Do the Mordvins, Chuvash and Tatars descend from Carpathian Goths ?

Maciamo

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,194
Reaction score
3,611
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
In the thread about the distribution of R1b-Z2103, I started analysing the Y-DNA data from the new Trofimova et al. 2015 paper in Russian (English summary here). I noticed that the Volga-Ural ethnic groups could be divided in four categories:

1) Uralic speakers with over 50% of Uralic Y-DNA (N1c1): Mari, Komi, Udmurts and Besermyans.

2) Uralic speakers with only a little bit of Uralic Y-DNA, but a lot of Germanic, Slavic and Balkanic Y-DNA : Mordvins (aka Mordovians).

3) Turkic speakers with a little Uralic and Turkic (N1c2) Y-DNA, and otherwise mostly Proto-Indo-European Y-DNA (R1a and R1b) : Bashkirs.

4) Turkic speakers with a little Uralic and Turkic (N1c2) Y-DNA, but a lot of Germanic, Slavic and Balkanic Y-DNA : Chuvash and Tatars.

What piqued my interest is the unique blend of Germanic, Slavic and Balkanic lineages found among the Mordovians, Chuvash and Tatars, who live side by side west of the Middle Volga region. This immediately reminded me of the genetic blend presumably brought by the Goths to Italy and Spain as originally discussed here and summarised here.

The combination of Germanic (I1, I2a2a, R1b-U106), Slavic (R1aCTS1211, R1a-Z282 and R1a-M458) and Balkanic (E-M78, G2a3, I2a1b, J1, J2a, J2b) lineages suggests that the Mordovians, Chuvash and Tatars could be descended from a branch of the 4th-century Goths from the Chernyakhov culture in Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine. This is further corroborated by the very strong similarity in names between Moldova and Mordova. Mordovians could therefore be Uralicized Moldovans.

The Near Eastern haplogroups do look as if they had come straight from the Balkans and Carpathians because:


  1. The dominant haplogroup is E-M78 (including E-V13 confirmed from FTDNA projects), not the Middle Eastern E-M34, which is completely absent.
  2. About half of haplogroup J2 is the Balkanic J2b. The roughly 50-50 proportion between J2a and J2b is only found in Southeast Europe.
  3. Most of the G2a is the (Indo-)European G2a3b1, not Middle Eastern subclades.
  4. There is some I2a1b too, which could either be Slavic or Balkanic.
  5. J1 is the rarest haplogroup, contrarily to the Middle East where it is the second most common after J2a.

Trofimova et al. 2015 only tests about 50 samples from each ethnicity, which is not very representative in terms of frequencies, but gives a very good idea of what haplogroups are present in each group.

Mordovians

- Germanic : 3.4% of I1, 3.4% of R1b-U106 (aka M405 or S21), 1.7% I2-M223 and 1.7% of R1a-M458

- Slavic : 32% of R1a-CTS1211 and 1.7% of R1a-Z282

- Balkanic : 10.2% of E-M78, 10.2% of J2b, 5.1% of J2a, 3.4% of G2a3b1, and 1.7% of J*.

- Uralic : 10% of N1c1

- Turkic : 0% of N1c2


Chuvash

- Germanic : 7% of I1, and 4.7% of R1a-M458

- Slavic : 18.6% of R1a-CTS1211 and 2.3% of R1a-Z282

- Balkanic : 14% of E-M78, 9.3% of J2a, 4.7% of J2b,4.7% of I2a1b, and 2.3% of J1.

- Uralic : 18.6% of N1c1

- Turkic : 9.3% of N1c2


Tatars

- Germanic : 9.5% of I1, 7% of R1b-U106, 3.9% of R1a-M458 and 1% I2-M223

- Slavic : 6.8% of R1a-CTS1211 and 1% of R1a-Z282

- Balkanic : 8% of G2a3, 7.9% of J2a, 4% of J2b, 3% of E-M78, 2% of I2a1b and 1% of J1.

- Uralic : 15.3% of N1c1

- Turkic : 10.8% of N1c2

- Mongolian : 3.9% of C, 2% of Q, 1% of O

The main difference between the three groups is that only the Chuvash and Tatars carry about 10% of Turkic N1c2, which explains why they are Turkic speakers today. The Tatars also have 7% of Mongolian Y-DNA, surely an heritage of Genghis Khan's empire.

My hypothesis is that one group of Carpathian Goths migrated east across Ukraine and settled west of the Volga, where they mixed with the local Uralic (N1c1 + R1a-Z93) speakers, whose language they adopted. In the 7th century, the Bulgars, Turkic speakers from Central Asia, invaded the Volga region and created the Kingdom of Volga Bulgaria in what is now Chuvashia and Tatarstan. This explains why only the Chuvash and Tatars mixed with them and became Turkic speakers. The Mordovians, who lived further west, with no connection to the Volga, remained Uralic speakers.


Goths or Swedish Vikings ?

The only other possibility for the presence of Germanic haplogroup in Middle Volga ethnic groups would be an introgression from the Varangian Vikings from Sweden. The Goths having also originated in Sweden, the haplogroup proportion would be very similar. In both cases we could expect I1 to be the largest haplogroup, followed by R1b-U106, which is exactly the case here.

The Varangians followed rivers on their drakars, including the Volga, which is why it cannot be excluded that they also contributed to some of the Germanic male lineages in the region, especially in Tatarstan, which is the region with the highest percentage of Germanic Y-DNA (24% among the Tuymazinsky Tatars). However there is no record (to my knowledge) of the Vikings ever coming to Mordovia, which is not adjacent to the Volga or any major river. I would therefore think that the Goths are the only candidate in their case. The Chuvash and Tatars may have complementary Gothic and Varangian Y-DNA.


I checked the I1 subclades in the FTDNA projects for Mordovia and Tatarstan, and found the following subclades (N.B. no I1 subclade tested for Chuvashia).

- Mordovians: Z59, Z60, Z63 (2x), Z140 (2x), CTS743

- Tatars : Z63 (2x)

All these subclades are continental Germanic. Not a single one of them belong to the Scandinavian/Viking L22 branch. In fact they are only two branches : the West Germanic Z59>Z60>Z140 (CTS743 is a side branch of Z140, downstream of Z73) and the continental Z63. I wouldn't draw any conclusion from only two Tatar samples, but the Mordovian samples certainly do not look Viking in origin, and all the subclades present are compatible with a Gothic origin. Z63 in particular looks overwhelmingly Gothic in origin, being present in Ukraine, the Balkans, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Z140 has also been found in Spain. Only Z73>CTS743 could be of Viking origin, as it is essentially found in Norway, Sweden and Finland. But it could also represent the branch of the Goths who remained in Scandinavia.
 
this is an intersting analyses and theory
as I don't have much knowledge of this matter, I don't have much to add, except what I read in your link re Chernyakhov culture :

[h=2]Decline[edit][/h]The Chernyakhov culture ends in the 5th century, attributed to the arrival of the Huns.[9] The collapse of the culture is no longer explained in terms of population displacement, although therewas an outmigration of Goths. Rather, more recent theories explain the collapse of the Chernyakhov culture in terms of a disruption of the hierarchical political structure that maintained it. John Mathews suggests that, despite its cultural homogeneity, a sense of ethnic distinction was kept between the disparate peoples. Some of the autochthonous elements persist,[10] and become even more widespread, after the demise of the Gothic elite – a phenomenon associated with the rise and expansion of the early Slavs.
So only the elite would have been displaced when the Huns arrived. Unless the Goths allowed ambitiuous autochtonic people to become part of the elite too, there would have no Balkanic nor Slavic DNA been displaced.
Converseley, if Balkanic and Slav DNA had become part of the Gothic elite, then it should also be found in Otrogoths and Visigoths
 
It is interesting and intriguing. To bad we have information hole of Dark Ages, from 500 to 1000 AD, to keep track what happened in the region. Perhaps population genetics can shine some light on it.
 
Maciamo, you say paradoxically that ”the Mordovian samples certainly do not look Viking in origin, and all the subclades present are compatible with a Gothic origin”. As Gothic homeland is said to be Sweden, you say instead that Goths arrived to Mordovia from the Carpathian basin: ”my hypothesis is that one group of Carpathian Goths migrated east across Ukraine and settled west of the Volga”. But, if Goths originally carried Scandinavian I1, why their I1 would have turned into Germanic I1 subclades in the Carpathian basin?

This map should show the route of the Goths to the southeast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostrogoths#mediaviewer/File:Chernyakhov.PNG
If the Gothic I1 should have changed into Germanic I1 there, I must note that that area has a high I2 frequency and I do not know if Z59, Z60, Z63 (2x), Z140 (2x), CTS743 are really frequent in the Carpathian basin.

Then, I did not find support in Wikipedia for your idea that Goths migrated to Mordovia. At least, this map is not saying that they headed east to the Russian heartland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period#mediaviewer/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

When you take a look at this map http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/figure/fig4/ you see that I1 frequency does not correlate very well with the Gothic migrations. What is your your theory for a high frequency of I1 in Northern Russia? There are somewhat higher frequencies of I1 also in Belarus, e.g. 6.8% in Central Belarus, 6.85% in Western Belarus, 8.26% in WP Belarus. Do you think that they are also a result of Germanic migrations?
 
Instead of saying "descend" can you say "have decent from". Y DNA doesn't tell the full story, but sometimes it's treated as if does on this forum.
 
Kristiina said:
Maciamo, you say paradoxically that ”the Mordovian samples certainly do not look Viking in origin, and all the subclades present are compatible with a Gothic origin”. As Gothic homeland is said to be Sweden, you say instead that Goths arrived to Mordovia from the Carpathian basin: ”my hypothesis is that one group of Carpathian Goths migrated east across Ukraine and settled west of the Volga”. But, if Goths originally carried Scandinavian I1, why their I1 would have turned into Germanic I1 subclades in the Carpathian basin?
Click to expand...

There is nothing paradoxical about it. All Germanic people have their roots in Scandinavia, but not all of them left Scandinavia. Imagine various ancient Germanic tribes as members of a large family. Those who moved out of the house aren't in the house anymore, but somewhere else. That's why I1 subclades have different geographic distributions today.

Kristiina said:
Then, I did not find support in Wikipedia for your idea that Goths migrated to Mordovia. At least, this map is not saying that they headed east to the Russian heartland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period#mediaviewer/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png
Click to expand...

If it was something already known from historical sources, what would be the point of this thread ? Nobody knew about it, but that's what DNA is telling us.

Kristiina said:
When you take a look at this map http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253976/figure/fig4/ you see that I1 frequency does not correlate very well with the Gothic migrations. What is your your theory for a high frequency of I1 in Northern Russia? There are somewhat higher frequencies of I1 also in Belarus, e.g. 6.8% in Central Belarus, 6.85% in Western Belarus, 8.26% in WP Belarus. Do you think that they are also a result of Germanic migrations?
Click to expand...

Why are you showing me distribution maps from a single isolated study, when I made much more reliable maps based on all studies published to date ?

All I1 is of Germanic origin, even in Belarus. Please read my history of haplogroup I1.
 
Maciamo said:
There is nothing paradoxical about it. All Germanic people have their roots in Scandinavia, but not all of them left Scandinavia. Imagine various ancient Germanic tribes as members of a large family. Those who moved out of the house aren't in the house anymore, but somewhere else. That's why I1 subclades have different geographic distributions today.



If it was something already known from historical sources, what would be the point of this thread ? Nobody knew about it, but that's what DNA is telling us.



Why are you showing me distribution maps from a single isolated study, when I made much more reliable maps based on all studies published to date ?

All I1 is of Germanic origin, even in Belarus. Please read my history of haplogroup I1.
Click to expand...

you need to incorporate this important group in your moldovan numbers

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19107901

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17147693


[/URL]
 
I appreciate your writing that ”evidence emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary that haplogroup I1 was in fact present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion. A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries.”'

”The small group of farmers from the early LBK culture from Hungary might have formed a blend of I1 and G2a men. Yet distinct families would have spread in different directions and met varying successes in their expansion. It would appear that a founder effect in the northern LBK population led to a sudden explosion of I1 lineages, perhaps in part thanks to their better knowledge of the Central European terrain and fauna (since hunting was typically practised side by side to agriculture to complement the farmers' diet).”

Why this Mordovian or Russian I1 could not have its origin in LBK and TRB? Mordovians have also other Neolithic haplogroups such as G2a, E-M78 and J2. Also Belarussians have G2, E-M78 and J2.
 
Maciamo!
I usually appreciate your posts but this is pure nonense.Too much science fiction.You lack knowledge on important issues such as history and linguistics.
 
Northern and Eastern Uralic people have many N1c2
N1c2 is not Turkic haplogroup
 
Kristiina said:
I appreciate your writing that ”evidence emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary that haplogroup I1 was in fact present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion. A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture, which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries.”'

”The small group of farmers from the early LBK culture from Hungary might have formed a blend of I1 and G2a men. Yet distinct families would have spread in different directions and met varying successes in their expansion. It would appear that a founder effect in the northern LBK population led to a sudden explosion of I1 lineages, perhaps in part thanks to their better knowledge of the Central European terrain and fauna (since hunting was typically practised side by side to agriculture to complement the farmers' diet).”

Why this Mordovian or Russian I1 could not have its origin in LBK and TRB? Mordovians have also other Neolithic haplogroups such as G2a, E-M78 and J2. Also Belarussians have G2, E-M78 and J2.
Click to expand...

I understand your confusion. The thing is that the Neolithic I1 sample belongs to a branch that is now extinct, or was just I1*. Apart from a handful of samples from Germany, the Netherlands or Britain (of probable Anglo-Saxon origin), all modern I1 people are positive for DF29 (I1a) or Z131 (I1b). Actually 99% of I1 today belong to subclades under L22, Z58, Z63 or CTS6364. The TMRCA ancestors for these deeper subclades is inferior to 3000 to 2500 years, and therefore would have originated during the Nordic Bronze Age or the Germanic Iron Age. All these subclades have members in Scandinavia and Germany. There isn't any major subclade that does not look Germanic at all. The I1 found in Belarus, Ukraine or Russia belongs to deep subclades also found in Scandinavia or Germany, not uniquely Slavic clades. For example, many Russian samples outside the Volga-Ural region belong to subclades such as L22>Y3549>Z74>L813+, L22>CTS2208>CTS5476+, Z58>Z59>Z60>L1302+ or Z58>Z59>Z60>Z140+, which all have very recent TMRCA (under 2000 years). The same is true for the Mordovian samples, who belong to deep subclades like DF29>Z58>Z59>Z60>Z140 or DF29>Z58>Z59>Z60>CTS7362>CTS9352>Z73>CTS743. This is why I can confidently say that all of them are Germanic.
 
If you go to Terry Rob’s page (http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/), you see that Z59 is as frequent in Russia as in Germany, also Z60 is as frequent in Russia as in Germany, Z63 is typical of Poland and Ukraine. Only Z140 is typically German. That means that only 3 out of 7 Mordovian I1 seem to have a clear Germanic origin.

As for the age estimations, the age of the Scandinavian cluster is 3400 BC and the age of the Finnish cluster is 3500 BC. The age of I1 in Germany is 4,400 BC and in Northern Europe 5,500 BC and nobody seems to have given an age estimate to I1 clades in Slavic countries and Russia.

According to Wikipedia, all Germanic languages are thought to be descended from a hypothetical Proto-Germanic, united by subjection to the sound shifts of Grimm's law and Verner's law. These probably took place during the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe from c. 500 BC. Acording to Wikipedia, the area of origin of Proto-Germanic looks very Scandinavian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language#mediaviewer/File:Nordic_Bronze_Age.png

The Funnelbeaker culture is dated c. 4300-2800 BC, and the Corded Ware culture 2900–2450/2350 cal. BC. North European I1 seems to have arisen at the time of the Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware cultures. That time frame coincides much better with the Proto-Indoeuropean than Germanic languages. Again according to Wikipedia ”Scholars estimate that PIE may have been spoken as a single language (before divergence began) around 3500 BC”.

However, I know that Indoeuropeans have a monopoly over R1a and R1b and Germanics a monopoly over I1.
 
Last edited:
Maciamo said:
I understand your confusion. The thing is that the Neolithic I1 sample belongs to a branch that is now extinct, or was just I1*. Apart from a handful of samples from Germany, the Netherlands or Britain (of probable Anglo-Saxon origin), all modern I1 people are positive for DF29 (I1a) or Z131 (I1b). Actually 99% of I1 today belong to subclades under L22, Z58, Z63 or CTS6364. The TMRCA ancestors for these deeper subclades is inferior to 3000 to 2500 years, and therefore would have originated during the Nordic Bronze Age or the Germanic Iron Age. All these subclades have members in Scandinavia and Germany. There isn't any major subclade that does not look Germanic at all. The I1 found in Belarus, Ukraine or Russia belongs to deep subclades also found in Scandinavia or Germany, not uniquely Slavic clades. For example, many Russian samples outside the Volga-Ural region belong to subclades such as L22>Y3549>Z74>L813+, L22>CTS2208>CTS5476+, Z58>Z59>Z60>L1302+ or Z58>Z59>Z60>Z140+, which all have very recent TMRCA (under 2000 years). The same is true for the Mordovian samples, who belong to deep subclades like DF29>Z58>Z59>Z60>Z140 or DF29>Z58>Z59>Z60>CTS7362>CTS9352>Z73>CTS743. This is why I can confidently say that all of them are Germanic.
Click to expand...
I don't want to jump too far in conclusions; but I wonder if Uralic is a European language group. (that developed originally in Europe; prior to Indo-European invasion.)

The Samoyeds and other Mongoloids who speak this language may have originally spoken Turkic; like the Yakuts. It is a wonder if Samoyeds were enslaved by Europeans and took these Uralic languages; after they were freed.

I can say that lots of Uralic speakers tend to carry Neolithic Y-DNA. Their Y-DNA is also very unusual. While Indo-Europeans are almost exclusively R1b and R1a; to a lesser extent, J2. Uralic speakers' Y-DNA is often heterogeneous; but mainly Neolithic in origin.

I overlooked the possibility of N1c existing in several races; but I am beginning to believe that it's possible some Europeans developed with N1c; without Mongoloid admixture. But I am guessing this happened prior to the Neolithic; when most races were probably still dark-skinned...

It would also explain why R1b migrated back into Africa and is prevalent in Cameroon. It would be an incredible discovery if Sub-Saharan blacks had Mongoloid and Caucasian ancestors; but I feel this theory is far too outlandish. It would make better sense that black men from Cameroon carrying R1b may have had a Negroid invasion from Central Asia. So it makes sense to me that Y-DNA R1b, N1c (as well as all Y-DNA that evolved descending from y-dna F) may have been originally negroid. They then mutated into several races later on; which explains why these haplogroups are seen in different races.

I am also theorizing that some subclades of Q1a may have been from Indo-Europeans; and might have migrated into Europe alongside with R1b and R1a.

Maciamo, what do you think of this theory?
 
Kristiina said:
If you go to Terry Rob’s page (http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/), you see that Z59 is as frequent in Russia as in Germany, also Z60 is as frequent in Russia as in Germany, Z63 is typical of Poland and Ukraine. Only Z140 is typically German. That means that only 3 out of 7 Mordovian I1 seem to have a clear Germanic origin.

As for the age estimations, the age of the Scandinavian cluster is 3400 BP and the age of the Finnish cluster is 3500 BP. The age of I1 in Germany is 4,400 BP and in Northern Europe 5,500 BP and nobody seems to have given an age estimate to I1 clades in Slavic countries and Russia.

According to Wikipedia, all Germanic languages are thought to be descended from a hypothetical Proto-Germanic, united by subjection to the sound shifts of Grimm's law and Verner's law. These probably took place during the Pre-Roman Iron Age of Northern Europe from c. 500 BC. Acording to Wikipedia, the area of origin of Proto-Germanic looks very Scandinavian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language#mediaviewer/File:Nordic_Bronze_Age.png

The Funnelbeaker culture is dated c. 4300-2800 BC, and the Corded Ware culture 2900–2450/2350 cal. BC. North European I1 seems to have arisen at the time of the Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware cultures. That time frame coincides much better with the Proto-Indoeuropean than Germanic languages. Again according to Wikipedia ”Scholars estimate that PIE may have been spoken as a single language (before divergence began) around 3500 BC”.

However, I know that Indoeuropeans have a monopoly over R1a and R1b and Germanics a monopoly over I1.
Click to expand...

It looks like you don't understand much about phylogeny and TMRCA. I mention subclades like L22>Y3549>Z74>L813+ and you tell me that L22 is 3400 ybp in Scandinavia and 3500 ybp in Finland. There are so many things wrong we that paragraph that I don't know where to start.

1) First of all, BP (or YBP) is completely different from BC (or BCE). "Before Present (BP)" means before 1 January 1950, a date arbitrarily chosen by archeologists. BC(E) means before year 0. So there is nearly 2000 years of gap between the two. Terry's page gives dates for L22 in BC, not BP. So their TMRCA is 5400 years and 5500 years before present respectively.

2) That being said, Terry's age estimate haven't been updated since August 2011. Ken Nordtvedt has the most reliable and up to date estimates for I subclades. He gives an age of 3800 years to L22, but only 3000 years for the top-level L22 subclades separating the Finnish group from the Scandinavian ones. That's already a 2500 years gap with Terry's estimates. For all it's worth, five Mesolithic Swedish samples from c. 5500 BCE were tested and all belonged to I2a1 or I2c2, not I1 or I*. Even the Pitted Ware sample from 2800-2000 BCE was still I2a1. That means that I1 may be younger even than Nordtvedt's estimates.

3) When I say that both Russians and Scandinavians belong to subclades like L22>Y3549>Z74>L813+, you should only take the last mutation (L813) in consideration, as it is the most recent in their common ancestry (actually there may be more recent ones not tested or not yet discovered). In this case, L813 arose only 2000 years ago, when Scandinavia was already undeniably Germanic culturally. It means that L813+ cannot have arrived in Russian more than 2000 years ago, but in all likelihood many centuries less than that. Just look at one small region of Sweden and you'll find many different subclades of L22, and surely also many deep subclades under L813 and other branches. Y-chromosomal mutations keep arising every generation. Eventually, once all men get their full Y-DNA tested, it will be possible to determine the exact time two lineages split with about a century's accuracy. Very few people have taken the Big Y test (or equivalent) at present, so a lot of new, deeper subclades are still to be discovered and to be tested in every region. You will then see that the Russian L813+ actually matches deeper clades that separate from their Swedish cousins only about 1000 years ago, during the Viking Age.


Just one rectification. I said that all I1 was Germanic. I should have said ultimately of German or Scandinavian origin, which today is the same as Germanic. There are always people who will argue about when exactly one can talk of Germanic culture in Scandinavia. Personally I consider that it isn't 500 BCE, but c. 1700 BCE, when R1b people, speakers of the Proto-Celto-Germanic branch of IE languages, had spread all around southern Scandinavia and no other major migration can to modify the Scandinavian gene pool.
 
How do you know that all Russians belong to L22? My impression is that north Russian I1 clades are not well studied at all. If you can give me a web page where I can see the distribution of different I1 clades, I would be very happy. I find it very interesting that even Nenets have 3% of I (Tambets 2004), and I would like to know if any of it is I1 and possibly related to Saami I1.

If we go back to Mordovians, however, I do not understand why you emphasize L22, if you state yourself about Mordovian I1 that "not a single one of them belong to the Scandinavian/Viking L22 branch".

I see that Nordtvedt gives an estimate of c. 3500 BP to Z60 and c. 3800 BP to Z59 (2013).

When yoy write that "even the Pitted Ware sample from 2800-2000 BCE was still I2a1. That means that I1 may be younger even than Nordtvedt's estimates", I do not understand the relevance of I2 as I1 did not evolve from I2. If ancient I1 has not been found in Germany or Scandinavia, it does not mean that it cannot be found elsewhere.
 
Maciamo said:
There is nothing paradoxical about it. All Germanic people have their roots in Scandinavia, but not all of them left Scandinavia. Imagine various ancient Germanic tribes as members of a large family. Those who moved out of the house aren't in the house anymore, but somewhere else. That's why I1 subclades have different geographic distributions today.



If it was something already known from historical sources, what would be the point of this thread ? Nobody knew about it, but that's what DNA is telling us.



Why are you showing me distribution maps from a single isolated study, when I made much more reliable maps based on all studies published to date ?

All I1 is of Germanic origin, even in Belarus. Please read my history of haplogroup I1.
Click to expand...
Yes, All Germanic people. But the people do not necessarily have to be Indo-European Germanic...they could be pre-Germanic.

Mordovians having Y-DNA I1; despite being a bit far from Scandinavia; is intensely interesting. If it did not come from a recent contribution; I wonder if the pre-Mordvins may have originated in Scandinavia? Could proto-Uralic be the lost language group of Nordic peoples? Before Indo-European conquest?

Obviously the Finns and Estonians migrated to where they are. But they may have been Eastern Uralic peoples. I am wondering if there were possibly proto-Uralic dialects that existed in Scandinavia before the Indo-European Germanic language was taken.

What is very interesting and fascinating about both Vasconic languages (Basque and Aquitanian) and Uralic languages; is that they tend to have grammatical qualities in both these languages groups that the Indo-European language group (or most of its dialects) lack. For example; both Vasconic and Uralic language groups seem to share agglutinative grammar. But unlike the Indo-European languages; it seems all Vasconic and Uralic dialects seem to lack word genders and gender nouns. (In example, in German you will have Das Mädchen (for "the girl" in English; Der Mann (for "men"), Die Frau (for "the woman"). Where as in languages like Basque, Hungarian and Finnish; all non-IE languages; it seems word genders are virtually non-existent.

Some dialects of Basque, can easily be mistaken for Finnish or Hungarian; to someone who is not familiar or perceptive. :)


In other words, English and Armenian seem to be the only two Indo-European languages that lack word gender. In French you will have the Sun ("soleil") as masculine ("le soleil") and the moon will be feminine ("la lune"). It seems that most, if not all Uralic languages lack this kind of grammar. (forgive me if I am wrong) It also seems like Vasconic (Basque and Aquitanian) lack genders as well.
 
Melancon, what you say is interesting. I think that those traits you mentioned (cases, no gender, postpositions) are usually taken as a basis for the so called Nostratic languages hypothesis. Nostratic languages seem to be original languages of Siberia and Eurasian central heartland. Gender might very well be a trait of the languages of West Asia. Among oldest IE-languages, notably, Hittite has no gender system which distinguishes masculine and feminine, and the masculine/feminine distinction is still a matter of dispute, since there are some, such Robert S.P. Beekes who doubt that the feminine gender originated in PIE.
 
An explanation was proposed by the Romanian historian Bogdan Petriceicu-Hasdeu, who connected the name of the river Moldova with Mulde, a river in Saxony, and Moldau, the German name of the river Vltava in the Czech Republic, and argues that all derive from the Gothic word for "dust" (Gothic: ??????????????????????????????, Runic: ᛗᚢᛚᛞᚨ) - Mulda.[2] It is notable that this would not be the only river in Romania that got its name in connection to the word, as Prahova could be derived from the Slavic equivalent, Prah.

The Romanian linguist Iorgu Iordan proposed that the word be seen as a derivative of Molid (spruce), but the disappearance of the "i" would be hard to explain within the frame of Romanian phonetics.

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

The name Mordva is thought to originate from an Iranian (Scythian) word mard meaning "man". The Mordvin word mirde denoting a husband or spouse is traced to the same origin. This word is also probably related to the final syllable of "Udmurt", and also in Komi: mort and perhaps even in Mari: marij.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordvins
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top