# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Norwegian vikings and east-european admixture?

## mihaitzateo

So I saw the autosomal DNA maps from this site from here:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autoso..._dodecad.shtml

East-European-admixture.jpg

As a very curious thing,where norwegian vikings raided in UK (Scotland) there is more eastern-european admixture.
In England and Wales and Ireland is almost no eastern european admixture.
From what I know,but I might be wrong,anglo saxons came from present day Germany to England and after Y DNA it seems more paternal lines in England are from anglo-saxons.So is clear,old anglo-saxons were not bearing almost at all eastern european admixture.
There is also known that normans moved to England,but I do not know how many from normans were norwegian vikings and I also do not know how many from normans were vikings and how many normans actually mixed the population of England.
So I think is a plausible explanation that eastern european admixture from Scotland was brought by norwegian vikings.
And this is what I was thinking,that it was possible that R1A1 norse vikings,the norwegian vikings had a pretty significant percentage of eastern european admixture,beside their usual north western european admixture from which they got mostly.
As for eastern european admixture in Germany that should be from old prussians,with which old germans it seems mixed and gave today germans.
I was wondering what is the opinion of other people about this.

----------


## Jackson

I think it's quite an interesting question, i wouldn't be surprised at all if the extent of eastern European admixture in northern continental Europe is greater now than it was 1500 years ago, given that R1a1a must have been one of the most major components of the Slavic peoples, and their primary expansions happened at a similar time to the Germanic migrations too (I believe this is correct?). 

This might indeed mean that there was less R1a1a in the historical populations of the Angles and Saxons, however i think the Faroese and the area around Trondelag in Norway are quite high in R1a1a too? This might suggest that it was either quite regional or the Nordic lands were comparatively R1a1a heavy (as they are today) compared to the Germanic lands. What would be interesting is some more regional data from Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavia and see if any more patterns emerge. 

Its interesting that if we take modern populations (which may be different from the ancient populations), with Denmark at 12% R1a1a and the Netherlands at 6% R1a1a, surely if there was an average for these people it would be at about the 8-10% mark for R1a1a. If you then look at the average for England (4.5%) then it could be something like 50% contribution on average. Assuming that R1a1a also follows the east-west cline (as well as Norwegian settlement), then places in the east would hypothetically rise above 50% contribution based on this factor, and less than 50% in more western places, which i don't think is far from comparable with other y-dna haplogroups. I believe Maciamo made a thread some time ago, and about 65% or so of Lineages were Anglo-Saxon/Danish, 11% Near Eastern and just over 30% British. I don't know whether this is still current but it seems logical, appears similar to the Weale study and (apparently) to the People of the British Isles project.

It's interesting that North and East Germany seem to be significantly more 'Slavic' (which makes sense i guess). But i guess the big difference between Nordic and Germanic populations is that Nordic populations are primarily a mix of I1/R1a/R1b, while Germanic populations have R1a1a as a more minor component, and Celtic populations it is at very low levels. It's been said a thousand times i'm sure, although i think R1a1a is probably the best y-dna marker for tracking any sort of migrations from the eastern side of the North Sea into western Europe, because the distinction between R1b/R1a is much more clear than between R1b/I1 in my opinion.

The Normans are interesting because they were not just Scandinavian, rather a mixture of Scandinavian, northern French, Breton and Flemish if you count all involved, or at least that's the impression i've received from people who know a lot about it. So i don't think it would be accurate to track their contribution by comparing it Scandinavian populations, as they were much more of a mixture.

Another thing to note i guess is that the Dutch are (apparently) significantly closer to the British/English than Scandinavians or Germans. I guess this could be due to:

1) The Dutch better represent the original Anglo-Saxons than modern day North Germans and Danes.
2) The two share ancestry from two groups (perhaps the shared Germanic and Celtic elements?)
3) The Saxons were more weighted towards what is now the Netherlands than to Denmark/Northern Germany.
4) The two areas were populated by similar source populations, and changes occurred in the source populations that didn't in the two resulting populations. 

Obviously it's all hypothetical, but it's interesting - From my perspective it seems like R1a1a is really useful for looking into the ancestry of western Europeans (ironically), i don't know what the situation is like with eastern Europe and R1b though, as there seems to be more east-west movement throughout the whole history of Europe.

Someone correct me if i've made mistakes or misunderstandings - Just felt like making a comment :].

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

----------


## zanipolo

> I think it's quite an interesting question, i wouldn't be surprised at all if the extent of eastern European admixture in northern continental Europe is greater now than it was 1500 years ago, given that R1a1a must have been one of the most major components of the Slavic peoples, and their primary expansions happened at a similar time to the Germanic migrations too (I believe this is correct?). 
> 
> This might indeed mean that there was less R1a1a in the historical populations of the Angles and Saxons, however i think the Faroese and the area around Trondelag in Norway are quite high in R1a1a too? This might suggest that it was either quite regional or the Nordic lands were comparatively R1a1a heavy (as they are today) compared to the Germanic lands. What would be interesting is some more regional data from Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavia and see if any more patterns emerge. 
> 
> Its interesting that if we take modern populations (which may be different from the ancient populations), with Denmark at 12% R1a1a and the Netherlands at 6% R1a1a, surely if there was an average for these people it would be at about the 8-10% mark for R1a1a. If you then look at the average for England (4.5%) then it could be something like 50% contribution on average. Assuming that R1a1a also follows the east-west cline (as well as Norwegian settlement), then places in the east would hypothetically rise above 50% contribution based on this factor, and less than 50% in more western places, which i don't think is far from comparable with other y-dna haplogroups. I believe Maciamo made a thread some time ago, and about 65% or so of Lineages were Anglo-Saxon/Danish, 11% Near Eastern and just over 30% British. I don't know whether this is still current but it seems logical, appears similar to the Weale study and (apparently) to the People of the British Isles project.
> 
> It's interesting that North and East Germany seem to be significantly more 'Slavic' (which makes sense i guess). But i guess the big difference between Nordic and Germanic populations is that Nordic populations are primarily a mix of I1/R1a/R1b, while Germanic populations have R1a1a as a more minor component, and Celtic populations it is at very low levels. It's been said a thousand times i'm sure, although i think R1a1a is probably the best y-dna marker for tracking any sort of migrations from the eastern side of the North Sea into western Europe, because the distinction between R1b/R1a is much more clear than between R1b/I1 in my opinion.
> 
> The Normans are interesting because they were not just Scandinavian, rather a mixture of Scandinavian, northern French, Breton and Flemish if you count all involved, or at least that's the impression i've received from people who know a lot about it. So i don't think it would be accurate to track their contribution by comparing it Scandinavian populations, as they were much more of a mixture.
> ...


do you have the right marker as the only R1a1a in scandinavia by Ftdna does not have any slavic


*7.B1. Young Scandinavian (Type "M"/part of "YS")*
*M417+, Z283+, Z284+, L448+*
*R1a1a1g3a
*
*7.B2-A. 'Scottish' subcluster in Young Scandinavian Line**
M417+, Z283+, Z284+, L448+, L176-
R1a1a1g3a*
*7.B2-B. 'Scottish' subcluster in Young Scandinavian Line**
M417+, Z283+, Z284+, L448+, L176+
**R1a1a1g3a1*

----------


## Jackson

Sorry, my bad - I used the 'Slavic' because i didn't know the distribution of the specific groups of R1a1a, i should have said 'R1a1a' instead. That's a really good map - Never seen that before.

Do you know what the prediction is for the time at which the Scottish groups split off from the main groups?

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

----------


## ElHorsto

> I think it's quite an interesting question, i wouldn't be surprised at all if the extent of eastern European admixture in northern continental Europe is greater now than it was 1500 years ago, given that R1a1a must have been one of the most major components of the Slavic peoples, and their primary expansions happened at a similar time to the Germanic migrations too (I believe this is correct?). 
> 
> This might indeed mean that there was less R1a1a in the historical populations of the Angles and Saxons, however i think the Faroese and the area around Trondelag in Norway are quite high in R1a1a too? This might suggest that it was either quite regional or the Nordic lands were comparatively R1a1a heavy (as they are today) compared to the Germanic lands. What would be interesting is some more regional data from Britain, the Netherlands and Scandinavia and see if any more patterns emerge. 
> 
> Its interesting that if we take modern populations (which may be different from the ancient populations), with Denmark at 12% R1a1a and the Netherlands at 6% R1a1a, surely if there was an average for these people it would be at about the 8-10% mark for R1a1a. If you then look at the average for England (4.5%) then it could be something like 50% contribution on average. Assuming that R1a1a also follows the east-west cline (as well as Norwegian settlement), then places in the east would hypothetically rise above 50% contribution based on this factor, and less than 50% in more western places, which i don't think is far from comparable with other y-dna haplogroups. I believe Maciamo made a thread some time ago, and about 65% or so of Lineages were Anglo-Saxon/Danish, 11% Near Eastern and just over 30% British. I don't know whether this is still current but it seems logical, appears similar to the Weale study and (apparently) to the People of the British Isles project.
> 
> It's interesting that North and East Germany seem to be significantly more 'Slavic' (which makes sense i guess). But i guess the big difference between Nordic and Germanic populations is that Nordic populations are primarily a mix of I1/R1a/R1b, while Germanic populations have R1a1a as a more minor component, and Celtic populations it is at very low levels. It's been said a thousand times i'm sure, although i think R1a1a is probably the best y-dna marker for tracking any sort of migrations from the eastern side of the North Sea into western Europe, because the distinction between R1b/R1a is much more clear than between R1b/I1 in my opinion.
> 
> The Normans are interesting because they were not just Scandinavian, rather a mixture of Scandinavian, northern French, Breton and Flemish if you count all involved, or at least that's the impression i've received from people who know a lot about it. So i don't think it would be accurate to track their contribution by comparing it Scandinavian populations, as they were much more of a mixture.
> ...


It could be that those Dutch-Anglo-Saxons you refer to represent the North-West-Block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock), which are considered only partially as germanic. The Scandinavians with their elevated R1a and eastern component would then represent the true original germanic population. There are a few satem influences in germanic languages too. It is also interesting that East-Germanic is extinct, such that there is only north germanic and west germanic left today. The latter might have been the not so germanic north-west-block dialect (gemanized celts?). German language of today Germany also belongs to the west germanic dialect, and the R1a here could indeed stem partially from recent slavic or baltic sources, but I don't think this is the case for scandinavia (north germanic dialects).

----------


## Jackson

Yes i think you are right there - I've heard of this North-West-Block before, and that area corresponds quite strongly with the Germanic place-name connections between England and the continent, while there is some connection with southern Denmark and Northern Germany, the is also a large connection with Northwest Germany, the Netherlands and all the way down to Belgium at the southern extent of the North-West-Block. This is just similar naming conventions but it it does seem to fit in with the genetic data too, in any sense if there is a connection between England and the continent then it is strongest with the North-West-Block it seems.

That's interesting about East Germanic dying out, looking at that map of R1a1a posted above it seems that it was a major component of the Nordic Bronze Age (presumably?), and some of it south of Scandinavia is later Slavic expansion, although i would have thought that on Germany's Baltic coasts it would be more Baltic contribution?

I think it's a funny argument in regards to defining what is 'Germanic', because surely the Germanic language was forged from the mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations - So i would have thought that by definition Germanic peoples are a mixture of Nordic and Celtic, with the modern Nordic peoples being primarily made up of the 'source population', and with modern West Germanic peoples being the product of this mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations in varying degrees. Although i would then suppose that migrations out of the historical Germanic areas would have been more like secondary migrations of Celticised Nordic peoples, (or Nordicised Celtic peoples?). 

Of course if you use modern Nordic populations as the original Germanic population, then West Germanic peoples are indeed more Celtic than Germanic genetically broadly speaking, but i suppose is difficult as to where to draw the line - As in that scenario most of the Germans that f.e the Romans encountered were just Germanicised (don't think that is actually a word) Celts with a chip on their shoulder from that perspective. In any case it looks like a rather messy continuum, but there is a relatively clear distinction between North Germanic and West Germanic peoples, and between Germanic and Celtic peoples, i guess someone could draw up 'zones' and see how they correlate geographically and linguistically.

Interesting stuff!

Kind Regards,
Sam Jackson

----------


## ElHorsto

> That's interesting about East Germanic dying out, looking at that map of R1a1a posted above it seems that it was a major component of the Nordic Bronze Age (presumably?), and some of it south of Scandinavia is later Slavic expansion, although i would have thought that on Germany's Baltic coasts it would be more Baltic contribution?


According to history and any other evidence, north-eastern Germany was inhabited by Slavs, i.e. Obotrites, Polabians, Pommeranians. By looking at the map of Mecklenburg-Pomerania one can find 80% of place names being slavic (for instance Kritzmow, Schwerin, Barth, Lübeck, Rostock, Lüchow, Cottbus, Priwall). That stretches over to Lower-Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein. Or take Kramnitse as an example for Denmark. The river Elbe was the border in today northern Germany between old Germany and slavic lands. Magdeburg was a border town. Note, I'm skipping the south-german history here.
There is a vital slavic minority called Sorbs in today Germany, close to the czech and polish border. They are catholic, while the neighbouring germans are protestants. The region around Lüchow-Dannenberg in eastern Lower-Saxony was presumably polabian slavic speaking until 18th or 19th century.

The Baltic component should be not relevant, since original Prussians lived in north-eastern Poland and Lithuania. Although there have been recent post WWII refugees from Estonia and Königsberg (East-Prussia, today Kaliningrad, Russian enclave), who might have brought some Y-HG N to Germany.

Superficially, the slavic history could perfectly explain R1a and easterm components in west-germanic speaking northern Germany, while the north-germanic R1a has been shown to be related to central asia, and not to eastern europe. This is somewhat mysterious, however I still think that Corded-Ware people have brought it to scandinavia. I personally believe that Corded-Ware people were crucial for germanic ethnogenesis, and that they were predominantly R1a Indo-Europeans.
Still I can't understand why there is no significant genetic difference then between north-west and north-east germany, both having very typical germanic Y-lineages, similar to Norway (approx. 33% of each, R1b, I1, R1a, resp.). Further, the Y-lineage composition differs strongly from the slavic Poles and Sorbs, who have much more R1a. I did not expect such a strong genetic border.
Actually I'm missing information about the specific R1a lineages of northern Germany. If anyone can help me out here, that would be nice. If they turn out to be slavic, then the north-west german R1a still remains unexplained.




> I think it's a funny argument in regards to defining what is 'Germanic', because surely the Germanic language was forged from the mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations - So i would have thought that by definition Germanic peoples are a mixture of Nordic and Celtic, with the modern Nordic peoples being primarily made up of the 'source population',


Well, what is actually Nordic? I agree that I1 corresponds very well with today Scandinavians, but I still would bet its origin is from palaeolitic mediterranean-atlantic folks (Atlantic_med component) which came here either during the neolithic (TRB culture) or brought by second hand from travellers like the Samii or such. The original "Nordic" hunter-gatherer population was probably more related to R1a and N in my opinion.
The East European admixture map shows the K7 analysis, which I think is less meaningful than to K12. The K7 East European component peaks in the Baltic, exactly where North-European component peaks in K12. I think K7 East European is strongly overlapping with K12 North-European. Maybe it is merely a recent branch. To put it short: The various North-East-European admixture components look like a continuum.




> and with modern West Germanic peoples being the product of this mixing of Nordic and Celtic populations in varying degrees. Although i would then suppose that migrations out of the historical Germanic areas would have been more like secondary migrations of Celticised Nordic peoples, (or Nordicised Celtic peoples?).


That is also my impression.




> Of course if you use modern Nordic populations as the original Germanic population, then West Germanic peoples are indeed more Celtic than Germanic genetically broadly speaking, but i suppose is difficult as to where to draw the line - As in that scenario most of the Germans that f.e the Romans encountered were just Germanicised (don't think that is actually a word) Celts with a chip on their shoulder from that perspective. In any case it looks like a rather messy continuum, but there is a relatively clear distinction between North Germanic and West Germanic peoples, and between Germanic and Celtic peoples, i guess someone could draw up 'zones' and see how they correlate geographically and linguistically.


I also think that Southern Germany is more Celtic than northern Germany.

----------


## zanipolo

IMO, below is the old east-germanic marker ( goths, vandals, bastanae, heruli etc, etc) because I do not beleive that 100% of peoples migrated, I think a portion always remained back to secure a base.

*5.M6. Northern; sub-cluster 'B' (Type "Ib"/part of "WEA")
M417+, Z283+, Z280+
R1a1a1g2*
This is a moderately common cluster with members widely spread over a large portion of continental Europe, ranging from Western Germany to Russia, and from Denmark to Italy and Greece, although it seems to be most frequent in Poland, Eastern Germany, Ukraine and Slovakia.

The *M6* cluster is also known as type Ib in the classification by P. Gwozdz and L. Mayka. It corresponds roughly to the Western Eurasian branch 3 (red pins, A. Klyosov and I. Rozhanskii) and Vyatichi-East (Molgen.org).
The STR markers that distinguish this cluster from other sub-clusters within the broad category M are: 
DYS390>*24*, DYS19>*16*, DYS385b=*13*, DYS439=*11*, DYS458=*15*, DYS576=*17*, DYS570>*18*, DYS578=*8*, DYS520=*20*, DYS463=*25*, DYS643=*9* and DYS461=*12*. 

The *M6* cluster is negative for the *L784* SNP marker. 

*5.MX.**Close to Northern*
*M417+,** Z283+,* * Z280+*
*R1a1a1g2*
This is a group of haplotypes that basically resemble other haplotypes from the category M, although they don't fit any well-defined cluster.


The geographical distribution of the well-defined clusters *M5* and *M6*, together with the less specific *MX* grouping, is shown below:



And below I beleive are the "pure" slavic areas, as south slavs and russians are not IMO pure slavs

*5.O. Carpathian II (Type "B"/ "WEA-2")*
*M417+,** Z283+,* * Z280+*
*R1a1a1g2*



The map fits the so called slavic migration to the west as per polish historians

----------


## zanipolo

> It could be that those Dutch-Anglo-Saxons you refer to represent the North-West-Block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordwestblock), which are considered only partially as germanic. The Scandinavians with their elevated R1a and eastern component would then represent the true original germanic population. There are a few satem influences in germanic languages too. It is also interesting that East-Germanic is extinct, such that there is only north germanic and west germanic left today. The latter might have been the not so germanic north-west-block dialect (gemanized celts?). German language of today Germany also belongs to the west germanic dialect, and the R1a here could indeed stem partially from recent slavic or baltic sources, but I don't think this is the case for scandinavia (north germanic dialects).


I agree with you that the germanic people moved from north to south making "high German" a "dialect" of western german. So areas of southern germany and austria would fall under this dialect

----------


## ElHorsto

Thanks, interesting maps. "Northern" cluster representing old east germanic makes some sense, but I think it also must represent some slavic. Else I can not explain the lack of "Carpatian II" at baltic shores of germany and poland, if only Carpathian would represent slavs. Interesting how much there is in non-slavic speaking Romania, while it is lacking in slavic-speaking Bulgaria and Serbia.

----------


## zanipolo

> Thanks, interesting maps. "Northern" cluster representing old east germanic makes some sense, but I think it also must represent some slavic. Else I can not explain the lack of "Carpatian II" at baltic shores of germany and poland, if only Carpathian would represent slavs. Interesting how much there is in non-slavic speaking Romania, while it is lacking in slavic-speaking Bulgaria and Serbia.


well the baltic shores are classified as pommeranian-prussian , which comprise of the old rugii, legii, gepid, venedi, aestii people and baltic prussians

*5.J1. Pomeranian-Prussian; sub-cluster 'A' (Type "J"/part of "BC")*
*M417+, Z283+,** Z280+
**R1a1a1g2*
*5.J2. Pomeranian-Prussian; sub-cluster 'B' (Type "J"/part of "BC")**
M417+,** Z283+,** Z280+
**R1a1a1g2*
*
5.J3. Prussian (Type "Kw"/part of "CEA")
M417+,** Z283+,** Z280+, L366+
R1a1a1g2c*
*
5.J4. Austro-Hungarian cluster (- / part of "BC")
M417+,** Z283+,** Z280+
R1a1a1g2*
*
5.JX. Close to Pomeranian-Prussian (Type "J"/part of "BC")*
*M417+, Z283+, Z280+*
*R1a1a1g2*




*5.K. Pomeranian (Type "G"/"NE")*
*M417+,** Z283+,* * Z280+, L365+* 
*R1a1a1g2b*

This clade is relatively common on the South Baltic coast, especially in the Pomerania region. Most clade members live today in Poland or Germany (frequently bearing Slavic surnames).
Its most recent common ancestor could have lived 2900±400 years ago (as calculated by I. Rozhanskii).
The clade is also known as type G (by. P. Gwozdz) or Northern European branch (by A. Klyosov, I. Rozhanskii), while in the classification of Molgen.org it is also named Pomeranian (Forum.Molgen.org)

Among the characteristic values of Y-STR markers are: 
DYS458>*16*, DYS464=*13*-15-15-16, DYS413=*21*-22, DYS557>*15*, DYS446>*12*.

The clade has its own SNP mutation called *L365*.
The geographical distribution of L365+ is shown below:



The austro-hungarin cluster on the first map are said to be the ancient Rugii

----------


## ElHorsto

> well the baltic shores are classified as pommeranian-prussian , which comprise of the old rugii, legii, gepid, venedi, aestii people and baltic prussians


But the evidence of slavic toponyms in Mecklenburg-Pomerania is overwhelming. It is hard to find any non-slavic toponym there. Further, the *Pomeranian-Prussian* cluster in the map does not reach Mecklenburg and Schleswig-Holstein. It barely reaches west pomerania, if I understand the map correctly.

----------


## ElHorsto

> So I saw the autosomal DNA maps from this site from here:
> http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autoso..._dodecad.shtml
> 
> East-European-admixture.jpg
> 
> As a very curious thing,where norwegian vikings raided in UK (Scotland) there is more eastern-european admixture.
> In England and Wales and Ireland is almost no eastern european admixture.
> From what I know,but I might be wrong,anglo saxons came from present day Germany to England and after Y DNA it seems more paternal lines in England are from anglo-saxons.So is clear,old anglo-saxons were not bearing almost at all eastern european admixture.
> There is also known that normans moved to England,but I do not know how many from normans were norwegian vikings and I also do not know how many from normans were vikings and how many normans actually mixed the population of England.
> ...


The newer K12b analysis provides a completely different picture than these maps, which makes much more sense to me. In K12b, the "West_euro" component disappears and instead a new "Atlantic_Med" pops up with a peak in Basque country. The "East_european" component changes to "North_european", which stretches much more to the west than in this map, while still preserving its previous peak in fenno-balticum.

To put it short: I think both, the West and East european admixtures are no true components. According to K12b instead: 

West_euro = Atlantic_med + North_euro + Gedrosian
East_euro = North_euro + Caucasus

That means in some places like north Germany and Britain the yellow color in the map disappears too quickly because of the changing Caucasus and Gedrosian admixtures, which make up both a minority. But the North_euro part, which makes 80% of "East_european" is still present in NW-europe and represents a large overlap with east europeans.
In other places like south Germany and northern Balkans OTH, there might be too much yellow because of high Caucasus component. The problem here is that the Caucasus component probably is unrelated to eastern europeans there, but instead came from neolithic farmers which eventually met North_euro folks. This may create a false "East_european" yellow color there.
One speculative theory could be that Caucasus component (8%) got into eastern europe later and introduced satem language, while in Scandinavia and Atlantic coasts the Gedrosian (8%) component predominates instead.

----------


## zanipolo

> But the evidence of slavic toponyms in Mecklenburg-Pomerania is overwhelming. It is hard to find any non-slavic toponym there. Further, the *Pomeranian-Prussian* cluster in the map does not reach Mecklenburg and Schleswig-Holstein. It barely reaches west pomerania, if I understand the map correctly.


but names of places change over time, what was the mecklenburg names in roman times, i bet they where not slavic.

like danzig became gdansk...what was it in roman times?

the only "slavic" cluster for mecklenburg of R1a1 is


And again, claiming slavic due to linguistic reasons ruins the true genetic history

maybe this is not even mecklenburg!!

----------


## zanipolo

As genetics gets deeper and deeper into the genetic trail, then claims of R1a or R1a1 being this or that become less significant

----------


## ElHorsto

> but names of places change over time, what was the mecklenburg names in roman times, i bet they where not slavic.
> 
> like danzig became gdansk...what was it in roman times?
> 
> the only "slavic" cluster for mecklenburg of R1a1 is
> 
> 
> And again, claiming slavic due to linguistic reasons ruins the true genetic history
> 
> maybe this is not even mecklenburg!!


The point is that history of "Ostkolonisation" of the Slavs by the Saxon Ottones is well documented. So I'd expect considerable genetic traces. Perhaps this map may show what I was looking for. And you think this is not from slavs but from balts?

----------


## zanipolo

> The point is that history of "Ostkolonisation" of the Slavs by the Saxon Ottones is well documented. So I'd expect considerable genetic traces. Perhaps this map may show what I was looking for. And you think this is not from slavs but from balts?


what I am saying is that as these genetic trails deepen , then original names of ancient peoples should be revealed and not the linguistic names of tribes of people that medieval or ancient historians say they where.

So, was there slavic people, then which tribes where they?...there names!!!
*maybe* in mecklenburg where roxlani or alans ( sarmatian people). They could have been called slavs because they spoke a slavic dialect, only time will tell.
What is clear is the slavic claim that all the east europe was slavic is being diluted as time advances.

same with germany, being germanic in this forum says nothing, where you are macromanni or boii or osi, these are the questions you need to ask.
again, gallic...what is it?.....saying you are unelli person, will say you are from normandy, saying you are gallic tells me nothing.

This is how I see the picture here

----------


## ElHorsto

> what I am saying is that as these genetic trails deepen , then original names of ancient peoples should be revealed and not the linguistic names of tribes of people that medieval or ancient historians say they where.
> 
> So, was there slavic people, then which tribes where they?...there names!!!


*
*
The most prominent tribe was Obotrites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obotrites, I'm refering to Wikipedia since it is undisputed fact.
They were allies of Charlemagne against Saxons. Later they got integrated by the Saxons etc. There you can read the very detailed history.




> *maybe* in mecklenburg where roxlani or alans ( sarmatian people). They could have been called slavs because they spoke a slavic dialect, only time will tell.
> What is clear is the slavic claim that all the east europe was slavic is being diluted as time advances.
> same with germany, being germanic in this forum says nothing, where you are macromanni or boii or osi, these are the questions you need to ask.
> again, gallic...what is it?.....saying you are unelli person, will say you are from normandy, saying you are gallic tells me nothing.


So you mean that Obotrites were not slavic by origin? That's interesting and would be a new discovery.

----------


## zanipolo

> [/B]
> The most prominent tribe was Obotrites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obotrites, I'm refering to Wikipedia since it is undisputed fact.
> They were allies of Charlemagne against Saxons. Later they got integrated by the Saxons etc. There you can read the very detailed history.
> 
> 
> 
> So you mean that Obotrites were not slavic by origin? That's interesting and would be a new discovery.


there is the Wehli also spelt as per below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warini
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suardones

----------


## mihaitzateo

So actually north-western european admixture is pretty same with eastern european admixture?
Except northwestern european admixture is northern european admixture + few gedrosia while eastern european admixture is northern european admixture + some caucasian admixture?

----------


## ElHorsto

> So actually north-western european admixture is pretty same with eastern european admixture?
> Except northwestern european admixture is northern european admixture + few gedrosia while eastern european admixture is northern european admixture + some caucasian admixture?


You forgot the Atlantic_med for "North_West_european".

For example the Irish, who are modal by "North_West" component, suddenly breaks down by K12b into 42% Atlantic_med + 45% North_euro + 13% Gedrosian. The Basques in turn become the main spot of "Atlantic_med" by having 73% of it.

The Latvians for example, where "East_european" (and K12b North_euro) peaks, the "East_european" component dissolves into 75% North_euro and only 14% Atlantic_med, and 9% Caucasus.

As I said:

North_West_euro = 
+ Atlantic_med 
+ North_euro 
+ Gedrosian
- Caucasus

East_euro = 
- Atlantic_med 
+ North_euro 
- Gedrosian 
+ Caucasus

Somebody posted the link to the K12b table in the comments below the maps, so you can look by yourself:
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autoso..._dodecad.shtml

----------


## MOESAN

Interesting thread and answers -  
I shall try to put facts together  :Sad: keeping in mind that the pooling of autosomals is arbitrary)

north-eastern autosomals in Scotland is not so amazing – as I think they are linked to Y-R1a and Y-N1 for the bigger part, I remember a digest of survey about Vikings settlements in Brittain, specially about medieval coastal Lancashire and Cheshire that showed that then Y-I1 was lesser than today but Y-R1a was stronger – so this Vikings had different proportions than the most of Scandinavians (a blogger, Dublin I believe, spoke about Wends Vikings incorporated in Norwegian bands, - he considers them as Slavs but it is very astonishing ; Balts could fit better if it is true (all the way, Balts too have a lot of Y-R1a bearers – but it is just an hypothesis for now -  
concerning Y-R1a, Scandinavians present (according to someones) a cluster different from the majoritary one among Slavs – as think others, it is surely linked to the Corded Ware people, of steppic I-E origin – going farther I remember the linguistic links between germanic and slavic or baltic-slavic languages thought to be occurred in a pre-satemisation or early satemisation stage – I remember also to a survey finding a kind of basque and a kind of satem substrates in Saami's finnish and I think to Corded people -  
Corded People took part in the rising of germanic language but this germanic shows some common traits (and separate traits) with proto-celtic and proto-italic – the so called northwestern I-E language supposed to have been spoken between Belgium, the Netherland and Northwestern Germany could be the most important element in the germanic making – some scholars think it was closer to italic than to celtic : I have no idea of it (I regret) – in front of these facts I am tempted to think that a first wave of Corded people leaved Northern Germany and Baltic shores to cross to Sweden via Denmark, sending the partly satemised I-E into Scandinavia – only after went the I-E or indo-europeanized germanic speaking tribes to Scandinavia, being a melting of Y-R1b (more than an HG), Y-I1 and Y-R1a (the remnants of Northwest Corded people), with other « satellit » Hgs among whom Y-I1a2 could have been dominent (it is not so sure) -  
the Y-R1b-L21 could be linked to megalithic neolithic seafarers but in western Norway they have been surely reinforced by the irish slaves trafic occurred later (moderately because male slaves were not used as « reproducters » I suppose, female slaves rather) – the R1b-U106 << R-L11 << R-L51 was, I think, a long time ago yet on the Baltic shores where it had found some Y-I1 bearers (ancient nordic phenotypic traits among Scandinavians and Frisons),: some subclades of Y-I1 in Finnland and the presence of Y-I1 in far places of Northern Russia in pre-uralic pre-I-E cultures ( ) seams confirming the presence of Y-I1 before the Steppes peoples invasions – Y-I1 speaking a basquelike languages ??? Not so impossible -  
sure Y-I was in Scandinavia before Y-R1a ; it is not to affirm it was never completed by other Y-I1 came with germanized people – when we look at a map of SNPs distribution in Scandinavia we remark odd things :
-Y-I1 is slightly but regularly denser in South Scandinavia than in North (I keep on side Västerbotten for historic recent internal immigration from other corners of Sweden + Finnish-Lappish influences)
-Y-R1a is denser in northern and central and northern part of western Norway (Viking places) than in southern Norway and than in Sweden and Denmark !!!
-Y-R1b is denser in Denmark and in Aus-Agder (face to Denmark Jutland), dense enough in Sogn-&-Fjordane (northern part of Vikings coasts) and as a whole denser in western and southern Norway than in eastern or northern Norway – Sweden is there as eastern Norway, except Östergotland (east central) and Skaraborg, this last in Western Sweden -  
so Y-R1b came in different waves AND with different SNPs (Germanics, Maybe Cimbers, Celts slaves) -  
Y-R1a is old enough there yet, and could have send two types of languages successively -  
Y-I1, too strong in South to be born *only* by invaded autochtonous people – H. Hubert thought that a nordic element (Y-I1 ?) could have imposed finally the germanic first consonnants drift but it was already IN Germany -  
&: for today Germany, an heavy part of Y-R1a is linked to Slavs : two impacts : Middle Ages after the Folks Wanderung, when slav tribes reached so far as Hamburg and Schleswig, and our era (this late impact confirmed by patronymic polish names, the most in Eastern Germany but some emigration too in coal bassins of Western Germany – different R1a from the Corded steppic one -  
11 : A Scythic theory runs too about Scandinavia – legend or facts ? These Scythes surely had Y-R1a but here let us be carefull...  
I have no time to disgress here about scandinavian admixture of phenotypes but it could be interesting -

----------


## zanipolo

> Interesting thread and answers -  
> I shall try to put facts together keeping in mind that the pooling of autosomals is arbitrary)
> 
> north-eastern autosomals in Scotland is not so amazing – as I think they are linked to Y-R1a and Y-N1 for the bigger part, I remember a digest of survey about Vikings settlements in Brittain, specially about medieval coastal Lancashire and Cheshire that showed that then Y-I1 was lesser than today but Y-R1a was stronger – so this Vikings had different proportions than the most of Scandinavians (a blogger, Dublin I believe, spoke about Wends Vikings incorporated in Norwegian bands, - he considers them as Slavs but it is very astonishing ; Balts could fit better if it is true (all the way, Balts too have a lot of Y-R1a bearers – but it is just an hypothesis for now -  
> concerning Y-R1a, Scandinavians present (according to someones) a cluster different from the majoritary one among Slavs – as think others, it is surely linked to the Corded Ware people, of steppic I-E origin – going farther I remember the linguistic links between germanic and slavic or baltic-slavic languages thought to be occurred in a pre-satemisation or early satemisation stage – I remember also to a survey finding a kind of basque and a kind of satem substrates in Saami's finnish and I think to Corded people -  
> Corded People took part in the rising of germanic language but this germanic shows some common traits (and separate traits) with proto-celtic and proto-italic – the so called northwestern I-E language supposed to have been spoken between Belgium, the Netherland and Northwestern Germany could be the most important element in the germanic making – some scholars think it was closer to italic than to celtic : I have no idea of it (I regret) – in front of these facts I am tempted to think that a first wave of Corded people leaved Northern Germany and Baltic shores to cross to Sweden via Denmark, sending the partly satemised I-E into Scandinavia – only after went the I-E or indo-europeanized germanic speaking tribes to Scandinavia, being a melting of Y-R1b (more than an HG), Y-I1 and Y-R1a (the remnants of Northwest Corded people), with other « satellit » Hgs among whom Y-I1a2 could have been dominent (it is not so sure) -  
> the Y-R1b-L21 could be linked to megalithic neolithic seafarers but in western Norway they have been surely reinforced by the irish slaves trafic occurred later (moderately because male slaves were not used as « reproducters » I suppose, female slaves rather) – the R1b-U106 << R-L11 << R-L51 was, I think, a long time ago yet on the Baltic shores where it had found some Y-I1 bearers (ancient nordic phenotypic traits among Scandinavians and Frisons),: some subclades of Y-I1 in Finnland and the presence of Y-I1 in far places of Northern Russia in pre-uralic pre-I-E cultures ( ) seams confirming the presence of Y-I1 before the Steppes peoples invasions – Y-I1 speaking a basquelike languages ??? Not so impossible -  
> sure Y-I was in Scandinavia before Y-R1a ; it is not to affirm it was never completed by other Y-I1 came with germanized people – when we look at a map of SNPs distribution in Scandinavia we remark odd things :
> -Y-I1 is slightly but regularly denser in South Scandinavia than in North (I keep on side Västerbotten for historic recent internal immigration from other corners of Sweden + Finnish-Lappish influences)
> ...


while I agree with most of what you say, ftdna has these for sweden
http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/swedes.html

The problem is that per percentage of slave holding people the vikings where number 1 ( but this does not mean numerical majority as vikings where not that numerous) , with this slave "labour" force the genetics could change even though pagan sacrifices where a norm. The raids on baltic lands for slaves especially, samogitia ( balts) and the island of Osel ( finn) would mix the race.

As you will notice in the link inside the link i provided, the R1a1 in sweden did not come from the finns or balts but the germans

----------


## MOESAN

> while I agree with most of what you say, ftdna has these for sweden
> http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/swedes.html
> 
> The problem is that per percentage of slave holding people the vikings where number 1 ( but this does not mean numerical majority as vikings where not that numerous) , with this slave "labour" force the genetics could change even though pagan sacrifices where a norm. The raids on baltic lands for slaves especially, samogitia ( balts) and the island of Osel ( finn) would mix the race.
> 
> As you will notice in the link inside the link i provided, the R1a1 in sweden did not come from the finns or balts but the germans


Thanks for the link - I 'll try to understand itV.
concerning Y-R1a, maybe I habe not been clear enough but I thought it was common with the majority Germans R1a - my guess is that this first germanic R1a is of a previous steppic model (Corded mediated) and that it was too the dominent R1a among inhabitants of South Baltic shores about the 3000 BC, not obligatory of the present day Baltic or Finnic people!
for Y-R1B-L21 I remain cautious because it do not believe it was the male slaves that passed a huge quantity of genes to descendance (more by female ones) -it is surely worth for Irish slavs and for Slavic slaves???
good brain storm to all of us!

----------


## ElHorsto

> there is the Wehli also spelt as per below
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warini
> and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suardones


Insteresting, it seems like the origin of the name Schwerin is not certain. But in the official history of that town it is assumed to be derived from slavic _zvěŕin._ But according to Wikipedia, there are also alternative interpretarions:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_Sch...Namensherkunft

That Suardone's one is not mentioned, but also possible, why not.
I agree with you that it is valid to speculate about assimilation of east germanic tribes by slavs.

----------


## MOESAN

just a question:
are not the Northern's and the Scandinavian's STRs of Y-R1a linked tightly within them? beacuse some STRs could be very young
thanks for an answer from the well informed bloggers

----------


## Adam

> but names of places change over time, what was the mecklenburg names in roman times, i bet they where not slavic.
> 
> like danzig became gdansk...what was it in roman times?
> 
> the only "slavic" cluster for mecklenburg of R1a1 is
> 
> And again, claiming slavic due to linguistic reasons ruins the true genetic history
> 
> maybe this is not even mecklenburg!!


With Danzig/Gdansk I believe I can help. Both German and Polish names are coming from original Kashubian version "Gduńsk" (should read like "gdoonisk" - 'ni' or 'ń' is soft 'n'). Kashubian are Slavs speaking quite ancient version of Slavic language. Pre-slavic core of 'gd' is marking wet or marshy place or area. As far as I know 'Gduńsk' means "marshy island" or "marshy penisula on the river bank"
You are right that the names changes over times, but the core or appendixes are remaining. For example Kashubian "Gduńsk" evolved into Polish "Gdańsk" which evolved into German Danzig. In oposite German "Marienburg" evolved into Polish "Malbork". Specialists can easily find that core and appendix in word "Malbork" are not of Polish origin in the same way as they find that "Gduńsk" has core of non-German origin. When El-Horsto is writing about strong evidence regarding Slavic toponyms he has realy undisputed evidence, not only linguistic but archeological as well.

What concerns calling R1a1 "Slavic"cluster I believe it is a bit exaggeration. I would rather call it "pre-balto-slavic" or "indoeuropean - pre-slavic". Even I am Polish and Slav I do not believe that we can say about Slavic "etnos" shortly after R1a1 appeared. 
However, it is hard to miss that population with cluster R1a and R1a1 was rather active in the history. We can find their descendants far in Asia including India  :Grin:  
So, why not on British Isles which are much closer. By the way, I know that Slavic Princes and Kings were employing Vikings as "professional military personnel" and in exchange Slavs were taking part in some Viking expeditions within Baltic Sea area or even further. So, they had many opportunities to "exchange the blood" or leave the traces like R1a1 cluster in some distant areas in Europe.

----------


## zanipolo

> With Danzig/Gdansk I believe I can help. Both German and Polish names are coming from original Kashubian version "Gduńsk" (should read like "gdoonisk" - 'ni' or 'ń' is soft 'n'). Kashubian are Slavs speaking quite ancient version of Slavic language. Pre-slavic core of 'gd' is marking wet or marshy place or area. As far as I know 'Gduńsk' means "marshy island" or "marshy penisula on the river bank"
> You are right that the names changes over times, but the core or appendixes are remaining. For example Kashubian "Gduńsk" evolved into Polish "Gdańsk" which evolved into German Danzig. In oposite German "Marienburg" evolved into Polish "Malbork". Specialists can easily find that core and appendix in word "Malbork" are not of Polish origin in the same way as they find that "Gduńsk" has core of non-German origin. When El-Horsto is writing about strong evidence regarding Slavic toponyms he has realy undisputed evidence, not only linguistic but archeological as well.
> 
> What concerns calling R1a1 "Slavic"cluster I believe it is a bit exaggeration. I would rather call it "pre-balto-slavic" or "indoeuropean - pre-slavic". Even I am Polish and Slav I do not believe that we can say about Slavic "etnos" shortly after R1a1 appeared. 
> However, it is hard to miss that population with cluster R1a and R1a1 was rather active in the history. We can find their descendants far in Asia including India  
> So, why not on British Isles which are much closer. By the way, I know that Slavic Princes and Kings were employing Vikings as "professional military personnel" and in exchange Slavs were taking part in some Viking expeditions within Baltic Sea area or even further. So, they had many opportunities to "exchange the blood" or leave the traces like R1a1 cluster in some distant areas in Europe.


In original place names literature/book , gdansk came from gutisk , a gothic word, it's original name was Gutiskanja , which meant gothic peninsula. and I also found this

*a Gothic name, from Gutisk-anja, "end of the Goths,"* .......the latinised word was Gothiscandza

Original name was mid iron-age,

----------


## zanipolo

Goths where originally R1a, then picked up I1 when they went to sweden and returned back to the pommeranian/vistula area.

IIRC , KN stated a few months ago the I1-Z63 was thought to be gothic .....it was in rootsweb site somewhere.

I wonder what DNA they picked up on there way in absorbing the Aestii, Venedi, peucini, bastanae, sarmatians, gepids, getae etc etc into their armies while settling on the black sea

----------


## ElHorsto

> Goths where originally R1a, then picked up I1 when they went to sweden and returned back to the pommeranian/vistula area.


However, this was before the huge slavic expansion. Yet it could be that "extinct" east germanic tribes were slavicised or were even participating in the slavic ethnogenesis, since slavs appeared quite late in history and increased quickly a lot by numbers. Slavs probably assimilated balts as well.

----------


## MOESAN

> Goths where originally R1a, then picked up I1 when they went to sweden and returned ba _IIRC , KN stated a few months ago the I1-Z63 was thought to be gothic .....it was in rootsweb site somewhere.
> _I wonder what DNA they picked up on there way in absorbing the Aestii, Venedi, peucini, bastanae, sarmatians, gepids, getae etc etc into their armies while settling on the black sea


 _
1- what do we know about origin of Goths ?: almost nothing, i suppose ; their myths were contradicted (without any proof) and a scandinavian origin refused to them by someones – let's imagine their cradle was South the Baltic shores : I don't think Y-R1a (whatever the SNP) was the only kind of population there about the -3000/-2500: I think Y-I1 bearers were there before, and that since Chalcolithic and maybe sooner some Y-R1b-U106 begun already to mix with them (I 'm almost sure of two waves of Y-I1 into Scandinavia : a first one which gave birth to the 'norse' and 'finnic' SNPs, and a second wave, closer to the anglo-saxon SNPs and that landed in Scandinavia from South with Proto-Germanics or completely evolved Germanics (debated) - 
_
_2- Y-R1a had more than a wave getting westwards : if I could rely on some affirmations I would say : some ancient maybe central-european variety (L664?) close yet to Z85-M417, that could represent an old elite 'centum' (proto-celto-italico-germanic? Danau way?), very rare today - a Z284 variety that could be from the Corded, shared by old Germans and Scandinavians and send to Scotland by Vikings, shared too maybe by first Pre-Balto-Slavic – the famous M458 of the Slavs from the Dniestr/Dniepr region, seamingly the result of a founder-effect giving the crow of previous well defined Slav tribes and that can be seen in Germany, in Eastern germany for the most, and send there by the Middle Ages slavic colonizations of Germany which went until South Schleswig, I red I regret I have not at hand %s of all the R1a SNPs in these countries, I have only the 'pole' regions of some common SNPs-_ 

_3- I don't think 'caucasic' have e big weight in the 'North-east autosomals component in yellow: the center of gravity is very too centered around Lituhania - I think there is a difference between a possible 'North' (not 'North-West') component and a 'North-East' one, the two distinct from an 'Atlantic' one, not 'North-West' ('North-West- = confusion 'Atlantic'+'North') - all the way Scotland received more Viking blood (+ some Slavic elements? >> excess of R&a+Q?) and that could explain very well the little excess of North-East component - 



_

----------


## zanipolo

> However, this was before the huge slavic expansion. Yet it could be that "extinct" east germanic tribes were slavicised or were even participating in the slavic ethnogenesis, since slavs appeared quite late in history and increased quickly a lot by numbers. Slavs probably assimilated balts as well.


I doubt the goths where ever slavitized , the germanic people according to Roman historians where on the Dniester river, Bastanae to the south and Peucini north of them, the Finni where north of the peucini on the baltic sea. The goths language has no slavic or baltic that I can tell. They did vacate the pommerian vistula area by 200AD ( of course not 100% of people ever moved when they migrated, it was not the system like the red-indians of the north americas.

The norse invaded the shore lines and I presume came in from the east and occupied the middle. You need to remember, if the slavs came in earlier, then the east-germanic migrations, of Lombards, burgundians, rugii, heruli etc etc could never have happened.

----------


## zanipolo

> _
> 1- what do we know about origin of Goths ?: almost nothing, i suppose ; their myths were contradicted (without any proof) and a scandinavian origin refused to them by someones – let's imagine their cradle was South the Baltic shores : I don't think Y-R1a (whatever the SNP) was the only kind of population there about the -3000/-2500: I think Y-I1 bearers were there before, and that since Chalcolithic and maybe sooner some Y-R1b-U106 begun already to mix with them (I 'm almost sure of two waves of Y-I1 into Scandinavia : a first one which gave birth to the 'norse' and 'finnic' SNPs, and a second wave, closer to the anglo-saxon SNPs and that landed in Scandinavia from South with Proto-Germanics or completely evolved Germanics (debated) - 
> _
> _2- Y-R1a had more than a wave getting westwards : if I could rely on some affirmations I would say : some ancient maybe central-european variety (L664?) close yet to Z85-M417, that could represent an old elite 'centum' (proto-celto-italico-germanic? Danau way?), very rare today - a Z284 variety that could be from the Corded, shared by old Germans and Scandinavians and send to Scotland by Vikings, shared too maybe by first Pre-Balto-Slavic – the famous M458 of the Slavs from the Dniestr/Dniepr region, seamingly the result of a founder-effect giving the crow of previous well defined Slav tribes and that can be seen in Germany, in Eastern germany for the most, and send there by the Middle Ages slavic colonizations of Germany which went until South Schleswig, I red I regret I have not at hand %s of all the R1a SNPs in these countries, I have only the 'pole' regions of some common SNPs-_ 
> 
> _3- I don't think 'caucasic' have e big weight in the 'North-east autosomals component in yellow: the center of gravity is very too centered around Lituhania - I think there is a difference between a possible 'North' (not 'North-West') component and a 'North-East' one, the two distinct from an 'Atlantic' one, not 'North-West' ('North-West- = confusion 'Atlantic'+'North') - all the way Scotland received more Viking blood (+ some Slavic elements? >> excess of R&a+Q?) and that could explain very well the little excess of North-East component - 
> 
> 
> 
> _


?
I do not understand, we have their language , there history , there archeology all recorded.

The lived as per polish and sedish evidence, between the oder and Nogat river, they firstly migrated to Sweden , then came back and migrated to the black sea.......of course they absorbed many people/tribes, destroyed the Sarmatians etc

R1a did not arrive only with the slavs, it was already in the area before the slavs where even "born"
http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm

The I1 on the shores of Poland was both the gothic venture to sweden , absorbing the populance and late nordic people settling there

----------


## MOESAN

> ?
> I do not understand, we have their language , there history , there archeology all recorded.
> 
> The lived as per polish and sedish evidence, between the oder and Nogat river, they firstly migrated to Sweden , then came back and migrated to the black sea.......of course they absorbed many people/tribes, destroyed the Sarmatians etc
> 
> R1a did not arrive only with the slavs, it was already in the area before the slavs where even "born"
> http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/gazociag/title5.htm
> 
> The I1 on the shores of Poland was both the gothic venture to sweden , absorbing the populance and late nordic people settling there


_I don't understand why you don't understand! (smile)
1 and 2 in my answer concerns the different possibilities and periods for Y-R1a to be there and also the others HGs it could have found in Northern Europe at ancient times: I maintain!
3 is about the supposed weight of caucasic autosomals in the so called 'northeastern component' and the astonishment of some posters about presence of this component in Scotland
concerning Goths, I don't affirm something precise, I just show my "disarray" in front of a lot of contradictory affirmations about them... If you know something solid and precise about their birth history, please send me a digest by personal message, I 'll be glad to inform myself. No offense
_

----------


## ElHorsto

> I doubt the goths where ever slavitized , the germanic people according to Roman historians where on the Dniester river, Bastanae to the south and Peucini north of them, the Finni where north of the peucini on the baltic sea. The goths language has no slavic or baltic that I can tell.


The challenge would be not to find slavic words in gothic, but gothic words in slavic.




> They did vacate the pommerian vistula area by 200AD ( of course not 100% of people ever moved when they migrated, it was not the system like the red-indians of the north americas.


Seems like you agree then that some east germanics could have possibly remained in east europe.




> The norse invaded the shore lines and I presume came in from the east and occupied the middle. You need to remember, if the slavs came in earlier, then the east-germanic migrations, of Lombards, burgundians, rugii, heruli etc etc could never have happened.


That's why I said that Slavs appeared late, not early. Hence I wonder whether slavs came to existence by mixture of east germanic remnants, antes, balkanians and/or balts. Else it is a mystery how half of europe became slavic suddenly, when right before almost nobody knew about them. Maybe the hunnic and mongolic threads during the migration period pushed alliances and unifications among east european tribes. The gothic kingdom was very large and included belarus and large parts of russia and ukraine, until the huns destroyed it. The gothic people was in big trouble then. Some historians believe that gothic language remnants were still living in 18th century CE at Crimea.

----------


## Taranis

> The challenge would be not to find slavic words in gothic, but gothic words in slavic.


Actually there's a substantial input of Germanic words into Proto-Slavic, starting with Proto-Germanic and then later Gothic or otherwise East Germanic. Some notable borrowings include the words for beech (Rus. бук, "_buk_", cf. German "_Buche"_), bread (Rus. хлеб, "_khleb_", cf. German "_Laib_"), helmet (Rus. шлем, "_shlem_") and onion (Rus. лук, "_luk_", cf. German "_Lauch_").

The Proto-Slavic-speaking peoples must have had either centuries of contact with Germanic-speaking peoples before the Proto-Slavic language began to separate into it's daughter branches, or perhaps absorbed a large number of Germanic speakers. I tend to think both is the case.




> Seems like you agree then that some east germanics could have possibly remained in east europe.


There were not _only_ East Germanic tribes in the area that became later Slavic: before the migration period, there were no East Germanic tribes living in the areas along the Elbe and Saale rivers and in Bohemia. Likewise, the areas of the Western Balkans and the Pannonian basin (eg. the areas which are today South Slavic) were probably inhabited by Late Latin / Romance speakers, and possibly whatever little remained by that time of the pre-Roman languages in the area.




> That's why I said that Slavs appeared late, not early. Hence I wonder whether slavs came to existence by mixture of east germanic remnants, antes, balkanians and/or balts. Else it is a mystery how half of europe became slavic suddenly, when right before almost nobody knew about them. Maybe the hunnic and mongolic threads during the migration period pushed alliances and unifications among east european tribes. The gothic kingdom was very large and included belarus and large parts of russia and ukraine, until the huns destroyed it. The gothic people was in big trouble then.





> Some historians believe that gothic language remnants were still living in 18th century CE at Crimea.


Crimean Gothic certainly survived until the 16th century: the then Austrian ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq, recorded a large list of Crimean Gothic terms. An online version can be found here.

----------


## zanipolo

> _I don't understand why you don't understand! (smile)
> 1 and 2 in my answer concerns the different possibilities and periods for Y-R1a to be there and also the others HGs it could have found in Northern Europe at ancient times: I maintain!
> 3 is about the supposed weight of caucasic autosomals in the so called 'northeastern component' and the astonishment of some posters about presence of this component in Scotland
> concerning Goths, I don't affirm something precise, I just show my "disarray" in front of a lot of contradictory affirmations about them... If you know something solid and precise about their birth history, please send me a digest by personal message, I 'll be glad to inform myself. No offense
> _


People refer to north caucasian ( ossetians, dagesians etc ) as caucasian when they should be refered as volga-basin people, while caucasian should only mean georgian, azeri, lezkins and armenians.
you just need to be careful on what these people actually mean.

Recent historical books, scientific archeology from both Polish and swedish people have confirmed what I said
http://www.daastol.com/books/Nordgre...ingofGoths.pdf

above link from page 373 might answer you....its a difficult read. Book is only a few years old but covers everything. The first part of the book covers ancient pagan folklore on how the goths originated in jutland and moved east along the coast. From page 373 there is more archeology from polish people.

----------


## zanipolo

> The challenge would be not to find slavic words in gothic, but gothic words in slavic.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like you agree then that some east germanics could have possibly remained in east europe.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I said that Slavs appeared late, not early. Hence I wonder whether slavs came to existence by mixture of east germanic remnants, antes, balkanians and/or balts. Else it is a mystery how half of europe became slavic suddenly, when right before almost nobody knew about them. Maybe the hunnic and mongolic threads during the migration period pushed alliances and unifications among east european tribes. The gothic kingdom was very large and included belarus and large parts of russia and ukraine, until the huns destroyed it. The gothic people was in big trouble then. Some historians believe that gothic language remnants were still living in 18th century CE at Crimea.


they only became slavic late in history and only because of the slavic tongue, similar is the southern germany/austrian areas became germanic because of language after the fall of the roman empire..........of course some migration/invasions did happen.

The only reason the goths moved from the black sea area after being there 200 plus years was because the hunnic invasions happened

----------


## zanipolo

The slavics could only have picked up the gothic words once the goths settled on the black sea, history says the goths destroyed the sarmatians and absorbed part of the population

----------


## MOESAN

thanks for links and explanations (Zanipolo, Taranis)
Taranis: where do you place the contact zone for proto-germanic/proto-slavic ??? your position could imply the proto-germanic was very continental at first: or could it be a fated culture language (I think in Corded people) that was at the articulation of the two groups? maybe could you explain me how are proved the direction of loaning words in these cases? (some examples)
thank beforehand

----------


## Taranis

> thanks for links and explanations (Zanipolo, Taranis)
> Taranis: where do you place the contact zone for proto-germanic/proto-slavic ??? your position could imply the proto-germanic was very continental at first: or could it be a fated culture language (I think in Corded people) that was at the articulation of the two groups? maybe could you explain me how are proved the direction of loaning words in these cases? (some examples)
> thank beforehand


My opinion is that the Proto-Slavs originally lived at the eastern edge of the forest zone (for me, the Milograd Culture is a good candidate for being speakers of very early Proto-Slavic). As I may have mentioned a couple of times, there is a substantial amount of Celtic loanwords into early Germanic: most of these must have entered _before_ Grimm's Law occured. In contrast, all of the Germanic borrowings into Slavic occured _after_ Grimm's Law happened. So, in my opinion contact didn't happen until late 1st century BC (contact with tribes such as the early Goths and Bastarnae?), but after that the contact could have spanned the entire time period until in the wake of the migration period (when Proto-Slavic began to break up).

(As for how the direction of borrowing is proved: this is a very good question indeed!
- the Germanic word for "beech" has cognates in Gaulish ("_bāgos_"), Latin ("_fāgus_") and Greek (φηγος, "_phēgos_"), which suggests that the ancestral root was _*bhāgo-_. Now the expected Slavic reflex of that would be _*bag_, which differs from the observed "_buk_", hence must have arrived in Slavic via Germanic mediation. In the same manner we'd expect _*slem-_ rather than _*ʃlem-_)

A quick word on Y-Haplogroup R1a: it should be obvious that the presence of R1a in Europe vastly predates the ethnogenesis of both the Germanic and Slavic peoples.

----------


## MOESAN

> My opinion is that the Proto-Slavs originally lived at the eastern edge of the forest zone (for me, the Milograd Culture is a good candidate for being speakers of very early Proto-Slavic). As I may have mentioned a couple of times, there is a substantial amount of Celtic loanwords into early Germanic: most of these must have entered _before_ Grimm's Law occured. In contrast, all of the Germanic borrowings into Slavic occured _after_ Grimm's Law happened. So, in my opinion contact didn't happen until late 1st century BC (contact with tribes such as the early Goths and Bastarnae?), but after that the contact could have spanned the entire time period until in the wake of the migration period (when Proto-Slavic began to break up).
> 
> (As for how the direction of borrowing is proved: this is a very good question indeed!
> - the Germanic word for "beech" has cognates in Gaulish ("_bāgos_"), Latin ("_fāgus_") and Greek (φηγος, "_phēgos_"), which suggests that the ancestral root was _*bhāgo-_. Now the expected Slavic reflex of that would be _*bag_, which differs from the observed "_buk_", hence must have arrived in Slavic via Germanic mediation. In the same manner we'd expect _*slem-_ rather than _*ʃlem-_)
> 
> A quick word on Y-Haplogroup R1a: it should be obvious that the presence of R1a in Europe vastly predates the ethnogenesis of both the Germanic and Slavic peoples.


_thanks for quick and clear answer!
So the slavic speakers with germanic speakers (in their well evolved forms) 's contacts are recent enough - 
are there not common words or roots that could show earlier contacts in the not achieved evolution of balto-slavic and germanic (a kind of "proto-" stage)? I 'am still thinking in Corded's culture here... 
for Y-R1a I agree, no question - Corded people surely was Y-R1a dominant and some rare ancient forms of Y-R1a found today among celtic and germanic (# Corded 's one) countries could even have reached Western Europe before Corded or at the same time but by other ways (I believe the scandinavian R1a are for the most of Corded's times) - this kind of R1a became the future "germanic" R1a -
_

----------

