium between supposed "germanic" R-U106 and I1... It could confirm there Germanics as vectors for the most of these haplo's in Austria, and not Austria as cradle for a U106 almost without Y-I1? Hard to believe Y-I1s came after from North, independently from U106...

 

[Moi-même]

What about Ötzi's G2a? He was found in the Tyrol if I remember well.

 

[berun]

Interesting results in a little area; what we have by sure in Görzig is 7 I1 and 1 R1b; but 40 km SW in Esperstedt (samples from the Corded Ware culture of 2500-2050) gave 8 R1a and a R1b1a2, then 40 km SE from Esperstedt, in Eulau, two samples pertaining also to the Corded Ware from 2600 were R1a (total CW = 10 R1a + 1 R1b); some 70 km S of Esperstedt, in Kromsdorf, two samples of the Bell Beaker culture were R1b; also other two samples of the Bell Beaker found 70 km NW of Esperstedt were R1b (in Quedlinburg), as was the Bell Beaker found in Rothenschirmbach, which is at few km from Esperstedt... (total BB = 5 R1b). The Bronze Age samples from 2100-2000 of the Unetice Culture found were I2a2, I2, I2c2; thousand years later the samples found in the Lichstentein cave (at few km from Quedlinbrug) pertaining to the Urnfield culture (celtic), were mainly I2 (11 I2a2b + 2 R1a + 1 R1b)... it would be nice to know the actual Y-DNA of the region as to know the aftermatch of such mix.

Of course these could be biased data related to samples that were relatives, but each culture is showing a different genetic make-up in an area similar to Corsica island in extension, but it seems that something happended with the Unetice culture, and it was not reversed so much by the change to the Urnfield developed in the south at some 500 km. By the way, the presence of seven I1 in Görzig could be explained then by the migration from the north of Germanics in the II Iron Age.

 

[berun]

I forgot to add up the sample from Halberstadt, near Quiedlinburg, it was a R1a from the Lusatian culture, of about the same epoch than the Urnfield samples...

 

[Tomenable]

but 40 km SW in Esperstedt (samples from the Corded Ware culture of 2500-2050) gave 8 R1a and a R1b1a2, then 40 km SE from Esperstedt, in Eulau, two samples pertaining also to the Corded Ware from 2600 were R1a (total CW = 10 R1a + 1 R1b)

That alleged CWC R1b from Esperstedt was in fact R1a.

SNP calls suggest that he was in fact R1a-M198* (basal paragroup M198):

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1534/

And on Anthrogenica user Smal explained why he was not R1b - le'ts cite him:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125343&viewfull=1#post125343

Quote:
=================
I1534 is not R1b. CTS11468 and many other R1b specific SNPs are negative for this sample.

I1534 has the following negative R1b SNPs:

L1349/PF6268/YSC0000231-
CTS2702/PF6099/Z8132-
CTS2703-
L1345/PF6266/YSC0000224-
CTS9018/FGC188/PF6484-
CTS2466/PF6453-
CTS2704/PF6100-
CTS8052/FGC45/PF6473-
L749/PF6476/YSC0000290-
PF6496/YSC0000213-
L1350/PF6505/YSC0000225-
PF6507-
CTS11468/FGC49/PF6520-
CTS12972/FGC52/PF6532-

CTS11468 is a mutation from “G” to “T”. All R1b1a2 (R-M269) have “T” in this position. I1534 has 1”G” read.

I am looking at the actual reads from bam files.

It is easy to explain.

A difference between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence can arise in 2 cases

1) Ancestral (RS) -> Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
2) Ancestral (SS) -> Derived (RS) [negative SNP in SS]

If there are no differences between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence that can mean

3) Ancestral -> Derived (RS) = Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
4) Ancestral (RS) = Ancestral (SS) -> Derived [negative SNP in SS]

Probably you know that Reference Sequence is a mix from the actual R1b-P312 (mainly) and G sequences.

As a result, the most of R1b1a2 specific SNPs belong to the variant 3. But in case of CTS11468 we see the variant 2.

However, Mathieson et al have recorded it wrongly as the variant 1.
==================
End of quote