# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  who are the pommeranians?

## zanipolo

as per link below, the pommerains seem to be the very early venedi or goths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pomerania


in link below, the map clearly states the pommeranian culture which covers exactly the vistula venedi one

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

----------


## how yes no 2

> as per link below, the pommerains seem to be the very early venedi or goths
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pomerania
> 
> 
> in link below, the map clearly states the pommeranian culture which covers exactly the vistula venedi one
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture


a possible interpretation of their tribal name comes from Slavic languages (I do not know Baltic languages, explanation there could be similar)

more = sea
pomorje = area around sea
pomeranians = people who live around sea

similar origin of tribal names are common in Slavs
e.g. Polanes - comes from word "polje"= field, thus people living in fields 
Derevlians - comes from "drvo"= tree, thus people living in woods...
Moravians = people living around Morava river

well, here is what Russian primary chronicle says about it...

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




> After the destruction of the tower and the division of the nations, the sons of Shem occupied the eastern regions, and sons of Ham those of the south, and the sons of Japheth the western and the northern lands. Among these seventy-two nations, the Slavic race is derived from the line of Japheth, since they are the Noricians, who are identical with the Slavs.
> 
> Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For *when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs*, settled among them, and did them violence, *the latter came and made their homes by the Vistula*, and were then called Lyakhs. Of these same Lyakhs some were
> called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others *Pomorians*. Certain Slavs settled also on the Dnipro, and were likewise called Polyanians. Still others were named *Derevlians, because they lived in the forests*. Some also lived between the Pripet' and the Dvina, and were known as Dregovichians. Other tribes resided along the Dvina and were called Polotians on account of a small stream called the Polota, which flows into the Dvina. It was from this same stream that they were named Polotians. The Slavs also dwelt about Lake Il'men', and were known there by their characteristic name. They built a city which they called Novgorod.
> Still others had their homes along the Desna, the Sem', and the Sula, and were called Severians.
> 
> Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.
> When the Polyanians lived by themselves among the hills, a *trade-route* connected the Varangians with the Greeks. Starting from Greece, this route proceeds along the Dnipro, above which a portage leads to the Lovat'. By following the Lovat', the great lake Il'men' is reached.The river Volkhov flows out of this lake and enters the great lake Nevo. The mouth of this lake opens into the Varangian Sea.


http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/...selections.pdf

note that 
Slavic "more" = "mare" in latin languages...and "Meer" in germanic (also sea/zee)

but adding preffix "po-" to it, is I think very Slavic... and very common practice in Slavic

e.g. in Serbia, the area around river Drina is Podrinje, area around Danube river ("Dunav" in Slavic languages) is Podunavlje...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podunavlje
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podrinje

I am not sure but I do not think there is similar preffix in Germanic languages....

----------


## Taranis

> as per link below, the pommerains seem to be the very early venedi or goths
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pomerania


First off, the Pomeranians and the "Pomeranian Culture" were completely unrelated. The latter is just an artificial term coined by archaeologists.




> in link below, the map clearly states the pommeranian culture which covers exactly the vistula venedi one
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jastorf_culture


It doesn't. The Venedi lived in the pink-colored area (West Baltic Cairns Culture). The people of the Pomeranian Culture, (at least, 2nd century AD, compare Ptolemy's Geography) were probably East-Germanic peoples, though there may be some Celtic and Dacian influence in the south, at least judging from Celtic and Dacian place names. The main tribes of the area were the Rugians, Burgundians, Lugians and the Goths.

----------


## how yes no 2

> The Venedi lived in the pink-colored area (West Baltic Cairns Culture). The people of the Pomeranian Culture, (at least, 2nd century AD, compare Ptolemy's Geography) were probably East-Germanic peoples, though there may be some Celtic and Dacian influence in the south, at least judging from Celtic and Dacian place names. The main tribes of the area were the Rugians, Burgundians, Lugians and the Goths.


hm, wonder whether there was really clear difference between west germanic and east Slavic....

tacitus clearly uses living in houses versus living nomad lifestyle to classify Vistula Veneti in Germanic people...

could Lugians/Luiggi be same is Lyakhs from text bellow:



> Over a long period the Slavs settled beside the Danube, where the Hungarian and Bulgarian lands now lie. From among these Slavs, parties scattered throughout the country and were known by appropriate names, according to the places where they settled. Thus some came and settled by the river Morava, and were named Moravians, while others were called Czechs. Among these same Slavs are included the White Croats, the Serbs, and the Carinthians. For *when the Vlakhs attacked the Danubian Slavs, settled among them, and did them violence,* the latter came and *made their homes by the Vistula*, and were then called *Lyakhs*. Of these same Lyakhs some were
> called Polyanians, some Lutichians, some Mazovians, and still others Pomorians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Chronicle
http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/...selections.pdf

lug = small forest, so this would be tribal name of people living in small forest... which fits well slavic tribal name construction explained above...

but I am wrong Lyakh is obviously about Lechs, which is alternative name of Poles...

during writing on sea people thread, I was wondering whether Lechs have tribal name related to Lycia and to Peleset...

possible trace of movement from Lycia to Lech/Lugii is in spread of U3 mitohondrial lineage.. a hotspot in northeast of Black sea matches Siraces who are thought to be same or related to Serboi of Caspian highlands (probably known later as Sabirs and incorporated in Chuvash people today)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852723/

so, Russian primary chronicle perhaps in fact claims that Danubian Slavs (Serbs, white Croats, Carantanians) found refuge in land of Lech people (Lugii?)
that is quite possible...Scordisci going north along Danube would end up in Bohemia which is just south of Lugii in this map...

Lugii at 1AD are on source of Vistula just bellow Veneti


Vistula

----------


## Taranis

> hm, wonder whether there was really clear difference between west germanic and east Slavic....


You mean _East_ Germanic and _West_ Slavic? Frankly, the Slavic languages, with high certainty weren't differenciated yet at that point. I'm also reasonably sure that the denizens of the Pommeranian Culture, if they were Germanic, spoke Pre-Germanic instead of East Germanic, since the Pommeranian Culture (7th to 2nd centuries BC) predates the Germanic sound shifts.




> tacitus clearly uses living in houses versus living nomad lifestyle to classify Vistula Veneti in Germanic people...





> The Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatae, who live in waggons and on horseback.





> could Lugians be same is Liakhs from text bellow:


In my opinion, the Lugians were Germanicized Celts. What speaks in favour of this is that in the area inhabited by the Lugians (upper Oder area) there are overtly Celtic town names such as "Carrodunum" and "Lugidunum". Tentatively, there's also the connection between the "Lugians" and the pan-Celtic deity "Lugus". Most importantly, there's "Lugdunum" (modern Lyon).

----------


## how yes no 2

> You mean _East_ Germanic and _West_ Slavic? Frankly, the Slavic languages, with high certainty weren't differenciated yet at that point. I'm also reasonably sure that the denizens of the Pommeranian Culture, if they were Germanic, spoke Pre-Germanic instead of East Germanic, since the Pommeranian Culture (7th to 2nd centuries BC) predates the Germanic sound shifts.


yes, that's what I meant... made lapsus...
Slavic language may have developed recently by east Germanic or Celtic people merging their language with the language of iranian Sarmatians... but I think Slavic language is much older than the time it is attested...

Pomeranian culture and Pomneranians are probably unrelated... culture should have gotten some other name and later Pomeranians are likely Slavs... that is also claimed by Russian primary chronicle above...because its chronology suggests that Danubian Slavs were first pushed to north by Roman empire and there they joined Lyakhs and only than tribe of Pomeranians came to existance... with Pomeranian being clear Slavic way to name people living at sea coast I agree that what is called Pomeranian culture is probably unrelated to Pomeranians...





> In my opinion, the Lugians were Germanicized Celts. What speaks in favour of this is that in the area inhabited by the Lugians (upper Oder area) there are overtly Celtic town names such as "Carrodunum" and "Lugidunum". Tentatively, there's also the connection between the "Lugians" and the pan-Celtic deity "Lugus". Most importantly, there's "Lugdunum" (modern Lyon).


that makes sense...
my association to Lug are Sorbs who are called "lusatian Serbs" (Lužički Srbi) in Serbia... also there is part of south Serbia called "Lužnica" but I guess that is related to type of oak tree called "lužnjak" or "hrast (oak) lužnjak"
As Celtic, Slavic religion was also related to oak tree... in fact, from what I see IE people had more or less same religion...

Sorbs live in Germany in border area with Czech republic and Poland... which roughly falls in to west part of Lugii position from 1AD ...

so, Lugii would not be Lechs but Sorbs or Lusatians... though the Russian primary chronicle derives various Polish tribes (Polyanians, Lutichians, Mazovians) and Pomorians from Lyakh...

in fact in prehistoric Iberia we find tribal names such as Seurbi and Seurri, Lusitani and Lougei
and the areas involved again match well with U3 mitohondrial lineage



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Iberia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...eria_300BC.svg (click for larger image)

----------


## zanipolo

> Baltic languages, explanation there could be similar)
> 
> more = sea
> pomorje = area around sea
> pomeranians = people who live around sea
> 
> note that 
> Slavic "more" = "mare" in latin languages...and "Meer" in germanic (also sea/zee)
> 
> ...


note that
Venet "mare" = mother, but "mar" = sea, add "po" = was/later
pomeranian could be = was from the sea or from the mother :Petrified:

----------


## zanipolo

> First off, the Pomeranians and the "Pomeranian Culture" were completely unrelated. The latter is just an artificial term coined by archaeologists.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. The Venedi lived in the pink-colored area (West Baltic Cairns Culture). The people of the Pomeranian Culture, (at least, 2nd century AD, compare Ptolemy's Geography) were probably East-Germanic peoples, though there may be some Celtic and Dacian influence in the south, at least judging from Celtic and Dacian place names. The main tribes of the area were the Rugians, Burgundians, Lugians and the Goths.


so, they are germanic , which you can include the lombards, as they originated in the same area. The script also says the Veneti was from the pomeranian culture.
The rugians would then have migrated into dalmatia with the ostrogoths and formed eventually the duchy of Rugusa .
The original language was
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language
which was latinized then venetized

----------


## Taranis

> so, they are germanic , which you can include the lombards, as they originated in the same area. The script also says the Veneti was from the pomeranian culture.
> The rugians would then have migrated into dalmatia with the ostrogoths and formed eventually the duchy of Rugusa .
> The original language was
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalmatian_language
> which was latinized then venetized


Actually, no, the Lombards/Langobardi lived further to the west, along the Elbe. Various sources in Antiquity are very clear about that.

----------


## zanipolo

> Actually, no, the Lombards/Langobardi lived further to the west, along the Elbe. Various sources in Antiquity are very clear about that.


hmm, 
I read this in many books
*From the combined testimony of Strabo (AD 20) and Tacitus (AD 117), the Lombards dwelt near the mouth of the Elbe shortly after the beginning of the Christian era, next to the Chauci.[17] Strabo states that the Lombards dwelt on both sides of the Elbe.[18] The German archaeologist Willi Wegewitz defined several Iron Age burial sites at the lower Elbe as Langobardic.[19] The burial sites, are crematorial and are usually dated from the 6th century BC through the 3rd AD, so that a settlement breakoff seems unlikely.[20] The lands of the lower Elbe fall into the zone of the Jastorf Culture and became Elbe-Germanic, differing from the lands between Rhine, Weser, and the North Sea.[21] Archaeological finds show that the Lombards were an agricultural people.[22]
*
Since the Jastorf culture is Pommerian , then the lombards where East germanic, or is this a wrong evaluation.

----------


## Taranis

Jastorf Culture is NOT the same as Pommeranian Culture. The Langobardi were part of Jastorf, not the Pommeranian Culture. The Langobards were not East Germanic, but associated with the Suebi instead.

----------


## zanipolo

> Jastorf Culture is NOT the same as Pommeranian Culture. The Langobardi were part of Jastorf, not the Pommeranian Culture. The Langobards were not East Germanic, but associated with the Suebi instead.


You fail to understand the logic

pommerian lands are suebic language - germanic
next to them going east was the Aesti language - finnic/scandinavian
next to them was the baltic language - finnic first, later joined by Uralic

My term east germanic is probably wrong and should be stated only as Germanic. 
Pommerian culture and Jastorf culture where from the same germanic areas.

----------


## zanipolo

longobards bracketed as east germanic 

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




The lombards neighbors the Rugii had left the Baltic coast during the migration period. It is said that Burgundians, Veneti, Goths and Gepids with parts of the Rugians left Pomerania during the late Roman Age, and that during the migration period, remnants of Rugians, Vistula Veneti, Vidivarii and other, Germanic tribes remained and formed units that were later Slavicized
The Oxhöft culture is associated with parts of the Rugii and Lemovii.[4] The archaeological Gustow group of Western Pomerania is also associated with the Rugii.[12][13] The remains of the Rugii west of the Vidivarii, together with other Gothic, Veneti, and Gepid groups, are believed to be identical with the archaeological Debczyn group

The Jastorf culture is associated with early Germanic peoples. Western Pomerania belonged to the Warnow-Oder estituary subgroup of the Jastorf culture,[11] the easternmost group is designated Oder group.[42] The Oder group, formerly thought to have emerged after an immigration from Bornholm, is now thought to have evolved from a local population formerly belonging to the Pomeranian culture and the Göritz group of the Lusatian culture, who first adapted to new habits and later mingeld with a Germanic population from the West

this below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture
is the period I am looking at

lombards as a suebi tribe
Paterculus described the Lombards as "more fierce than ordinary German savagery."[23] Tacitus counted the Lombards as a Suebian tribe,[24]

----------


## Taranis

> You fail to understand the logic


Thank you for randomly insulting me.  :Rolleyes: 




> pommerian lands are suebic language - germanic
> next to them going east was the Aesti language - finnic/scandinavian
> next to them was the baltic language - finnic first, later joined by Uralic


There were no Suebi in the area of the Pomeranian Culture - they lived further to the west.




> My term east germanic is probably wrong and should be stated only as Germanic. 
> Pommerian culture and Jastorf culture where from the same germanic areas.


In linguistics "East Germanic" is well-defined as a separate branch of the Germanic languages, which includes Gothic (the by far best attested East Germanic language), as well as Burgundian and Vandalic. The Lombards lived further to the west (along the Elbe) and are very unlikely hence to have spoken East Germanic.

----------


## how yes no 2

I try also to follow intuition in things like this....

so, I looked in what was Pomeranian culture...

this does not feel as germanic sensibility for art... 
besides Germanic people are mostly too practical for art anyway... 

it can easily be proto-Slavic... or Baltic....or Finish...


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

----------


## Taranis

> I try also to follow intuition in things like this....


Intuition? No logic, no Occam's razor, no consideration whatsoever regarding plausibility.  :Indifferent: 




> so, I looked in what was Pomeranian culture...
> 
> this does not feel as germanic sensibility for art... 
> besides Germanic people are mostly too practical for art anyway...


That is a (silly I should say) cliche, a simplification and a stereotype on top of it.




> it can easily be proto-Slavic... or Baltic....or Finish...


Following the accounts of Tacitus (1st century AD) and Ptolemy (2nd century AD) that the area is inhabited by East Germanic peoples. The Pommeranian Culture precedes these accounts by several centuries, but the following cultures evolved continously out of the Pommeranian culture, so it's certainly plausible to assume that they were Germanic (linguistically, "Pre-Germanic" would be more accurate). 

I would not rule out Baltic (or languages close to it, it's very hard to tell since it's so early), but I'd like to point out that in historically attested times, the Balts generally lived further to the east. It's also clear that Tacitus also refers to Baltic peoples and he is very uncertain what to make of them. It's also clear though that the East Germanic and Baltic peoples were in close contact.

What should be noted, prehistory-wise is that the Pommeranian Culture is itself a successor of the Lusatian culture, which was in turn an offshot of the Urnfield Culture.

----------


## how yes no 2

let's take a look at match of culture spreads to spread of haplogroups


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

*Early Iron Age:*
dark green: Nordic Bronze Age
dark red: Jastorf culture
yellow: Harpstedt-Nienburg group
orange: Celtic groups
olive: Pomeranian culture
green: House urns culture
reddish: East Baltic culture
lilac: West Baltic cairns culture
turquoise; Milogrady culture
black: estonic group


*Late Pre-Roman Iron Age:*
dark green: Nordic group
dark red: late phase Jastorf culture
buff: Harpstedt-Nienburg group
green: House Urns culture
dark brown: Oksywie culture
red: Gubin group of Jastorf
olive: Przeworsk culture
lilac: West-Baltic cairns culture
reddish: East-Baltic culture
turquoise: Zarubincy culture
orange: Celtic


cultures show clear sign of continuity....Przeworsk is clearly succesor of Pomeranian culture... only in area around Baltic shores there is a new culture (Oksywie culture) emerging that could be due to mixture of Pomeranian with some other e.g. Nordic Bronze...












I1 matches Nordic Bronze Age
I2b Jastorf culture

area of Pomeranian culture doesnot match in any way neither I1 nor I2b1, so it couldnot have been Germanic... I1 does show correlation with new culture (Oksywie culture) emerging along Baltic shores where north most part of Pomeranian culture was, so we can assume Nordic Bronze culturre spreading by conquest to north most areas of Pomeranian culture... spread of Przeworsk is clearly representing follow up of Pomeranian culture... and with Przeworsk we come very close to early Slavs 

case closed...

----------


## zanipolo

@how yes no


I can understand the first 2 maps, but what does the other maps represent?

----------


## how yes no 2

> Intuition? No logic, no Occam's razor, no consideration whatsoever regarding plausibility.


intuition is also kind of logic...
if you are not able to feel the difference between art of different cultures than perhaps you are missing something in your education and logic...




> Following the accounts of Tacitus (1st century AD) and Ptolemy (2nd century AD) that the area is inhabited by East Germanic peoples. The Pommeranian Culture precedes these accounts by several centuries, but the following cultures evolved continously out of the Pommeranian culture, so it's certainly plausible to assume that they were Germanic (linguistically, "Pre-Germanic" would be more accurate).


oh, come on... grow up...don't be such a 19th century historian...

Tacitus explains his methodology for classification when he talks of Vistula Veneti...
he says that Vistula Veneti have lot of elements of Sarmatian, but because they live in houses (and not as nomads) he classify them as Germanic...
with such a criteria I guess today whole world is Germanic...

only biased 19th century history school originating in biased historians of Germany and Austro-Hungarian empire can use such classification as a proof that Veneti were Germanic...

if your logic is still that Veneti are Germanic cause Tacitus said so, than you do not know what logic is...

----------


## how yes no 2

> @how yes no
> 
> 
> I can understand the first 2 maps, but what does the other maps represent?


do not write about genetics if you have no clue what those maps are....
look at this website (not forum) for some initial explanation about genetics...

----------


## zanipolo

> do not write about genetics if you have no clue what those maps are....
> look at this website (not forum) for some initial explanation about genetics...


I know where to find them, I know they are genetic numbers, but I ask for others as well. Some legends in your posts would help , not just you, me but everyone else who reads these posts.

----------


## Taranis

> let's take a look at match of culture spreads to spread of haplogroups
> 
> area of Pomeranian culture doesnot match in any way neither I1 nor I2b1, so it couldnot have been Germanic... I1 does show correlation with new culture (Oksywie culture) emerging along Baltic shores where north most part of Pomeranian culture was, so we can assume Nordic Bronze culturre spreading by conquest to north most areas of Pomeranian culture... spread of Przeworsk is clearly representing follow up of Pomeranian culture... and with Przeworsk we come very close to early Slavs 
> 
> case closed...


That is just wrong on so many levels. You take modern-day distributions of Y-chromosomal Haplogroups and ad-hoc assign ethnic affiliations to them. What you are forgetting is this:
- that these Haplogroup maps represent the modern-day situation and some 2200 years passed since the Pommeranian Culture.
- that Haplogroups and linguistic affiliations are rather detached from each other.

And, as I have stated before, if you take a look at Ptolemy, there is absolutely no onomastic evidence that there were any Slavic peoples in Germania in the 2nd century AD. Why should there be early Slavic peoples in the area in the 5th through 2nd centuries BC, then disappear in the 1st-2nd centuries AD and then suddenly reappear in the migrations period? That makes no sense. It's far more reasonable to assume that the Slavic people just arrived with the migrations period.




> intuition is also kind of logic...
> if you are not able to feel the difference between art of different cultures than perhaps you are missing something in your education and logic...


 :Petrified: 




> oh, come on... grow up...don't be such a 19th century historian...
> 
> Tacitus explains his methodology for classification when he talks of Vistula Veneti...
> he says that Vistula Veneti have lot of elements of Sarmatian, but because they live in houses (and not as nomads) he classify them as Germanic...
> with such a criteria I guess today whole world is Germanic...
> 
> only biased 19th century history school originating in biased historians of Germany and Austro-Hungarian empire can use such classification as a proof that Veneti were Germanic...
> 
> if your logic is still that Veneti are Germanic cause Tacitus said so, than you do not know what logic is...


And again, you are insulting me. This time I'm going to report you.  :Useless:

----------


## Dagne

According to Marija Gimbutas http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbu...mbutas-03.html (map from p.83) Pomeranians were one of the Western Baltic tribes:

 *Fig. 24.* Baltic groups during the Early Iron Age (_c_. 600–400 B.C. and later) based on archaeological finds. 1, the “Face-urn” group of Pomerania and lower Vistula; 1a, the area of expansion of the “Bell-grave” group, successor of the “Face-urn” group, in the fourth and third centuries B.C.; 2, the west Masurian group, probably connected with the later Prussian Galindians; 3, the Sembian-Notangian group; 4, the lower Nemunas, western Latvian group connected with the early Curonians (Kurshians); 5, the east Masurian or Sudovian (Jatvingian) group; 6, the Brushed Pottery group ancestral to Lithuanians, Selians, Lettigallians and Semigallians; 7, the Plain Pottery culture to be identified with the easternmost Bolts; 8, the “Milograd” group of the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. Location of the Scythian farmers, Neuri and Androphagi based on Herodotus

----------


## Taranis

> According to Marija Gimbutas http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbu...mbutas-03.html (map from p.83) Pomeranians were one of the Western Baltic tribes:
> 
>  *Fig. 24.* Baltic groups during the Early Iron Age (_c_. 600–400 B.C. and later) based on archaeological finds. 1, the “Face-urn” group of Pomerania and lower Vistula; 1a, the area of expansion of the “Bell-grave” group, successor of the “Face-urn” group, in the fourth and third centuries B.C.; 2, the west Masurian group, probably connected with the later Prussian Galindians; 3, the Sembian-Notangian group; 4, the lower Nemunas, western Latvian group connected with the early Curonians (Kurshians); 5, the east Masurian or Sudovian (Jatvingian) group; 6, the Brushed Pottery group ancestral to Lithuanians, Selians, Lettigallians and Semigallians; 7, the Plain Pottery culture to be identified with the easternmost Bolts; 8, the “Milograd” group of the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. Location of the Scythian farmers, Neuri and Androphagi based on Herodotus


That's confusing. The archaeological cultures on that map are vastly more located to the east than the Pomeranian Culture on the other map.

----------


## Dagne

Hmmm, perhaps, the spread southwards happened a bit later than 600-400 BC. Gimbutas explains: 
"The Face-Urn people, probably taking advantage of the breaking up of Lusatian power by the Scythians, expanded southward. The descendants of the Face-Urn people occupied the whole Vistula basin in Poland and the part of the western Ukraine reaching the upper Dniester in the south.

This expansion around 400–300 B.C. brought changes. The fashionable face urns gradually lost their human features and developed into much more simplified versions. [...] This change in grave type probably came about because of the spread of the Face-Urn people over the territory of the Lusatians who covered their urns with pots. Some scholars are therefore inclined to consider the pot-covered urn culture as a continuation of, or resulting from a mixture with, the Lusatian culture. However, it is more logical to suppose that the Lusatians merely influenced the Face-Urn culture. The similarity of the urns of the pot-covered urn period to the face-urns is striking whereas there is no genetic relationship to the style of the Lusatian pottery. We can also recognize a very close relationship with the pottery made by other Prussian tribes in East Prussia. The pot-covered urn culture is certainly not an “early east Germanic culture,” as Petersen called it in his otherwise valuable study of 1929 describing the graves and finds in the territory of prewar eastern Germany.22

----------


## Taranis

> Hmmm, perhaps, the spread southwards happened a bit later than 600-400 BC. Gimbutas explains: 
> "The Face-Urn people, probably taking advantage of the breaking up of Lusatian power by the Scythians, expanded southward. The descendants of the Face-Urn people occupied the whole Vistula basin in Poland and the part of the western Ukraine reaching the upper Dniester in the south.
> 
> This expansion around 400–300 B.C. brought changes. The fashionable face urns gradually lost their human features and developed into much more simplified versions. [...] This change in grave type probably came about because of the spread of the Face-Urn people over the territory of the Lusatians who covered their urns with pots. Some scholars are therefore inclined to consider the pot-covered urn culture as a continuation of, or resulting from a mixture with, the Lusatian culture. However, it is more logical to suppose that the Lusatians merely influenced the Face-Urn culture. The similarity of the urns of the pot-covered urn period to the face-urns is striking whereas there is no genetic relationship to the style of the Lusatian pottery. We can also recognize a very close relationship with the pottery made by other Prussian tribes in East Prussia. The pot-covered urn culture is certainly not an “early east Germanic culture,” as Petersen called it in his otherwise valuable study of 1929 describing the graves and finds in the territory of prewar eastern Germany.22


Well, from the areas involved in the other map, I made the connection with the East Germanic peoples. Based on that map, I figured that the areas involved are several centuries later (1st-2nd centuries AD) are inhabited by the various East Germanic peoples. However, in the map you posted above, I absolutely agree that this is way too much eastward to be associated with East Germanic peoples. Also, on second thought, the timing would make it unlikely, because the contact between Celtic and the _Pre-Germanic_ language can be dated to about 500-600 BC.

This is really quite a bit of a mystery. What did happen in these intermediate centuries? How did the situation come into existence that was described by Tacitus and Ptolemy?

----------


## how yes no 2

sorry but occam's razor doesnot agree with you...

Przeworsk is clearly continuation of Pomeranian culture..
I2b was clearly never part of Pomeranian culture..

you are obviously biased when it comes to Germans




> That is just wrong on so many levels. You take modern-day distributions of Y-chromosomal Haplogroups and ad-hoc assign ethnic affiliations to them. What you are forgetting is this:
> - that these Haplogroup maps represent the modern-day situation and some 2200 years passed since the Pommeranian Culture.
> - that Haplogroups and linguistic affiliations are rather detached from each other.


actually, I do take it in account....

spreads of haplogroups are never completelly cleaned out...
look at Croatia..so many depopulation events and still is there some E-V13...
but no Germanic I2b in Pomeranian culture area means just one thing - it never was there...
how come we can see Nordic bronze I1 in area and we can't see I2b? 
cause I2b, the key marker of all German tribes, was not living there...





> And, as I have stated before, if you take a look at Ptolemy, there is absolutely no onomastic evidence that there were any Slavic peoples in Germania in the 2nd century AD. Why should there be early Slavic peoples in the area in the 5th through 2nd centuries BC, then disappear in the 1st-2nd centuries AD and then suddenly reappear in the migrations period? That makes no sense. It's far more reasonable to assume that the Slavic people just arrived with the migrations period.


sorry, but haplogroupos reveal clearly lies of 19th century Germanic history school that set foundation for "drang nach Oosten"

besides from what I see Germanic people are misusing name Germans...
name clearly comes from ancestors of all I2 people.... not just I2b....
it probably never was I1 tribal name...

in Asia it is coupled to I2a (Gomer), in Africa to I2a1 (Garamantes)
in Europe it is primary related to I2b area and only recently in language sense it is used for I1 areas of Scandinavia.. 

from what I see original tribal name of I1 people is Suebi/Swedes
only that explains why North sea was mare Germanicum, and Baltic mare Suebicum
the two were not the same... but in some point of time they become the same...

Suebi crossed at some point from Scandinavia into lands of I2b (which very likely spoke same language as other I2 people) and merged into what is now called Germans...

they also pushed Pomeranian R1à culture (I do not know what its original language could have been - Scythian, Sarmatian, Balto-Slavic - who knows..) from Baltic shores to south... 

that also explains why Slavic people do not use name Germans for Germans, but use name derived from word "mutes" (or people who lost their language that is ability to speak) and, often in pejorative sense, the name Švabe based on tribal names Suebi... Germans of today are just ex-Slavs and ex-Celts subjugated by early Swedes or Suebi...

besides Germans also don't use Germans as selfname... Deutch is quite different word...
but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic... as the area where people settled in houses was called Germania (based on I2 peoples tribal name) as opposed to area where R1a nomads lived (Sarmatia)....

coin Germanic languages is wrong word.. variant of IE language that is spoken by people who are now wrongly called Germanic people should instead be called Suebic or Swedish or Swaben languages




> And again, you are insulting me. This time I'm going to report you.


don't you think I am insulted in many occasions with things you say to me? you continually try to put yourself in position of some teacher, while all you "know" is based on vague and biased hypothesis of 19th century "drang nach Oosten" history school...

point is already the name you use is insult to all Indo-Europeans... who do you think you are to use one of the names of primary God of all IE people? it's a blasphemy...
you hurt religious feeling by the very name you use......
but than again stealing other peoples names seems to be in the very basis of your culture...

----------


## zanipolo

a old ptolemy map of magna germania. Note the border was the vistula river

http://bigthink.com/ideas/21261

----------


## Taranis

> a old ptolemy map of magna germania. Note the border was the vistula river
> 
> http://bigthink.com/ideas/21261


Evidently, Ptolemy was part of that hideous 19th century German/Germanic school which promoted the "Drang nach _O_sten".  :Laughing:

----------


## zanipolo

> According to Marija Gimbutas http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbu...mbutas-03.html (map from p.83) Pomeranians were one of the Western Baltic tribes:
> 
>  *Fig. 24.* Baltic groups during the Early Iron Age (_c_. 600–400 B.C. and later) based on archaeological finds. 1, the “Face-urn” group of Pomerania and lower Vistula; 1a, the area of expansion of the “Bell-grave” group, successor of the “Face-urn” group, in the fourth and third centuries B.C.; 2, the west Masurian group, probably connected with the later Prussian Galindians; 3, the Sembian-Notangian group; 4, the lower Nemunas, western Latvian group connected with the early Curonians (Kurshians); 5, the east Masurian or Sudovian (Jatvingian) group; 6, the Brushed Pottery group ancestral to Lithuanians, Selians, Lettigallians and Semigallians; 7, the Plain Pottery culture to be identified with the easternmost Bolts; 8, the “Milograd” group of the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. Location of the Scythian farmers, Neuri and Androphagi based on Herodotus


In the attached articles , when it mention ueniticians, it refers to the Venedi of the vistula who traded amber to egypt at the time of Ramses II

the illustration shown below, in which I introduce (in light blue) suggested names - UINI, UENE, UENETI, UINU. These are not arbitrary words, but words that can be argued to a)have originated from the same original word, and b)evolved into modern words for peoples with boat-traditions such as "Finnic", "Inuit", "Khanti", "Venedi".
This article is by way of elaborating on this map and my choices for names.

 

 _Map 1. This map introduces many inventions of name, and this article will explain the reasons. Here are some brief explanations: UINI is an invented word (from Finnic stem UI-) that can be seen to be ancestral to both "Finnic" and "Inuit". UINU is a variation that can be seen to have evolved into "Khanti", UENE can be seen to be ancestral to the Roman word for hunting people in the east Baltic Fenni, considering that the Roman F-character was really used for a sound that was more like V today. UENETI can be seen as its plural and ancestral to the same word in the southeast Baltic according to Ptolemy and others. I also show Vistula as arising from UISE-LA, another variation. Far to the west, I have written UITULA purely because Caesar describes the dominant people identifiable with the Aquitani, as Uiteriges, or Bituriges. Uiteriges, by Estonian or Finnish suggests uide riigid 'nations that float/swim'. The other naming (in white) takes directly from established words. "Brito-Belgic" of course refers to the Belgae and Britannicae of the Roman British period, and "Suevo-Aestic", combines the Suevi and Aestii larger regions as identified by Roman Tacitus and other ancient historians. Note that the intent of the map is to describe logical units based on how geography would influence interraction of boat-oriented peoples. Note to scholars: To keep the map simple, it does not include any information pertaining to land-based people other than the reindeer hunters at the top.


_

----------


## zanipolo

> Evidently, Ptolemy was part of that hideous 19th century German/Germanic school which promoted the "Drang nach _O_sten".


maybe he was one of the few in europe which was not serbian

----------


## zanipolo

interesting about culture below, its the gothic culture on the black sea via Pommeranian area

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

Slavic pressure northward was the outward sign of turmoil in southern Russia, and reflected changes in the ethnic configuration. The Hun invasion in A.D. 375 destroyed the power of the Gothic kingdom. As soon as the Slavic tribe of the Antae shook off the supremacy of the Goths, it expanded over the Black Sea coasts from north of the lower Danube to the sea of Azov. Subsequent invasions by the Turko-Tartar peoples, the Bulgars and, particularly, by the Avars who in the first half of the sixth century penetrated as far as the barrier of the dense forests along the River Desna and the upper Oka, culminated in the Slavic advance into the lands of the eastern Balls and the Finno-Ugrians, where least resistance would be encountered.

I always thought that slavic advances in the balkans only happened after the goths left the black sea areas.

----------


## Dagne

Sorry how yes no, 
but some parts in your messages sound as if you were accusing Taranis (or Germans), for instance of stealing... "but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic..." 

it is natural that tribes were pushing each other and moving to different territories, but its not only German tribes, but all of them, and Taranis personally is not responsible for that ... 

Lets keep it calm, please, it is an interesting discussion, isn't it?

----------


## how yes no 2

> Sorry how yes no, 
> but some parts in your messages sound as if you were accusing Taranis (or Germans), for instance of stealing... "but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic..." 
> 
> it is natural that tribes were pushing each other and moving to different territories, but its not only German tribes, but all of them, and Taranis personally is not responsible for that ... 
> 
> Lets keep it calm, please, it is an interesting discussion, isn't it?


yes, well I did overreact...

My point was that we do not even really know who were original Germans and what language did they originally speak, so it doesnot make much sense to claim that most of central and east Europe was Germanic in the sense that we now understand the word... from what I see tribal name Germans could have originally been about haplogroup I2 people and not about complete haplogroup I... but it could have been also about complete haplogroup I.... or about some mix of haplogroups... it all depends also on the time snapshot at which we look...

e.g. Tacitus is very clear that division Germania/Sarmatia was for him about style of living (in houses or as nomads) and not about languages... he classifies Veneti in Germanic only based on living in houses, which is quite different from term Germanic that we use today...

also we do not know whether at the time proto-Slavic was just an east Germanic dialect that has later further developed towards the language of iranian Sarmatians,,,

so, when we speak of proto-Slavs and proto-Balts and proto-Germanic people, it is not really clear where the actual language borders were and whether language borders really existed or was it a continuum of small regional variations in essentially same IE language... so, it just doesnot make much sense to directly map notion of Slavic, Germanic and Baltic languages of today to the notions from those times...

I2 haplogroups are especially a puzzle of its own...e.g. was I2a2 original Slavic haplogroup or when did I2a2 merged with Slavic people..where did it come form... what was its original language? what were tribal names related to it?...

who were original IE people? when did they arrive in Europe? did they arrive in Europe or did IE languages in fact spread from Europe to Asia? there are many things in official history that are just layers of assumptions...

it's not like it was clear cut...process of languages emerging to the form they have today was complex process with many factors... we just donot know many things... e.g. where are today people who originate from speakers of Celtic languages of central Europe, or e.g. if you look at italian language today, it is more different from latin than one would expect... but how did that happen...

point is languages are alive, they keep changing...we just cannot directly map language division of today to the notions of Germania and Sarmatia that were cultural categories related to style of living (in houses or as nomads).....

what is clear is that Przeworsk was continuation of Pomerania culture...

----------


## zanipolo

[QUOTE]


> e.g. Tacitus is very clear that division Germania/Sarmatia was for him about style of living (in houses or as nomads) and not about languages... he classifies Veneti in Germanic only based on living in houses, which is quite different from term Germanic that we use today...


they where not slavic but finnic, baltic and aesti in languages, thats what tacitus meant




> also we do not know whether at the time proto-Slavic was just an east Germanic dialect that has later further developed towards language of iranian Sarmatians,,,


impossible, slavs where still on the eastern areas of the black sea at this time




> so, when we speak of proto-Slavs and proto-Balts and proto-Germanic people, it is not really clear where the actual language borders were and whether language borders really existed or was it a continuum of small regional variations in essentially same IE language... so, it just doesnot make much sense to directly map notion of Slavic, Germanic and Baltic languages of today to the notions from those times...


not proto-slavic at this time, please say proto-finnic




> I2 haplogroups are especially a puzzle of its own...e.g. was I2a2 original Slavic haplogroup or when did I2a2 merged with Slavic people..where did it come form... what was its original language?


are the goths I2a2, did they migrate to the area north of the black sea, isnt it logical the slavic got this haplogroup from the goths!




> it's not like it was clear cut...process of languages emerging to the form they have today was complex process with many factors... we just donot know many things... e.g. where are today people who originate from speakers of Celtic languages of central Europe, or e.g. if you look at italian language today, it is more different from latin than one would expect... but how did that happen...


you do not believe that the celts, iberians and norse stayed where they where and did not migrate do you?. The celts moved towards the east, the norse moved south and the iberians moved also east via the mediteraen coast line

----------


## how yes no 2

> they where not slavic but finnic, baltic and aesti in languages, thats what tacitus meant 
> impossible, slavs where still on the eastern areas of the black sea at this time
> 
> not proto-slavic at this time, please say proto-finnic


really? you are now mind reader and know what Tacitus meant?

Tacitus, Germania

Chapter XLVI



> Veneti (or Venedi as it appears in Pliny) is the same name as Wend


http://books.google.nl/books?id=VWne...veneti&f=false




> Peucinorum Venetorumque et Fennorum na- 
> tiones Germanis an Sarmatis ascribam dubito, quam- 
> quam Peucini, quos quidam Bastarnas vocant, sermon e, 
> cultu, sede ac domiciliis ut Germani agunt. Sordes 
> omnium ac torpor procerum ; connubiis mixtis non- 
> nihil in Sarmatarum habitum foedantur. Veneti 
> multum ex moribus traxerunt; nam quidquid inter Peucinos Fennosque silvarum ac montium erigitur, 
> latrociniis pererrant. Hi tamen inter Germanos po- 
> tius referuntur, quia et domos figunt et scuta gestant 
> ...


translates as:




> As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni, *I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatæ*, although indeed the *Peucini* called by some Bastarnæ, *are like Germans in their language*, mode of life, and in the permanence of their settlements. They all live in filth and sloth, and by the intermarriages of the chiefs they are becoming in some degree debased into a *resemblance to the Sarmatæ*. The *Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character*; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be *rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations, carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot,* thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatæ, who live in waggons and on horseback.


ok, so he doubts where to class Veneti, Fenni and Peucini...
although Peucini (called by some Basternae) are alike to Germans in their language

this clearly means *Veneti* and Fenni are *not alike Germans in their language*

----------


## Taranis

> Sorry how yes no, 
> but some parts in your messages sound as if you were accusing Taranis (or Germans), for instance of stealing... "but using name German is convenient for further stealing land from Slavic, Celtic, Baltic..." 
> 
> it is natural that tribes were pushing each other and moving to different territories, but its not only German tribes, but all of them, and Taranis personally is not responsible for that ... 
> 
> Lets keep it calm, please, it is an interesting discussion, isn't it?


I have accomodated this by assessing in this thread when Proto-Slavic approximately was spoken.

----------


## zanipolo

> really?
> 
> Tacitus, Germania
> 
> Chapter XLVI
> 
> 
> http://books.google.nl/books?id=VWne...veneti&f=false
> 
> ...


could you be logical on this issue?
If the amber road was a venedi/venethi trading road and this raod was on the baltic sea like Ptolemicus says ( vendica bay) , then on the coast where baltics, finnic or aesti ( or westwards suebi) , slavs where not on the coast and they as stated by scholars did not know about the sea.

You are trying to replace proto-finnic or proto- baltic whith proto-slavic.

----------


## how yes no 2

> could you be logical on this issue?
> If the amber road was a venedi/venethi trading road and this raod was on the baltic sea like Ptolemicus says ( vendica bay) , then on the coast where baltics, finnic or aesti ( or westwards suebi) , slavs where not on the coast and they as stated by scholars did not know about the sea.
> 
> You are trying to replace proto-finnic or proto- baltic whith proto-slavic.


so, based on living along trade road you conclude Veneti could not have been proto-Slavs?

let's see Russian primary chronicle




> Thus the Slavic race was divided, and its language was known as Slavic.
> When the Polyanians lived by themselves among the hills, a *trade-route* *connected the Varangians with the Greeks*. Starting from Greece, this route proceeds along the Dnipro, above which a portage leads to the Lovat'. By following the Lovat', the great lake Il'men' is reached.The river Volkhov flows out of this lake and enters the great lake Nevo. The mouth of this lake opens into the Varangian Sea. Over this sea goes the route to Rome, and on from Rome overseas to Tsargrad [Constantinople]. The Pontus, into which flows the river Dnipro, may be reached from that point. The Dnipro itself rises in the upland forest, and flows southward. The Dvina has its source in this same forest, but flows northward and empties into the Varangian Sea. The Volga rises in this same forest but flows to the east, and discharges through seventy mouths into the Caspian Sea. It is possible by this route to the eastward to reach the Bulgars and the Caspians, and thus attain the region of Shem. Along the Dvina runs the route to the Varangians, whence one may reach Rome, and go from there to the race of Ham. But the Dnipro flows through various mouths into the Pontus. This sea, beside which taught St. Andrew, Peter’s brother, is called the Rus Sea.


http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/...selections.pdf

----------


## zanipolo

> so, based on living along trade road you conclude Slavs could not have been Veneti?
> 
> let's see Russian primary chronicle
> 
> 
> http://www.utoronto.ca/elul/English/...selections.pdf


LOL, hahaha

According to the Primary Chronicle of Rus, compiled in about 1113 AD, the Rus' people, a group of Swedish Vikings,[8][9] had relocated from Uppland, Sweden, to Northeastern Europe, organizing an early politity centered around Lagoda and Novgorod under their leader Rurik, laying the foundation for the Rurik dynasty. Under the leadership of Oleg of Novgorod, a relative of Rurik, the Varangians expanded southwards by capturing Kiev, founding the medieval state of Rus'

varagians where from the 10th century AD, you are out of touch by over 1000 years

----------


## Taranis

> [/SIZE] [I]*Map 1.* This map introduces many inventions of name, and this article will explain the reasons. Here are some brief explanations: UINI is an invented word (from Finnic stem UI-) that can be seen to be ancestral to both "Finnic" and "Inuit". UINU is a variation that can be seen to have evolved into "Khanti", UENE can be seen to be ancestral to the Roman word for hunting people in the east Baltic *Fenni,* considering that the Roman F-character was really used for a sound that was more like V today. UENETI can be seen as its plural and ancestral to the same word in the southeast Baltic according to Ptolemy and others. I also show Vistula as arising from UISE-LA, another variation. Far to the west, I have written UITULA purely because Caesar describes the dominant people identifiable with the *Aquitani*, as *Uiteriges*, or *Bituriges*. Uiteriges, by Estonian or Finnish suggests *uide riigid* 'nations that float/swim'. The other naming (in white) takes directly from established words*. "Brito-Belgic*" of course refers to the *Belgae* and *Britannicae* of the Roman British period, and *"Suevo-Aestic"*, combines the *Suevi* and *Aestii* larger regions as identified by Roman Tacitus and other ancient historians. Note that the intent of the map is to describe logical units based on how geography would influence interraction of boat-oriented peoples. [U]Note to scholars: To keep the map simple, it does not include any information pertaining to land-based people other than the reindeer hunters at the top.


Sorry, but that map is, no offense, complete nonsense. Not only is the date of "circa 3000 BC" insanely early, but it appears the creator of the map has also little knowledge of linguistics. One name that overtly sparked my notice in that list was "Bituriges" which the author appears to derive from "Uitula". However, "*Bituriges*" clearly has a Gaulish etymology as "world kings", and cognates readily exist in other Celtic languages:

"Bitu-" (world) - compare Old Irish "Bith", Welsh "Byd", Breton "Bid"
"-riges" from "rix" (king) - compare modern Irish "Rí", Welsh "Rhi", Breton "Roue"




> really? you are now mind reader and know what Tacitus meant?
> 
> Tacitus, Germania
> 
> Chapter XLVI
> 
> http://books.google.nl/books?id=VWne...veneti&f=false
> 
> translates as:
> ...


Yes, this obviously implies that the Veneti/Venedi and the Fenni didn't speak Germanic, but for one, they also lived beyond the Vistula, and secondly, there's no reason to assume that they spoke Slavic or Proto-Slavic. I am reasonably sure from their location that the Venedi, at least the Venedi adjacent to the Baltic Sea, spoke Baltic languages.

----------


## how yes no 2

> Yes, this obviously implies that the Veneti/Venedi and the Fenni didn't speak Germanic, but for one, they also lived beyond the Vistula, and secondly, there's no reason to assume that they spoke Slavic or Proto-Slavic. I am reasonably sure from their location that the Venedi, at least the Venedi adjacent to the Baltic Sea, spoke Baltic languages.


ok, Finnish people lived there... they should know, right?


you are linguist....

can you explain me why do Finnish use word derived from Veneti for Russians but not for Balts?

Russians - *Ven*äläiset
Balts - Balttien
Estonians - Virolaiset
Lithuanians - Liettualaiset
Latvians - Latvialaiset

----------


## zanipolo

says in this link that the Pommerian culture was of the baltic venedi

drill futhe rinto the link

http://vistula-veneti.co.tv/#Origin_...thnonym_Veneti

----------


## Dagne

Russians - *Ven*äläiset
Balts - Balttien
Estonians - Virolaiset
Lithuanians - Liettualaiset
Latvians - Latvialaiset 

This is interesting... I wish we had a Finn in this forum to explain more about the ethimology.

In Lithuanian the names for the neighbouring nations can also be curious:
Polish - Lenkai
Russians - Gudai (Gudai is the older word than standard Lth. Rusai]
Germans – Vokiečiai – 
Finnish - Suomiai

With Finns and Polish we got it right because Finnish call themselves Suomi, and the Polish also referred to themselves as Lechi, but with the Russians we somehow used the word Gudai derived from Goths which is not correct nowadays. There could be a misplacement occurring - for instance, Goths of Chernyakhov culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernyakhov_culture of the 2th-5th century), lived southwards from Baltic tribes, whereas later those territories were occupied by Slavic peoples, but the name Goths (Gudai) was not changed...

----------


## zanipolo

interesting old map in this link, in latin

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

note- 
The venedi on the coast near modern danzig

also

Venetae s.Ivliae = veneti julian alps

Sarmatici montes = Carpathian mountains
maybe anyone unknown was classified sarmatian due to the Latin name of the mountain range

gythones (directly south of the venedi) are goths.

Ptolemy does mention the Prussians by name (Borusci), but also the Gythones appear at the mouth of the Vistula. These can be interpreted as Goths or the early settlements of Gdańsk might have been there under that name. There is no explicit mention of a town of Danzig and he does not give his usual list of river towns for the Vistula and eastward.

----------


## Taranis

One crucial factor that I would like to bring up is that exonyms are much more fluid in their usage than endonyms. One example I frequently bring up is Germanic "Walha-", which is today found in "Wales", "Wallonia" and "Wallachia". Does that mean that the three are closely related and speak the same language? Obviously not.

Mirroring "Venäläiset" for Russians, the Finnish name for the _Swedes_ is "Ruotsalainen" - does that mean that the Swedes are Russians?

The word "Venedi" (and the variations thereof) is clearly an exonym. The "Wends" of east Germany in the Medieval Ages didn't call themselves "Wends", either.

----------


## how yes no 2

> One crucial factor that I would like to bring up is that exonyms are much more fluid in their usage than endonyms. One example I frequently bring up is Germanic "Walha-", which is today found in "Wales", "Wallonia" and "Wallachia". Does that mean that the three are closely related and speak the same language? Obviously not.


Obviously, it was about reminders of latin speakers...
even Russian primary chronicle in fragment that I quoted above uses word Vlakh for people of Roman empire....
clearly, relation between tribal/area names is not accidental...

so, your example is heavily flawed as most of your examples are...




> Mirroring "Venäläiset" for Russians, the Finnish name for the _Swedes_ is "Ruotsalainen" - does that mean that the Swedes are Russians?


Russian name is by many considered to origin from Viking/Varangian tribe Rus (thus Swedes)

btw. I think Rus was R1a tribal name, and we know R1a people live(d) in Sweden as well...
(to compare Rassena was tribal name of R1a Etruscans... similar is tribal name of Thracians... similar tribal name Rascians was used by medieval Slavic Serbs)


in any case, again, clearly, relation between tribal names is not accidental... 

thus, there must have been a reason why Finnish people use name "Venäläiset" for Russians and not for Balts... only reason that I can see is that Russians did fit to their picture of previous Veneti much more than Balts did.... but how is that possible if as you suggest Balts were (only) Veneti and thus continually in contact with Finnish people....


why is it always so hard for you to find a proper example for what you want to say?

----------


## Reinaert

Hmm... Some names are being piled too easy in the same group.

For instance "Inuit", that name has nothing to do with boats. 
It's a name for the "people with dogs".
Look for "Inuk" as well.

----------


## zdenek von reslaw

[QUOTE=Taranis;371534]That is just wrong on so many levels. You take modern-day distributions of Y-chromosomal Haplogroups and ad-hoc assign ethnic affiliations to them. What you are forgetting is this:
- that these Haplogroup maps represent the modern-day situation and some 2200 years passed since the Pommeranian Culture.
- that Haplogroups and linguistic affiliations are rather detached from each other.

And, as I have stated before, if you take a look at Ptolemy, there is absolutely no onomastic evidence that there were any Slavic peoples in Germania in the 2nd century AD. Why should there be early Slavic peoples in the area in the 5th through 2nd centuries BC, then disappear in the 1st-2nd centuries AD and then suddenly reappear in the migrations period? That makes no sense. It's far more reasonable to assume that the Slavic people just arrived with the migrations period.




Some maps, e.g. the distribution of Y- haplogroup R1a, represent not only the present situation. Considering the impact of the Indoeuropeans, the vastness of the territory, the area taken by R1a tribes since the 3rd millenium BC could have reached even further west.
Though not identical, _logically_ it has to be taken into account that the IE´s were related to peoples like Balto-Slaves or Scyths.
Two points to emphasize about the germanic immigration to southern shores of Baltic Sea/ Vistula river:
- all of these tribes migrated from Scandinavia, in this respect: East Germanic = North Germanic. That´s why, of all the I-haplogroups mainly I1 appears in the area, as > how yes no < mentioned;
- the Jastorf culture, the first “real” germanic culture of the continental Germans (Nordic Bronze Age in my opinion does not count in this respect ) never actually got foothold in the core area of what is now Poland.
To claim that the German nation ( or part of them ) origin from there, is scientifically
untenable and can be counted among the 19th century myths.

----------


## Taranis

> Some maps, e.g. the distribution of Y- haplogroup R1a, represent not only the present situation. Considering the impact of the Indoeuropeans, the vastness of the territory, the area taken by R1a tribes since the 3rd millenium BC could have reached even further west.
> Though not identical, _logically_ it has to be taken into account that the IE´s were related to peoples like Balto-Slaves or Scyths.


This is correct, but consider that the Germanic peoples themselves are quite likely to have been - to a considerable percentage - carriers of R1a themselves, just like the Balto-Slavs and the Scythians.




> Two points to emphasize about the germanic immigration to southern shores of Baltic Sea/ Vistula river:
> - all of these tribes migrated from Scandinavia, in this respect: East Germanic = North Germanic. That´s why, of all the I-haplogroups mainly I1 appears in the area, as > how yes no < mentioned;


Well, and, where is the problem?




> - the Jastorf culture, the first “real” germanic culture of the continental Germans (Nordic Bronze Age in my opinion does not count in this respect ) never actually got foothold in the core area of what is now Poland.


In my opinion, it verymuch stands to reason that the Jastorf Culture was only associated with what later became the _West_ Germanic peoples.




> To claim that the German nation ( or part of them ) origin from there, is scientifically
> untenable and can be counted among the 19th century myths.


I *NEVER* claimed that the origin of the German '_nation_' (nation, of all things) lay in the area of the Pommeranian Culture.  :Annoyed: 
It was only how-yes-now who asserted I did that, whereas in reality I never did. I used the term "German_ia_" strictly as a geographic term, namely in the way that the geographers of Antiquity used it (that is, the lands bordered by the Rhine, Danube and Vistula, as well as the North and Baltic Seas).

Also, it doesn't change anything about the fact that there is no onomastic evidence of any sort that there were any Slavic peoples inside the area of ancient Germania. It's however clear that the southern areas (approximately from the Main river up to about the area of Silesia) were inhabited by Celtic peoples (there's town names with readily identifiably Celtic etymologies in these areas in the 2nd century _AD_ - a time by which the Germanic tribes had actually moved as far as the Danube), and there is also some evidence that there may have been Dacian peoples living in the southeast (near the source of the Vistula), but there's no readily identifiably Slavic names. In regard for Baltic peoples, Ptolemy places them into European Sarmatia (so, basically at their later known location).

Obviously, we do not know how the situation was like in the centuries before. It's especially dicy because we have to consider that the farther we go back, the less dissimilar languages become from each other. We also do not fully know how the genesis of linguistic groups works (we actually _may_ have a similar situation here as with the Celtic peoples!), but it's clear that the presence of the East Germanic peoples (Bastarnae, Rugians, Burgundians, Goths, Vandals, etc.) was verymuch real by the time that the Romans mention these areas.

Lastly, I'd like to mention two issues:

- There's a crucial difference between the words "German_ia_" and "German_y_", and there's a difference between the words "German_ic_" and "German".

- The East Germanic peoples obviously have scarcely little to do with the origin of the German nation. They play parts though in the histories of France (Burgundians), Spain (Visigoths) or even Tunisia (Vandals).

----------


## Taranis

There's a few other archaeological issues to point out, regardless of the ethnic affiliation of the Pommeranian Culture:

Let us take a look at the situation before and after the Pommeranian Culture:

- Before the Pommeranian Culture, we have the *Lusatian Culture*, which forms part of Urnfield and continues into the early iron age. The later part of the Lusatian Culture is simultaneous with the Celtic Hallstatt Culture, with which it also had contact. It should be noted that like the Lusatian Culture and like the eponymous Urnfield Culture, the Pommeranians did practice cremation.

- After the Pommeranian Culture, we have the *Przeworsk Culture*, which extends well into historically attested times and appears to be associated with East Germanic tribes.

What this means for the ethnic identity of the people of the Pommeranian Culture, I am not sure.

I know that this appears to be a sensitive topic for some people, but let me re-iterate this here: I have no 19th century German nationalist agenda *what-so-ever* here, I'm just presenting evidence here and trying to build up the most consistent image.

----------


## Yorkie

Taranis,
You don't need to 'report' Howyesno. That is like a little boy running for his mother. Be a man.

----------


## zanipolo

Since the pommerian tribe the rugii are gothic , is it safe to say they where also gothic mixng with suebi as you head to danish lands?

gothic language below

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...gotol-1-R.html


Many Rugii had left the Baltic coast during the migration period. It is assumed that Burgundians, Goths and Gepids with parts of the Rugians left Pomerania during the late Roman Age, and that during the migration period, remnants of Rugians, Vistula Veneti, Vidivarii and other Germanic tribes remained and formed units that were later Slavicized.[9] The Vidivarii themselves are described by Jordanes in his Getica as a melting pot of tribes who in the mid-6th century lived at the lower Vistula.[10][11] Though differing from the earlier Willenberg culture, some traditions were continued.[11] One hypothesis, based on the sudden appearance of large amounts of Roman solidi and migrations of other groups after the breakdown of the Hun empire in 453, suggest a partial re-migration of earlier emigrants to their former northern homelands.[11]
*[edit] Archaeological cultures*

The Oxhöft culture is associated with parts of the Rugii and Lemovii.[4] The archaeological Gustow group of Western Pomerania is also associated with the Rugii.[12][13] The remains of the Rugii west of the Vidivarii, together with other Gothic, Veneti, and Gepid groups, are believed to be identical with the archaeological Debczyn group.[9]

----------


## LeBrok

Yorkie, is this all that bothered you this morning when reading all the new treads on Eupedia?  :Rolleyes: 
Or you like Taranis, want to adopt him, and make a man out of him? :)

----------


## zdenek von reslaw

[QUOTE=Taranis;371674]This is correct, but consider that the Germanic peoples themselves are quite likely to have been - to a considerable percentage - carriers of R1a themselves, just like the Balto-Slavs and the Scythians.



- Germanic peoples as far as they are nordics - a considerable number in North Germany, Jutland, Scandinavia - are not of IE origin. They are dolichocephalic and their Y- haplogroup is I, whereas the IE´s were more brachycephalic, with haplogroup R.
Linguist Sigmund Feist estimated around 30% of germanic words as not of IE origin.





> - all of these tribes migrated from Scandinavia, in this respect: East Germanic = North Germanic. That´s why, of all the I-haplogroups mainly I1 appears in the area, as > how yes no < mentioned; 
> 
> Well, and, where is the problem?


 - I meant that they didn´t come from the West. Settlers from the west came not till the Middle Ages. 




> I know that this appears to be a sensitive topic for some people, but let me re-iterate this here: I have no 19th century German nationalist agenda *what-so-ever* here, I'm just presenting evidence here and trying to build up the most consistent image.


 
Your mails are always correct and to the point, so there is no matter of any agenda.
The theme is really a sensitive one :Wary: 





> - Before the Pommeranian Culture, we have the *Lusatian Culture*, which forms part of Urnfield and continues into the early iron age.


 If one goes so far back in time, I think the importance of Unetice culture in the area of today´s Czech republic and that of the Celts or Precelts for the Lusatian culture should be emphasized.
What strikes here is that the area occupied by the Lusatian culture correspond now almost exactly to that of the western Slavs and a considerable part of the former GDR.




> [IMG]file:///D:/DOCUME%7E1/sunny/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]Originally Posted by *Dagne* 
> 
> According to Marija Gimbutas Pomeranians were one of the Western Baltic tribes


 M. Gimbutas presented a very realistic theory of the IE expansion, she was by the way a “fierce nationalist” as I read somewhere. Anyway, the Pommeranian Group could be a zone of the Balts that became independent from the “Lusatians”.
Important fact is that there is continuity from the Lusatian culture.

----------


## zanipolo

is the term baltic-slavic a much later term and was firstly german-slavic. This would be due to the germanic tribes from the blacksea to the dnieper river
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae

The bastarnae lasted from 300BC to 200AD and where then amalgamated with the goths. 

Whch brings me to this - if from mecklenburg to the vistula ( on the baltic sea ) was suebi language and from the vistula to vilma was baltic. what where these goths then.
To me these Goths occupied the pommerian lands from very early times, they then took over the venedi and aestii on the baltic sea and used the vistula delta as a starting point for there "immigration" to the black sea. 
Once on the blacksea, these Goths split - the ones from old pommerian lands i.e from meckenburg to the vistula river where known as Visi and the goths from the vistula to vilma where ostro - this is stated as historical fact. With this fact we can conclude that the early venedi and aestii where baltic people who became "germanized" via the conquest of the Goths in 200AD, as well as being germanized with the southern people, the BASTARNAE.

With the fenni speaking Finnic, and the slavs being east of and southeast of these Germanic tribes, we can only conclude that the slavic language penetrated the germanic language first and later on the baltic languages.

----------


## Taranis

> - Germanic peoples as far as they are nordics - a considerable number in North Germany, Jutland, Scandinavia - are not of IE origin. They are dolichocephalic and their Y- haplogroup is I, whereas the IE´s were more brachycephalic, with haplogroup R.
> Linguist Sigmund Feist estimated around 30% of germanic words as not of IE origin.


Let me address two issues here (I'll leave out the cranic shape because I cannot say anything about - I'd like to point out that it is _probably_ not a good indicator for ethnic affiliation, however):

- Haplogroup R1a has been attested in graves of the Corded Ware Culture (Eulau, Germany, dated to circa 2600 BC) and in graves of the Urnfield Culture (Lichtenstein Cave, also Germany, dated to circa 1000 BC). The Battle Axe Culture of Scandinavia was an offshot of the Corded Ware Culture, and it stands to reason that the population of Scandinavia had a sizable share of Haplogroup R1a as well.

- Regarding Haplogroup I (or more precisely Haplogroup I_1_, which clearly originated in Scandinavia), it is tempting to assume that I1 is somehow associated with the aboriginal population of Scandinavia since Haplogroup I as a whole is generally held to be the sole Haplogroup to have originated in Europe. However, it is clear that it suffered a considerable bottleneck: while Haplogroup I as a whole is thought to have originated before the Last Glacial Maximum, it's subclade I1 is subclade I1 probably is only 4000-6000 years old. For all we know, Haplogroup I1 may be descended from a single male. There's also evidence of Mitochondrial DNA from the Funnelbeaker Culture, which suggests that there is apparently continuity between the Neolithic Funnelbeakers and the modern Scandinavians, at least not in direct maternal lineage.

- Regarding non-IE words in Germanic, this is broadly correct, but the number of non-IE words is probably much smaller. Sigmund Feist proposed this hypothesis in the _1930s_, and many of the words Feist cited were later proven to actually have cognates in other branches of IE. While I do not know the latest on this discussion, the corpus of non-IE words in Germanic is likely to be considerably smaller.




> - I meant that they didn´t come from the West. Settlers from the west came not till the Middle Ages.


No, but it's nonetheless clear that for the greater part Germanic languages were spoken on the former area of the Pommeranian Culture by the 1st and 2nd century AD, but as I'll elaborate, it's difficult to interprete this. 




> Your mails are always correct and to the point, so there is no matter of any agenda.
> The theme is really a sensitive one


Alright, I guess should have figured that "sensitive" bit a tad earlier.




> If one goes so far back in time, I think the importance of Unetice culture in the area of today´s Czech republic and that of the Celts or Precelts for the Lusatian culture should be emphasized.


One does not have to go _that_ far back (Unetice Culture is too early in my opinion to talk about "Proto-Celtic"). However, I did speculate before if the people of the Lusatian Culture did indeed speak some kind of - not necessarily Celtic, but definitely Centum-IE language. There is also an interest linguistic argument here: the East Germanic branch is in quite a number of ways the most abberrant branch of the Germanic family, and one must ask where these differences come from? One possibility is that the differences stem from a different, underlying previous language. It should be noted that the Lusatian Culture stood in contact also with the Celtic Hallstatt culture, and that in fact, Lusitian iron-working may have arrived from there (in my opinion, iron-working of the Balts/Slavs must have had a different origin, because the Baltic/Slavic uses a different root word for "iron", and not Celtic "Isarnos" (which is also the source of the Germanic words for iron).

- Actual Celtic name evidence extends into Silesia, approximately up to the Oder. There's also the similarity of the tribal name "Lugii" to be considered with the Pan-Celtic deity Lugus. Of course, we not know to what degree the situation corresponds actually centuries earlier - especially when and how did the East Germanic languages arrive (given the timing "Pre-East-Germanic" might be more appropriate? Also, archaeological continuity doesn't _necessarily_ mean linguistic continuity.




> What strikes here is that the area occupied by the Lusatian culture correspond now almost exactly to that of the western Slavs and a considerable part of the former GDR.


Given the considerably time in between (about a millennium), I would think this is a coincidence.




> M. Gimbutas presented a very realistic theory of the IE expansion, she was by the way a “fierce nationalist” as I read somewhere. Anyway, the Pommeranian Group could be a zone of the Balts that became independent from the “Lusatians”.
> Important fact is that there is continuity from the Lusatian culture.


Gimbutas produced a solid theory in regard for the origin and spread of the Indo-European languages (and it is in fact thus far the most convincing one), but given the time when she published them first (1950s), it's inevitable that refinements/modifications need to be made.

----------


## zdenek von reslaw

```

[QUOTE=Taranis;371766]Let me address two issues here (I'll leave out the cranic shape because I cannot say anything about - I'd like to point out that it is probably not a good indicator for ethnic affiliation, however): 


```

 
For affiliation perhaps not, but they can profit by better understanding their heritage. 
Actually it´s genetics that really matters in these studies. Without prejudice, linguistics, hydronymy etc., have their own right; writers like Tacitus, Ptolemy, who had to rely on some information ( I don´t say they wrote second-hand ;) they did their best. But now genetics could clear up some controversial opinions.





> However, I did speculate before if the people of the Lusatian Culture did indeed speak some kind of - not necessarily Celtic, but definitely Centum-IE language.


 
Because of the influence from the south it´s acceptable. That would mean the coming of a probably R1b people ( Illyrians? ) to the area of the Lusatian culture. Or perhaps of the often here mentioned Wenedians. The Dinaric influence is quite strong from
Romania through Slovakia to south-eastern Poland, could it be their heritage?
In the discussed area there must had been already, among others, a R1a people ( X )
from the Corded Ware culture; the I- people and the finnish population as the aborigines.
Wether the R1a people of the Lusatian culture spoke a centum language, because of the early immigration, is doubtful. There were also Balts in the area, who are clearly satem speakers.
Wheter Germanic people lived in the area of the Lusatian culture is in my opinion very doubtful. The Jastorf culture reached far eastly of Stettin but that´s a different formation. The Bastarners are ussually regarded as of thrako-illyrian origin.




> There is also an interest linguistic argument here: the East Germanic branch is in quite a number of ways the most abberrant branch of the Germanic family, and one must ask where these differences come from? One possibility is that the differences stem from a different, underlying previous language.


 You are probably right, I´m not a linguist to compare the North Germanic dialects with the East Germanic ones. But I suppose that the disposable texts origin from the time of the Goths and the Wandals, around 500 years later.
I think the problem of the Pommeranians can be solved more simply. To give an example: the Macedonians, who were culturally backward to the Greeks but _related,_ got advantage over the greek states, which ended, as is known, in losing of their independence. Similar situation was with the Romans and the Etruscans.
Such combination seems frequent in other parts of the world, e.g : China and Manchuria, Japan and Korea ( maybe not the best example ), Kiewer Rus and Moscow, not to forget Prussia that became hegemon over the more developed german states.
The Lusatian culture was a loose union and it was weakened in the meantime.

----------


## zanipolo

> [PHP]
> 
> 
> The Jastorf culture reached far eastly of Stettin but that´s a different formation. The Bastarners are ussually regarded as of thrako-illyrian origin.


can you supply a link to this information on the bastarnaes , because all I found was that they where germanic of celtic origin

----------


## Taranis

> For affiliation perhaps not, but they can profit by better understanding their heritage. 
> Actually it´s genetics that really matters in these studies. Without prejudice, linguistics, hydronymy etc., have their own right; writers like Tacitus, Ptolemy, who had to rely on some information ( I don´t say they wrote second-hand ;) they did their best. But now genetics could clear up some controversial opinions.


Genetics shouldn't be overestimated either, however. People can change their languages, but they cannot change their genes.




> Because of the influence from the south it´s acceptable. That would mean the coming of a probably R1b people ( Illyrians? ) to the area of the Lusatian culture. Or perhaps of the often here mentioned Wenedians. The Dinaric influence is quite strong from
> Romania through Slovakia to south-eastern Poland, could it be their heritage?


Actually, there is some interesting genetic evidence at work here: many people have noted before that there is a peak of R1b-U152 in Poland, which (in the past) defied an explanation. Now, R1b-U152 is thought to be associated with the spread of the Urnfield Culture (it's spread seems to coincide well with the cummulative effects of the Urnfield, Hallstatt and La-Tene Cultures), and as I stated before, since the older part of the Lusatian Culture is basically considered part of Urnfield, that the R1b-U152 peak in Poland may originate from this time.

"Illyrian" would seem unlikely (given how evidence for the Illyrian language does in no way spread anywhere near that far north), but there is the possibility that they spoke a distinct, wholly extinct Centum-IE language that we might consider "Proto-Celtic" or "Para-Celtic" in the wider sense. But of course, this is speculation that is very hard to test.




> In the discussed area there must had been already, among others, a R1a people ( X )
> from the Corded Ware culture; the I- people and the finnish population as the aborigines.
> Wether the R1a people of the Lusatian culture spoke a centum language, because of the early immigration, is doubtful. There were also Balts in the area, who are clearly satem speakers.


Regarding the Centum/Satem split, it is unclear where exactly the "line" between the Satem and Centum languages, but it's clear that this line must have shifted (this actually attested on the Balkans, read below). Amongst the major branches of Indo-European, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Italic and Tocharian are all known to be Centum languages, wheras Albanian, Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic are all Satem. Both the Greek (via Mycenean Greek, the language used in Linear B) and Indo-Iranic (via the oldest Vedic texts) branches are attested from the 2nd millennium BC, meaning the split should have occured earlier. It should be noted that there's vocabulary which entered Balto-Slavic vocabulary which clearly Centum in origin (though *not* Germanic: I posted a thread in linguistics which shows East Germanic borrowings into Proto-Slavic), so it stands to reason in my opinion that the Centum/Satem line in the 1st millennium BC actually ran surprisingly eastwards. Just because people were predominantly (or, to a great share) R1a doesn't mean that they were Satem speakers. The (Proto-)Tocharians were certainly also predominantly R1a, but definitely spoke a Centum language.

Amongst the ancient languages of the Balkans, Illyrian is generally thought to have been a Centum language, but Dacian and Thracian in contrast are though are Satem languages (Dacian was, also, in my opinion, one of the main source languages of Albanian, which explains it's Satem nature).




> Wheter Germanic people lived in the area of the Lusatian culture is in my opinion very doubtful. The Jastorf culture reached far eastly of Stettin but that´s a different formation.


Well, first off, let us get the chronology correct here: the Lusatian Culture spans the late bronze age into the early iron age. This is obviously too early to speak of "Germanic" languages, even Proto-Germanic, it is far more likely that we are talking about a Pre-Germanic language stage here (the ancestor language of Germanic before the major sound shifts).
HOWEVER, the _former_ area of the Lusatian Culture was very clearly inhabited by Germanic peoples about 500 years later. The Przeworsk Culture, which succeeded a small part of the area formerly encompassed by the Lusatian and Pommeranian Cultures, was clearly associated with the Burgundians and the Lugians. Ptolemy very clearly places the Burgundians up to the Vistula.




> The Bastarners are ussually regarded as of thrako-illyrian origin.


Regarding the Bastarnae, it's the first time I have seen _anybody_ claim that they were "Thraco-Illyrian". There is no Thracian or Illyrian name influence that far north. Tacitus explicitly refers to them as Germanic (as opposed to the Venedi and the Fenni, which he explicitly says did not speak Germanic), though other authors refer to their language as 'similar to Celtic'.




> You are probably right, I´m not a linguist to compare the North Germanic dialects with the East Germanic ones. But I suppose that the disposable texts origin from the time of the Goths and the Wandals, around 500 years later.


Well, it is possible to "time" when a certain word must have entered the vocabulary of a language, by wether it obeys to a certain sound law or not. You obviously do not know exactly when these sound shifts happened (in most cases, at least), but it's clearly possible to establish a relative order.




> I think the problem of the Pommeranians can be solved more simply. To give an example: the Macedonians, who were culturally backward to the Greeks but _related,_ got advantage over the greek states, which ended, as is known, in losing of their independence. Similar situation was with the Romans and the Etruscans.
> Such combination seems frequent in other parts of the world, e.g : China and Manchuria, Japan and Korea ( maybe not the best example ), Kiewer Rus and Moscow, not to forget Prussia that became hegemon over the more developed german states.
> The Lusatian culture was a loose union and it was weakened in the meantime.


I'm not sure. Be careful not to mix up the Lusatian and Pommeranian Cultures. The Pommeranian Culture is the successor to the Lusatian Culture.

----------


## Dagne

When I look at urns from Pomerania and Prussia I am rather persuaded by Gimbutas that Pomeranians were a Western Baltic tribe. 
 *Fig. 18.* Face-urns. Fifth century B.C. a, b, from eastern Pomerania near Danzig; c, from Samland
 *Fig. 28.* a-d, Geometrically decorated Prussian urns from the fourth-third centuries B.C.; e, urn with “eyes”; f, pot within a dish filled with uncremated bird bones


Also, in the earlier picture at #15 there is a large spiral head pin which is also very typical for Baltics. I can even buy one nowadays during a folk art market  :Rolleyes: 

On the other hand, perhaps Celtic or Germanic tribes had similar looking culture, too, that I am not aware of? (and that Gimbutas being allegedly nationalistic is not demonstrating  :Thinking: ) 

Do you perhaps know of any relating to Pomeranian archaeological findings ?

----------


## zanipolo

> When I look at urns from Pomerania and Prussia I am rather persuaded by Gimbutas that Pomeranians were a Western Baltic tribe. 
>  *Fig. 18.* Face-urns. Fifth century B.C. a, b, from eastern Pomerania near Danzig; c, from Samland
>  *Fig. 28.* a-d, Geometrically decorated Prussian urns from the fourth-third centuries B.C.; e, urn with “eyes”; f, pot within a dish filled with uncremated bird bones
> 
> 
> Also, in the earlier picture at #15 there is a large spiral head pin which is also very typical for Baltics. I can even buy one nowadays during a folk art market 
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps Celtic or Germanic tribes had similar looking culture, too, that I am not aware of? (and that Gimbutas being allegedly nationalistic is not demonstrating ) 
> 
> Do you perhaps know of any relating to Pomeranian archaeological findings ?



Is the term west-baltic appropriate for the pommerains as this ancient race had disappeared in the BC times, than again I found this

The Western Balts
*>>>|||<<<*  The Western Baltic dialect that later gave rise to the Sudovian, Galindian,  Pomesanian, and various Prussian languages is one of the dialects of the Early-Western Baltic Area. The Coastal West Balts emerged as yet another dialect (Curonian language) of the Peripheral Early-West Baltic Area, near the bordering dialects of the Central Early-East Baltic language area. The Western Balts were a polyethnic hybrid mix of Funnel Beaker, Globular Amphora, and Corded Ware Satem peoples on a Neolithic Nemunas and Narva substratum population. Thus, the Western Balts should include the Sudovians (   Яцьвягі ), Galindians, Pomesanians,  and various Prussians, and also the Curonians, the former comprising the _Southern_ group, and the latter, the _Coastal Northern_ group. This explains the close similarity between  Sudovian ( Yotvingian ), Galindian,  Pomesanian, and  Prussian. A successful modern revival of the Prussian language is now known as  New Prussian. A link to their _Prussian_ _language_ _website_ is provided below.
 The *Old Prussian Sembian* dialect, though, exhibits a _prolonged_ influence from the nearby *Curonians* when compared to the more distant Pomesanian or Sudovian. The Sembian dialect of the Old Prussian Catechisms has "*muti, tawas*" (mother, father) whereas the *Pomesanian* of the Elbing Vocabulary has "*mothe, towis*". The chronicled *Sudovian* "*Occo*pirmus" similarly differs from the Catechism Sembian "*ucka*-". Farther inland away from coast and Curonians, we do find Prussian "*Tlokunpelk*" - Bears' Marsh. *Galindian* did not historically border the Curonians, and was close to Sudovian in many respects.http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/proto.htm

This was an old - prussian dialect


notice the tribes in this linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Prussians

By the way - the sklavains where prussians .......hmmm .............i thought that was a slav terminology

----------


## Haganus

Who did read Jurgen Udolph's book "Namentkuendliche Studien der Germanen"? 
It deals with the origin and arise of the Germanic tribes. According to the author
the ancient author did not arise in Scandinavia, but in the Jastorf area (region
south of Bremen-Hambourg-Hannover-Magdeburg till Thuringia and Westphalia).
It is not possible to make a clear frontier till the eastern part. Probably the most
ancient Germanic tribes did not live more east of Berlin. 
So I did not understand that the ancestors of the Germanic tribes lived in the
the area of the Lusatians.

----------


## Taranis

> When I look at urns from Pomerania and Prussia I am rather persuaded by Gimbutas that Pomeranians were a Western Baltic tribe. 
>  *Fig. 18.* Face-urns. Fifth century B.C. a, b, from eastern Pomerania near Danzig; c, from Samland
>  *Fig. 28.* a-d, Geometrically decorated Prussian urns from the fourth-third centuries B.C.; e, urn with “eyes”; f, pot within a dish filled with uncremated bird bones
> 
> 
> Also, in the earlier picture at #15 there is a large spiral head pin which is also very typical for Baltics. I can even buy one nowadays during a folk art market 
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps Celtic or Germanic tribes had similar looking culture, too, that I am not aware of? (and that Gimbutas being allegedly nationalistic is not demonstrating ) 
> 
> Do you perhaps know of any relating to Pomeranian archaeological findings ?


Hmm... I don't like to play devil's advocate, but you might want to take a look at urns of the (Pre-Etruscan) Villanovan Culture from Italy, which is also an Urnfield offshot archaeologically speaking. They don't look that different, either.

Regarding Gimbutas, what I know about her in regard for being biased has nothing to do with "nationalism", but with feminism: in some of her later books (I think, written in the decade before her death) she argued that the Neolithic population of Europe was matriarchial and monotheistic, worshipping a single mother goddess, and this only changed with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, who introduced a patriarchial society. Needless to say, this appears very far-fetched.  :Startled: 

Anyways, I think that there's another compelling linguistic argument, in my opinion, that the Pommeranian Culture cannot have been Baltic or Slavic. Based on the attestation of Indo-Iranic, it stands to reason that the Centum-Satem split occured before the 2nd millennium BC. In my opinion, if a Baltic language had been spoken in the area of the Lusatian/Pommeranian Cultures, there should be some borrowing of Satem languages into Gothic.

I think that the people of the Pommeranian Culture spoke a Centum-IE language, but I also think it's verymuch impossible to narrow it further down than that. There are borrowings from Centum languages (which aren't identifiably Germanic) into Baltic and Slavic, suggesting that they were in contact with some centum language.

The major Proto-Germanic sound shifts definitely occured _after_ 500 BC, probably even as late as the 1st century BC to 1st century AD, meaning that before that time we're talking about a "Pre-Germanic" language stage. For those who don't remember, I elaborated that in this thread.

----------


## Dagne

Yes, indeed, Taranis, the urns from Villanovan Culture in Italy do look similar in style! 
And about Gimbutas, too, I also believed that her theories about matriarchal Europe are too far fetching, but the rest sounds reasonable.

The language split argument is a very serious one, too.

So overall, you have persuaded me that Pomeranians may have spoken a Centum IE language.

----------


## Taranis

> Yes, indeed, Taranis, the urns from Villanovan Culture in Italy do look similar in style!
> And about Gimbutas, too, I also believed that her theories about matriarchal Europe are too far fetching, but the rest sounds reasonable.


Well, I have a healthy dose of respect for Gimbutas for laying out a solid foundation in regard for the Kurgan hypothesis, and I also respect feminism, but what the lady did in her late years was essentially fantasy.  :Useless: 




> The language split argument is a very serious one, too.


Well, the caveat _might be_ that that Satemization did occur independently in various branches of IE, but given how this innovation appears to really be a large areal effect occuring near the (presumed) Indo-European coreland, and that the various outlying branches (Italo-Celtic, Germanic, Greek and Tocharian) were not affected by it, it seems plausible that the shift did indeed occur simultaneously in Armenian, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic. In so far, I think that the argument is valid.




> So overall, you have persuaded me that Pomeranians may have spoken a Centum IE language.


Well, I wanted to shed a tad more light onto the situation regarding Baltic later (especially the Baltic/Slavic relationship/splitup, and the possibility of narrowing the situation down further and refining things), but I'm currently drawn into other issues so this unfortunately will have to wait. I promise you however, I will get back to that.  :Good Job:

----------


## zanipolo

> Hmm... I don't like to play devil's advocate, but you might want to take a look at urns of the (Pre-Etruscan) Villanovan Culture from Italy, which is also an Urnfield offshot archaeologically speaking. They don't look that different, either.
> 
> Regarding Gimbutas, what I know about her in regard for being biased has nothing to do with "nationalism", but with feminism: in some of her later books (I think, written in the decade before her death) she argued that the Neolithic population of Europe was matriarchial and monotheistic, worshipping a single mother goddess, and this only changed with the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, who introduced a patriarchial society. Needless to say, this appears very far-fetched. 
> 
> Anyways, I think that there's another compelling linguistic argument, in my opinion, that the Pommeranian Culture cannot have been Baltic or Slavic. Based on the attestation of Indo-Iranic, it stands to reason that the Centum-Satem split occured before the 2nd millennium BC. In my opinion, if a Baltic language had been spoken in the area of the Lusatian/Pommeranian Cultures, there should be some borrowing of Satem languages into Gothic.
> 
> I think that the people of the Pommeranian Culture spoke a Centum-IE language, but I also think it's verymuch impossible to narrow it further down than that. There are borrowings from Centum languages (which aren't identifiably Germanic) into Baltic and Slavic, suggesting that they were in contact with some centum language.
> 
> The major Proto-Germanic sound shifts definitely occured _after_ 500 BC, probably even as late as the 1st century BC to 1st century AD, meaning that before that time we're talking about a "Pre-Germanic" language stage. For those who don't remember, I elaborated that in this thread.


In most pagan religions in Europe , the god was a goddess representing fertility of the people and nature. Modern religions moved away from the female dominating the " prayers" of the populace.

In regards to the pommerians, I still conclude after further searching , that they where a gothic race in BC times , the language was east-germanic . The culture originally was nordic bronze culture.

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

I also , might partly agree with this below
http://lituani.com/Guthones.pdf

----------


## Dagne

> In most pagan religions in Europe , the god was a goddess representing fertility of the people and nature. Modern religions moved away from the female dominating the " prayers" of the populace.
> 
> In regards to the pommerians, I still conclude after further searching , that they where a gothic race in BC times , the language was east-germanic . The culture originally was nordic bronze culture.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germanic_languages
> 
> I also , might partly agree with this below
> http://lituani.com/Guthones.pdf


 
The last link about Goths being Aesti/Baltic rather than Germanic tribe is not really serious. I can only speculate that this article was published in 1929 when Lithuanians were struggling hard to establish the national state and thus some authors were ready to claim anything to boost national morale.

----------


## Dagne

Well I think we more or less agreed who were Pomeranians, right? 

But now I am curious about the Villanovan culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture 

How come their urns are so similar to Pomeranian and Prussian urns. According to Wiki their origins are both Celtic and Italic, but their urns are similar to Germanic and Baltic urns (of later period though).
Or the reason for this similarity is about timing - the Villanovan culture being much earlier in time and carrying proto-features of all Baltic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic tribes?

Any ideas?

----------


## zanipolo

> Well I think we more or less agreed who were Pomeranians, right? 
> 
> But now I am curious about the Villanovan culture
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture 
> 
> How come their urns are so similar to Pomeranian and Prussian urns. According to Wiki their origins are both Celtic and Italic, but their urns are similar to Germanic and Baltic urns (of later period though).
> Or the reason for this similarity is about timing - the Villanovan culture being much earlier in time and carrying proto-features of all Baltic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic tribes?
> 
> Any ideas?


Trade, because of the amber road. you need urns to carry goods for certain things.

In regards to urns, the venetic use was for cremation for family members, so each memeber that died was cremated and ashes placed in same Urn. this urn was wrapped in cloth and stored for another member to die. it would be passed down from generation to generation........does this happen with the baltic area

----------


## zdenek von reslaw

> can you supply a link to this information on the bastarnaes , because all I found was that they where germanic of celtic origin



On the net it´s mostly from wikipedia + some other websites that I got the informations: the area of Dacia/ Thrace as the place of their stay, all other whereabouts before that time uncertain.
In a commentary to Titus Livius´Ab urbe condita, that I read, there are some suppositions of their origin, like illyrian ( because of the similarity of customs ),
of course also celtic and germanic ones. 
I think now, the illyrian guess was not so good  :Disappointed:

----------


## zdenek von reslaw

[


> QUOTE=Taranis;371942]Genetics shouldn't be overestimated either, however. People can change their languages, but they cannot change their genes.



That´s what I meant, in this regard languages are secondary.





> It should be noted that there's vocabulary which entered Balto-Slavic vocabulary which clearly Centum in origin (though *not* Germanic: I posted a thread in linguistics which shows East Germanic borrowings into Proto-Slavic), so it stands to reason in my opinion that the Centum/Satem line in the 1st millennium BC actually ran surprisingly eastwards. Just because people were predominantly (or, to a great share) R1a doesn't mean that they were Satem speakers. The (Proto-)Tocharians were certainly also predominantly R1a, but definitely spoke a Centum language.


 No problem with that as long as the satem languages are regarded as central in the IE-group - and these are clearly the branches of Balto-Slav and Indo-Iranian languages. There were also other IE languages that due to their early separation from the nucleus kept the older position of centum, no matter if R1a or R1b.





> Well, first off, let us get the chronology correct here: the Lusatian Culture spans the late bronze age into the early iron age. This is obviously too early to speak of "Germanic" languages, even Proto-Germanic, it is far more likely that we are talking about a Pre-Germanic language stage here (the ancestor language of Germanic before the major sound shifts).


 
It´s allright if you speak of a Pre-Germanic language stage in the area where later was Jastorf culture; speaking of a Pre-Germanic stage in the area of the Lusatian culture would be not scientific. Germanic is clearly a periphery branch of the IE in linguistic and antropological sense. There is of course a considerable % of R-haplogroups, ( e.g.
Norway, where around one third of the males are R1a ) but the population of north west Europe is in a sense “old european”. In this regard, looking from the IE core area, it has a position similar to that of Aquitaine, Sardinia or Greece, which was already mentioned on this forum.






> Regarding the Bastarnae, it's the first time I have seen _anybody_ claim that they were "Thraco-Illyrian". There is no Thracian or Illyrian name influence that far north. Tacitus explicitly refers to them as Germanic (as opposed to the Venedi and the Fenni, which he explicitly says did not speak Germanic), though other authors refer to their language as 'similar to Celtic'


 
Concerning Bastarnae whatever their origin was, in their reliable later history it was a multiethnic community. As can be seen in Tacitus`Germania ( I haven´t got it at hand ) the author wasn´t sure how to classify Fenni, Venedi and _Peucini_  ( a branch
of Bastarnae ), but I may be wrong. 






> HOWEVER, the _former_ area of the Lusatian Culture was very clearly inhabited by Germanic peoples about 500 years later.


 
It is generally accepted that the area was inhabited by Germanic people around the beginning of the Christian era.
To this some considerations: the presence of germanic peoples in this area before that epoch is unlikely although the possibility shouldn´t be excluded. The area wasn´t empty when the germanic peoples arrived, there was aboriginal population living there. ( Of course it´s obvious but worth mentioning ;)
The arriving tribes had “wandering” character. By the way, recently the connection of the Goths with the Wielbark culture is being questioned. 





> The Przeworsk Culture, which succeeded a small part of the area formerly encompassed by the Lusatian and Pommeranian Cultures, was clearly associated with the Burgundians and the Lugians.


 The Lugians were probably originally not a Germanic people. There is an interesting coincidence, which was already spoken about in this thread, with the slavic Lusatians ( Sorbs ). E.g. Lug - Luzica ( z spoken like french j ). Both lived/ live in about the same area, the Lugians aparently could have moved later further west.

----------


## zanipolo

> On the net it´s mostly from wikipedia + some other websites that I got the informations: the area of Dacia/ Thrace as the place of their stay, all other whereabouts before that time uncertain.
> In a commentary to Titus Livius´Ab urbe condita, that I read, there are some suppositions of their origin, like illyrian ( because of the similarity of customs ),
> of course also celtic and germanic ones. 
> I think now, the illyrian guess was not so good


I am only dealing with a timeframe of 1000Bc - 200AD for the pommerains, I stand by my findings that they where gothic.

In regards to the bastanae ( peucini are same tribe) , they where germanic and they had a lot of land ( basically central poland and the ukraine) , north of them was the Fenni ( established as a finnic tribe), west of the fenni on the baltic sea was the aestii ( finnic or baltic tribe ) , west of them the venedi ( baltic , finnic or gothic ), and west of them was pommeria ( gothic)

The bastanae did neighbour the dacians and the illyrians on the danube river , but i think they where called something else at that time of 700BC

In regards to naming of tribes, 
The Romans named every tribe that they did not know who where near the carpathains mountains as sarmatians as this is what the Roman called the carthpathian mountains ( sarmathain montes)

Its odd that Plinius in his writings has a commer seperating the Samatis and venedi
*"Nec minor opinione Eningia. Quidam haec habitari ad Vistulam a Sarmatis, Venedis, Sciris, Hirris, tradunt". ----- Plinius, IV. 27.*

BTW, the Hirris are the Heruli tribe ( gothic tribe from pommern), western neighbours of the venedi on the baltic coast

----------


## zanipolo

> The last link about Goths being Aesti/Baltic rather than Germanic tribe is not really serious. I can only speculate that this article was published in 1929 when Lithuanians were struggling hard to establish the national state and thus some authors were ready to claim anything to boost national morale.


I agree about the aestii where not gothic , but baltic or finnic..........they are the modern estonians from what I could find.

----------


## Dagne

> In regards to urns, the venetic use was for cremation for family members, so each memeber that died was cremated and ashes placed in same Urn. this urn was wrapped in cloth and stored for another member to die. it would be passed down from generation to generation........does this happen with the baltic area


Hmm, I am not sure about passing urns down from generation to generation...
The urns were place in stone cists - family graves, 
*Fig. 26.* Urns in stone cists — “family graves”. Fourth century B.C.; a, from Silesia; b, from eastern Pomerania
 
And each urn had to be tailored individually - it was believed that the deceased continues in his exact image and retains all his characteristics. The urns were never a repetition of the same human features or ornamens - female urns had with clay necklaces, earrings made of bronze spirals or rings on which were suspended glass or amber beads. Male urns were decorate with symbolic schenes... 

Thinking of it - one must have achieved something in this life if he had his decorated in symbolis schene  :Cool V:  

Urns (a, b) and urns standing in a stone-cist family grave (c), from the third–second centuries B.C. Samland

There is a believe that the Baltic _vėlės_ — etherealizations of the deceased — go to live their family and village community lives, to “a sandy hill, a hill of _vėlės_,” where they have their houses or chambers, tables and walls, and where they are covered with linen cloths. The “hill of _vėlės_” has gates through which the tides enter, and benches on which they sit, and these features recur in descriptions of the after-life in Latvian and Lithuanian folk poetry. The verses would seem to have preserved the image of the ancient burial mounds, the wooden chambers or stone cists. Many passages in the Latvian folk songs speak of a cemetery on a small sandy hill, often so full of graves that there is no more room for new arrivals.

Gimbutiene has a really nice description http://www.vaidilute.com/books/gimbu...mbutas-08.html p. 190 how vėlės have to travel via Milky Way to _Dausos_ which is a mixture of heaven and parradise 

And also it is believed that _siela_(which is related to greek _psyche or pneuma_) reincarnates to trees, flowers, birds and it is even nowadays believed it is not ok to cut trees in a cementary ...

----------


## zanipolo

> Hmm, I am not sure about passing urns down from generation to generation...
> The urns were place in stone cists - family graves, 
> *Fig. 26.* Urns in stone cists — “family graves”. Fourth century B.C.; a, from Silesia; b, from eastern Pomerania
>  
> And each urn had to be tailored individually - it was believed that the deceased continues in his exact image and retains all his characteristics. The urns were never a repetition of the same human features or ornamens - female urns had with clay necklaces, earrings made of bronze spirals or rings on which were suspended glass or amber beads. Male urns were decorate with symbolic schenes... 
> 
> Thinking of it - one must have achieved something in this life if he had his decorated in symbolis schene  
> 
> Urns (a, b) and urns standing in a stone-cist family grave (c), from the third–second centuries B.C. Samland
> ...



this is the venetic urn procedure
http://www.nesat.org/abstracts/poster_perego.pdf

i wanted to know if the baltic was similar.

As you know there is only venetic culture in the adriatic, the baltic was nordic bronze age, then other cultures after that

----------


## Dagne

"The urn may have been conceived as a symbol of the deceased him/herself, or a surrogate of his/her body" - this much is true for the baltic, but if the fabric was used - I don't remember it being mentioned. I am afraid that there weren't any "sophisticated micro-excavation techniques which could have permitted the identification of textile in the form of burned fragments, mineralised remains, yarn and even imprints on objects and mud"...

So I guess that the creamation may be similar, but do you have any pictures of how it all looked in the Adriatic? I like seeing things instead of just reading about them  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Taranis

I'm kind of distracted at the moments, there's quite a number of posts which I would love to address, but that will have to wait. There is however one specific question I'd like to ask you Dagne: when/how does iron-working arrive in the Baltic (that is, the Baltic _proper_, not the former Pommeranian area), and from where?

----------


## Dagne

early iron age (V BC- I AD)
old iron age (I-IV a.)
middle iron age (V-IX a.)

As much as I understand the real start of iron use was starting with 100 AD

And why do you ask, Tarani? (Taranis - Nominative, Tarani - Vocative), the Celts must have used name this way, too

----------


## Taranis

> early iron age (V BC- I AD)
> old iron age (I-IV a.)
> middle iron age (V-IX a.)
> 
> As much as I understand the real start of iron use was starting with 100 AD


Interesting.




> And why do you ask, Tarani? (Taranis - Nominative, Tarani - Vocative), the Celts must have used name this way, too


Yes, this is correct, at least in Gaulish.  :Grin: 
(I can't say about Celtiberian, for instance, since the vocative is unattested in Celtiberian)

I primarily ask because I wonder on the origin of the Baltic/Slavic word for "iron". At first glance it would seem that apparently iron-working arrived with the Balts/Slavs from a different source than the Celtic Hallstatt Culture (conversely, the Proto-Germanic Jastorf Culture clearly adopted iron-working from Hallstatt, and as a result the word for "iron" in the Germanic languages is the same as the one in the Celtic languages).

----------


## zanipolo

it seems that was a bigger difference between the iron-age east germani and the west-germani , than there is now.
I do find modern east and west germans different

This site below basically says that the pomerains where an east- germanic tribe ..The 
*The Bastarnae may be considered to have been the first Germanic people to have moved down towards the Black Sea from the Baltic, and their road thither is indicated by the name for the Carpathians, Alpes Bastarnicae, known from classical sources. It has been assumed that theirs was the peculiar culture which, at the beginning of the Iron Age, had spread over Pommerellen, and is characterized by stone cist-graves filled with pottery—sometimes as many as thirty vessels, many of them face-urns.*

http://www.third-millennium-library....E_DACIANS.html

Also, in the link it was mentioned that the venedi was a west-finnic tribe.
The site mainly deals with the Getae ( goths) and the dacians

----------


## Dagne

Rugii ('rye-eaters') - in Lth. rye is sng. rugys, pl. rugiai- very similar to Rugii; most probably early Germanic sounded rather closer to Baltic; The same can be told about a lot of Dacian words, too.

----------


## zanipolo

After much further reading including the latest information , the concensus is that the Venedi was the Pommerain culture, they lived between the oder and the vistula rivers on the Baltic coast. These people according to Tactitus spoke the same language as the armorica veneti, They where inferior in seamanship to the brittany veneti due to the baltic area having many mariner people. they settled down to a world of trade.

They where eventually pushed eastward over time by germanic/nordic tribes ( goths and vandals ) and settled on the eastern side of the vistula river next to the Aestui. Hermaric the goth leader destroyed these people along with the aestii and rugii and took their men as gothic troops. The remaining venedi, Aestui , Rugians and others formed a new tribe called Vidivarii.
These Vidivarii over time became the Borussi ( maybe with some slavic influence ) and these borussi became Porussi ( meaning neighbours near russia ) and eventually became Prussians.

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

It was also stated, I am unsure , That no Roman historian named races/tribes with more than 1 word.

----------


## LeBrok

There is no consensus about Vistula Veneti. I doubt there is one about Pomerania. Probably nobody knows were the name comes from either. 
This is a first time that I heard that Goths destroyed Veneti. From archaeological point there is no sign of wars and big scale violence or burned down villages. As I said before there are even Goth's settlements and locals (veneti?) side by side from same time period. All shows that Goth's transit from Baltic to Black Sea was rather a peaceful enterprise.
On other hand there is a big depopulation of this area around year 500AD, but that's about 200-300 years after Goths were long gone.

----------


## zanipolo

> There is no consensus about Vistula Veneti. I doubt there is one about Pomerania. Probably nobody knows were the name comes from either. 
> This is a first time that I heard that Goths destroyed Veneti. From archaeological point there is no sign of wars and big scale violence or burned down villages. As I said before there are even Goth's settlements and locals (veneti?) side by side from same time period. All shows that Goth's transit from Baltic to Black Sea was rather a peaceful enterprise.
> On other hand there is a big depopulation of this area around year 500AD, but that's about 200-300 years after Goths were long gone.


 The goths headed to the black sea ( euxine sea ) pre 200AD and stayed there for many centuries before invading roman territory.

The other book I found today has that the Vandals are ( very )similar to venedi and also pommerains
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...page&q&f=false

----------


## zanipolo

On reading the wish of the goths: it states that the archeological discoveries in the last 20 years revealed, 
1 - the vistula near the baltic sea , in ancient times ran down the nogat river ( near Elbing) and into the vistula lagoon ( which was not a lagoon ) the Aestii where east of this river, the gepids, guttones and venedi west of this river. Over time the "lagoon" was closed from the sea and the vistula found its current path.
2- the Pommerains where danes and saxon germans up to Pomeralia which was the venedi ( Gdansk) 
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/histo..._1138_1254.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomeralia

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...venedi&f=false

The archeological finds are pommerain , the venedi where the Wends which where the Lithuanian vends from modern latvia.

The "vistula goths " came from sweden and settled in the vistula delta seperating the venedi of Pomeralia from the Aestii ( prussian lands)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidivarii
These goths created the willenberg culture

Wend seems to have been created around 700AD to indicate a direction , a course/point of where.

The pommerains ( not the pomeralians), where until 400AD balts who became slavitized , the slavitization was lost after 980AD when the saxons took the lands. as in Henry the Lion's times.

It seems to me when compliing all this evisence plus modern Archeology that the baltic people ( I guess finns, letts, suomi) where along the whole baltic coastal area and lost out first to the germans, then slavs, then germans again

----------


## Hammonia III

For those whose Pomeranian interest is family-related, I've recently started the "Pommern Project" at FTDNA. The project is open to anyone with direct male or female line ancestry in pre-1945 Pomerania, and who have had their DNA tested at FTDNA.

This is the first public mention I've made of it, so at present there are only 3 members. Hopefully this will change as I begin to try to get the word out. Please feel free to pass this on to anyone who might be interested!

----------


## zanipolo

> For those whose Pomeranian interest is family-related, I've recently started the "Pommern Project" at FTDNA. The project is open to anyone with direct male or female line ancestry in pre-1945 Pomerania, and who have had their DNA tested at FTDNA.
> 
> This is the first public mention I've made of it, so at present there are only 3 members. Hopefully this will change as I begin to try to get the word out. Please feel free to pass this on to anyone who might be interested!


do you have any internet links based on ancient Pommerains pre 200AD times?......I am curious

----------

