New map of R1b-S28 (U152)

I think it's an oversimplification to think of I2 solely in terms of being an indigenous displacement. Yes, I2 is effectively entirely indigenous to Europe. Yes, it was probably held in greater percentages in Europe in the past (at least, in Western and Central Europe). But most of its modern distribution can be explained by known post-Neolithic expansions. So, the modern distribution of I2a2a doesn't make sense without understanding the Migration Period; I2a2b doesn't make sense without understanding the Iron Age Celts; I2a1b1a doesn't make sense without understanding the spread of Slavs; etc.

I think that most I2 in europe long predates most of the cultural divisions that we would recognize today, its found in remnant survivor locales across the continent and in the Isles, and a reasonable interpretation is that it managed to hang on in some places by being adopted or allying with the dominant invading populations, which was done most successfully in the Balkans and scattered regions of france, germany and scotland, but I do not think it is actually a part of those populations originally.

As before, this is simply my opinion, but I2 is no stranger to any slavic, germanic, or celtic region, its no stranger to ancient DNA found in-situ across all these centers of culture, and its best explained as pre-existing aboriginals who managed to integrate into those arriving populations.
 
It's even more than that - the North Bashkirs that turned up U152+ all had the same exact haplotype, meaning they were the result of a recent founder effect.

what is the Ht differential among modern remnant Samaritans?

(Hint, they are all from only a couple male Y-lines and were reduced to only 100 people-
out of a ancient population of over ONE Million)

We can place the Samaritans in the Levant from before the time of Jesus, and we know that they are a very ancient and indigenous population, yet only a couple male Y-lines survive to this day, and were very close to being functionally EXTINCT only a couple decades ago.

Be careful about inferring that a remnant, disadvantaged but ancient population would necessitate a population of Ht diversity, because the fact that they are a remnant population is also why the surviving percentage of a once sizable population is likely to have very minimal genetic diversity.

The case here of the U-152 Bakshir vs. Samaritans Ht diversity comparison is also a excellent caution about people who go looking for something that will support the argument they hope to present, usually finding a way to present the results in the manner that will be most useful to that purpose.
 
What has this to do with a map of U-152 distribution?
 
There are hundreds of public surname projects in FTDNA that have similar, but not identical STR signatures. The ones who have a closer MRCA have more similar haplotypes and the ones with older MRCA have less similar haplotypes in common. This is common sense. If you think that having an identical STR signature only means an old family lineage, then you are not going to be taken seriously by anyone.

By the way, your Samaritan example was a very poor one. Please read the Shen 2004 paper:

"The four Samaritan families clustered to four distinct Y-chromosome haplogroups according to their patrilineal identity"

That's four families, four different haplotypes. If I took my family and those of my three closest friends, guess what? I would have four haplotypes. That is not very special is it?
 
Last edited:
I think that most I2 in europe long predates most of the cultural divisions that we would recognize today, its found in remnant survivor locales across the continent and in the Isles, and a reasonable interpretation is that it managed to hang on in some places by being adopted or allying with the dominant invading populations, which was done most successfully in the Balkans and scattered regions of france, germany and scotland, but I do not think it is actually a part of those populations originally.

As before, this is simply my opinion, but I2 is no stranger to any slavic, germanic, or celtic region, its no stranger to ancient DNA found in-situ across all these centers of culture, and its best explained as pre-existing aboriginals who managed to integrate into those arriving populations.

Well, I think I see where we disagree. You seem to have a concept of Germanic expansions as including largely R1b-U152 peoples, with I2a2a peoples being Paleolithic remnants until quite late who were overrun by these R1b-U152 Germanics who then continued onto Italy. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

The way I see it, proto-Germanic didn't really form entirely until it had become a fusion of (1) R1b-U106-type Centum Indo-Europeans related to the proto-Italo-Celts with (2) the extant late Neolithic R1a peoples who we can relate to Corded Ware culture, quite possibly also IE speakers, who had already absorbed almost all of the I1 peoples and some of the I2a2a peoples. So proto-Germanic didn't really form until I2a2a was already a part of it, and that's why I2a2a can be considered both a Paleolithic remnant and a Germanic invader haplogroup.

Also you'll note that R1b-U152 doesn't really come into my Germanic haplogroup scenario outside of being a cousin, and I'll grant, possibly having some limited spillover.
 
There are hundreds of public surname projects in FTDNA that have similar, but not identical STR signatures. The ones who have a closer MRCA have more similar haplotypes and the ones with older MRCA have less similar haplotypes in common. This is common sense. If you think that having an identical STR signature only means an old family lineage, then you are not going to be taken seriously by anyone.

Respectfully, that is not- in any way- what I said. I feel you are putting words in my mouth to be frank.

I said that finding one clan of U-152 or (other m269) in this locality and assuming it is therefor recent or late introgression based on the fact that- of the portion you tested -you have what appears to be one clan, is not probable cause to make such a determination.

By the way, your Samaritan example was a very poor one. Please read the Shen 2004 paper:
"The four Samaritan families clustered to four distinct Y-chromosome haplogroups according to their patrilineal identity"
That's four families, four different haplotypes. If I took my family and those of my three closest friends, guess what? I would have four haplotypes. That is not very special is it?

except that the entire STR/Hg tree of every Samaritan clan is known and tested. Moreover, we know that of the current 700 or so ethnic/genetic Samaritans, they are the product of population of only 100 people at its low point.

With the steppe U-152 or other M269, we have a population in total of over FOUR MILLION in Bashkortostan alone, not even mentioning the surrounding state of millions more, and the numbers of paternal ancestries mapped are well under 1% of the entire indigenous local populations..

So, while you are correct that of the 85% portion of Samaritan males in Hg J,
there are three male founder lines that are still extant, with their own three Ht's, this offers you a whopping 3x increase over your assertions as pertains to declaring the U-152 Bakshirs recent introgression instead of being a destroyed remnant of a local population..

which is a far cry from being notable.

Most importantly, we do not have a full paternal genomic/Hg/Ht map of extant Bakshir/Perm populations, who number in the many millions, so suggesting that the known limit of three J clades within the Samaritan populations = the entire mapped paternal Y-lines within Perm Bakshir or related steppe populations is not even close to accurate.
There is only currently a scratch of the surface as relates to exposing the steppe genetics within these remote and numerous populations of many, many millions,
while within the Samaritans we have a confined and fully mapped ancient population that is now reduced to only three Hg H Y-lines accounting for 85% of its remaining population.

The entire point of this analogy was that few and confined in number does not automatically = recent introgression, esp when it is applied to strictly tribal clan populations.

BTW, I respect you efforts on your site, and strongly encourage and support your dedication and work.
 
How does it come, the Frisian area is free of U152? Was it present at an earlier time, and wiped out by Germanic tribes, or was it never there? Are there theories regarding this?
 
Well, I think I see where we disagree. You seem to have a concept of Germanic expansions as including largely R1b-U152 peoples, with I2a2a peoples being Paleolithic remnants until quite late who were overrun by these R1b-U152 Germanics who then continued onto Italy. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Yes, you would be wrong as pertains to your portrayal of my stance, or I did a really bad job of explaining my position.. one or the other.

Under my entire scenario, I am suggesting that the Getae/Massagetae are the Goths/Lombards/Gepids/Heruli etc.. who arise from the same homelands after the Getae disappear from history in that region,
and are effectively a eastern-germanic population that is long native to the eastern steppes, and never originated from or went to Scandinavia. Thus they are not ethnically 'Germanic' in the same modern, familiar sense of modern Scandinavian or Western German U-106, nor do I feel that U-152 relates to the origin of those western Continental or Scandinavian germanic cultures, or to modern "Germany" as a landmass.

I think a significant pct of U-152 get dispersed in some of these continental regions as the Goths are dispersed into the local populations in large numbers, especially in and around Chalons where they composed the majority of the fighting force that defeat the Huns.
In my opinion this residual U-152 is wrongly termed "Belgic" in and around this region, when it is a fairly minor component of all these regions Belgic of otherwise, even within the local R1b.

(To the ire of many I1 Hg, I am also pretty certain that I1 is effectively a 'Svearish' Hg, since R1b only arrives in Finland after the Svearish domination of Scandinavia, and is not followed to Finland by any U-106/R1b from Scandinavia where it comprises 1/3 of the population, since that R1b/U-106 is probably 'Geatish' and was then a recently subjected population to the I1 Svears-
I1 thus is not 'germanic' in the sense that it is the orginator of the culture, and we do not know where or when the Svears come into Scandinavia.)

The Getae/Getic name is used interchangeably by many ancient historians for the Goths and related tribes,
and this is only refuted by those who note that other ancient sources cite the Dacians/Illyrians and Getae reportedly 'speaking the same language'.
A ancient greek or roman observer - who is not fluent in either dacian/illyrian or german/gothic- seeing these parties conversing has no idea who is conversing in the others language, or what pct of the population(s) would have such skills even if they could decipher the languages.
The Dacians and Getae obviously are recorded as cooperating with one another, and some or even most would potentially be converstationally bi-lingual, in the same way that a Alan or Slav later in history (all of whom natively speak different languages) cooperate with the Lombards in Italy, not because they are the same ethnic population or the same Language families, but because portions of their populations are bi-lingual and able to mutually converse.

I am not in any way suggesting that U-152 = western-Germanics as would comprise the extant Germanic populations in western europe. They are a early germanic cultural offshoot that stayed in the east, and began migrating west for the safety of other europid populations once they became largely subjected in the east.

At this point in history even the Alani/Alans are recorded as blonde europids, but many generations later in Europe are asiatics/Hunnic in appearance, by greek and roman sources.

So.. those who were of a europid phenotype on the steppes at this point in history faced a 'migrate, die or be enslaved' option.

As the Migrating steppe germanics reach the west, they create and tell myths with the assistance of their new neighbors to explain who they are and how they got there, which is why the myths of the Goths and Lombards are essentially the same.

In a nutshell, U-152 is a steppe population of germanic linguistic background and in some ancient disconnected form, culture, that moves east as it becomes overwhelmed in its homelands, and it has been known to history for a long time by a variety of tribal names and historical mentions. (my theory!)

As to I2, I simply see no reason at this time to place it anywhere outside of europe, and it is in no way restricted to any celtic, germanic, slavic, or mediterranean population, its found across all of them,..
and not found in any non-european setting, so the best explanation is a aboriginal population that falls to the R1a/R1b populations and in some places manages to hand on or become adopted into those various cultures.

My own mothers' paternal line is Hg I2 from Scotland BTW, and its a very notable and important clade especially in ancient remains, where I2 and G2 appear to have played a very strong role early on in Europe. There is simply no reason, evidence, or basis to attach the origin of I2 to any of the arriving cultural groups though for all the above reasons.
 
Yes, you would be wrong as pertains to your portrayal of my stance, or I did a really bad job of explaining my position.. one or the other.

Under my entire scenario, I am suggesting that the Getae/Massagetae are the Goths/Lombards/Gepids/Heruli etc.. who arise from the same homelands after the Getae disappear from history in that region,
and are effectively a eastern-germanic population that is long native to the eastern steppes, and never originated from or went to Scandinavia. Thus they are not ethnically 'Germanic' in the same modern, familiar sense of modern Scandinavian or Western German U-106, nor do I feel that U-152 relates to the origin of those western Continental or Scandinavian germanic cultures, or to modern "Germany" as a landmass.

I think a significant pct of U-152 get dispersed in some of these continental regions as the Goths are dispersed into the local populations in large numbers, especially in and around Chalons where they composed the majority of the fighting force that defeat the Huns.
In my opinion this residual U-152 is wrongly termed "Belgic" in and around this region, when it is a fairly minor component of all these regions Belgic of otherwise, even within the local R1b.

(To the ire of many I1 Hg, I am also pretty certain that I1 is effectively a 'Svearish' Hg, since R1b only arrives in Finland after the Svearish domination of Scandinavia, and is not followed to Finland by any U-106/R1b from Scandinavia where it comprises 1/3 of the population, since that R1b/U-106 is probably 'Geatish' and was then a recently subjected population to the I1 Svears-
I1 thus is not 'germanic' in the sense that it is the orginator of the culture, and we do not know where or when the Svears come into Scandinavia.)

The Getae/Getic name is used interchangeably by many ancient historians for the Goths and related tribes,
and this is only refuted by those who note that other ancient sources cite the Dacians/Illyrians and Getae reportedly 'speaking the same language'.
A ancient greek or roman observer - who is not fluent in either dacian/illyrian or german/gothic- seeing these parties conversing has no idea who is conversing in the others language, or what pct of the population(s) would have such skills even if they could decipher the languages.
The Dacians and Getae obviously are recorded as cooperating with one another, and some or even most would potentially be converstationally bi-lingual, in the same way that a Alan or Slav later in history (all of whom natively speak different languages) cooperate with the Lombards in Italy, not because they are the same ethnic population or the same Language families, but because portions of their populations are bi-lingual and able to mutually converse.

I am not in any way suggesting that U-152 = western-Germanics as would comprise the extant Germanic populations in western europe. They are a early germanic cultural offshoot that stayed in the east, and began migrating west for the safety of other europid populations once they became largely subjected in the east.

At this point in history even the Alani/Alans are recorded as blonde europids, but many generations later in Europe are asiatics/Hunnic in appearance, by greek and roman sources.

So.. those who were of a europid phenotype on the steppes at this point in history faced a 'migrate, die or be enslaved' option.

As the Migrating steppe germanics reach the west, they create and tell myths with the assistance of their new neighbors to explain who they are and how they got there, which is why the myths of the Goths and Lombards are essentially the same.

In a nutshell, U-152 is a steppe population of germanic linguistic background and in some ancient disconnected form, culture, that moves east as it becomes overwhelmed in its homelands, and it has been known to history for a long time by a variety of tribal names and historical mentions. (my theory!)

As to I2, I simply see no reason at this time to place it anywhere outside of europe, and it is in no way restricted to any celtic, germanic, slavic, or mediterranean population, its found across all of them,..
and not found in any non-european setting, so the best explanation is a aboriginal population that falls to the R1a/R1b populations and in some places manages to hand on or become adopted into those various cultures.

My own mothers' paternal line is Hg I2 from Scotland BTW, and its a very notable and important clade especially in ancient remains, where I2 and G2 appear to have played a very strong role early on in Europe. There is simply no reason, evidence, or basis to attach the origin of I2 to any of the arriving cultural groups though for all the above reasons.

answer me on what was the haplo type in northern italy before the lombards and previously the goths arrived

If I understand your concepye, you are saying these germanic left the steppes and moved westerly, settled in modern germany, then retraced there footseps to dacian areas before going to Italy.

Since the bastanae and peucini where the extreme eastly germanic tribes, do you have knowledge of their haplotypes
 
Under my entire scenario, I am suggesting that the Getae/Massagetae are the Goths/Lombards/Gepids/Heruli etc.. who arise from the same homelands after the Getae disappear from history in that region,
and are effectively a eastern-germanic population that is long native to the eastern steppes, and never originated from or went to Scandinavia. Thus they are not ethnically 'Germanic' in the same modern, familiar sense of modern Scandinavian or Western German U-106, nor do I feel that U-152 relates to the origin of those western Continental or Scandinavian germanic cultures, or to modern "Germany" as a landmass.

This scenario has a very huge problem, namely the linguistic perspective: if the Gothic/East Germanic peoples purportedly had nothing to do with the West Germanic peoples, how come that, well, they spoke a Germanic language? It also certainly seems quite unlikely, under that U152 is indeed majorly Germanic in origin, to link it only to East Germanic peoples. In my opinion, if there's a Germanic component to U152, I would wager that there is a link to the Alemannic peoples, given how the southwest Germanic areas have some of the highest concentrations of U152.

Also, regarding the connection between the Getae and the Goths, this can be soundly refuted on linguistic grounds. The ethnonym "Massagetae" in particular is telling here, which is supposed to mean "great Getae". This 'massa-' is derived from the PIE root *meg´-, which is also found in Greek "megas" ("big", "great"), Sanskrit "mahant" ("great") and "maharaja" ("great king"), as well as Gothic "mikili" and antiquated English "mickle". Thus, the element "massa-" is the signature of a Satem language (note, before you accuse me of adhering to the Centum/Satem hypothesis, that I merely use "Centum" and "Satem" as a descriptive feature here). Regardless of the exact linguistic affinity of the Massagetae, Dacian and Scythian for instance were both Satem languages, whereas Germanic is a Centum language, and additionally, due to Grimm's Law, PIE *g´ is reflected as *k in Germanic (hence *meg´- > *mik-).

It's pretty clear that the Gothic language from the 4th century AD is pretty close to what can be reconstructed as Proto-Germanic. So, there's also the question when exactly Grimm's Law (the first Germanic sound shift) did occur. There has been some recent scepticism (Euler 2009) that, as assumed in the past, the sound shift occured at the start of the northern european iron age, and instead it has been proposed that Grimm's Law occured only in the late 1st century BC / early 1st century AD. If this scenario is correct, it would seem very difficult to argue for such a distinctiveness of the East Germanic peoples.
 
(To the ire of many I1 Hg, I am also pretty certain that I1 is effectively a 'Svearish' Hg, since R1b only arrives in Finland after the Svearish domination of Scandinavia, and is not followed to Finland by any U-106/R1b from Scandinavia where it comprises 1/3 of the population, since that R1b/U-106 is probably 'Geatish' and was then a recently subjected population to the I1 Svears-
I1 thus is not 'germanic' in the sense that it is the orginator of the culture, and we do not know where or when the Svears come into Scandinavia.)

I1 can't be entirely "Svearish," because although it's a surprisingly young haplogroup in terms of TMRCA, it is well older than migrations of the Svears, and has an apparently launching point near Schleswig-Holstein... not exactly Sweden. I do tend to agree that it is mainly Germanic in the context of Finland, although others contest this, largely on the basis of Finnish I1 being very uniform (which I contend strengthens the case... but that's getting off topic). Either way, it seems to end up in places where West, North, and East Germanic peoples ended up settling. If that's not evidence for I1 being a part of the whole of the proto-Germanic peoples, I don't know what is.

I am not in any way suggesting that U-152 = western-Germanics as would comprise the extant Germanic populations in western europe. They are a early germanic cultural offshoot that stayed in the east, and began migrating west for the safety of other europid populations once they became largely subjected in the east.

At this point in history even the Alani/Alans are recorded as blonde europids, but many generations later in Europe are asiatics/Hunnic in appearance, by greek and roman sources.

So.. those who were of a europid phenotype on the steppes at this point in history faced a 'migrate, die or be enslaved' option.

As the Migrating steppe germanics reach the west, they create and tell myths with the assistance of their new neighbors to explain who they are and how they got there, which is why the myths of the Goths and Lombards are essentially the same.

I don't understand how far east you're trying to place the East Germanic peoples, or where, exactly, that would end up placing the formation of proto-Germanic. I think that's where I'm getting confused regarding your theory.

In a nutshell, U-152 is a steppe population of germanic linguistic background and in some ancient disconnected form, culture, that moves east as it becomes overwhelmed in its homelands, and it has been known to history for a long time by a variety of tribal names and historical mentions. (my theory!)

You mean that they moved west, right? What other haplogroups did this "population" have in your theory? Did U152 also belong to other populations? Why do you think we observe low diversity of U152 in the steppe, was the displacement so severe that they didn't even leave remnants?

I think you'll need to answer these sorts of questions convincingly to convince me of your theories...

As to I2, I simply see no reason at this time to place it anywhere outside of europe, and it is in no way restricted to any celtic, germanic, slavic, or mediterranean population, its found across all of them,..
and not found in any non-european setting, so the best explanation is a aboriginal population that falls to the R1a/R1b populations and in some places manages to hand on or become adopted into those various cultures.

My own mothers' paternal line is Hg I2 from Scotland BTW, and its a very notable and important clade especially in ancient remains, where I2 and G2 appear to have played a very strong role early on in Europe. There is simply no reason, evidence, or basis to attach the origin of I2 to any of the arriving cultural groups though for all the above reasons.

I'm not trying to place I2 outside of Europe myself, nor do I see how placing it within the proto-Germanic, proto-Celtic, etc. cultures, all of which formed in Europe, makes it any less indigenous.
 
I1 can't be entirely "Svearish," because although it's a surprisingly young haplogroup in terms of TMRCA, it is well older than migrations of the Svears, and has an apparently launching point near Schleswig-Holstein... not exactly Sweden. I do tend to agree that it is mainly Germanic in the context of Finland, although others contest this, largely on the basis of Finnish I1 being very uniform (which I contend strengthens the case... but that's getting off topic). Either way, it seems to end up in places where West, North, and East Germanic peoples ended up settling. If that's not evidence for I1 being a part of the whole of the proto-Germanic peoples, I don't know what is.



I don't understand how far east you're trying to place the East Germanic peoples, or where, exactly, that would end up placing the formation of proto-Germanic. I think that's where I'm getting confused regarding your theory.



You mean that they moved west, right? What other haplogroups did this "population" have in your theory? Did U152 also belong to other populations? Why do you think we observe low diversity of U152 in the steppe, was the displacement so severe that they didn't even leave remnants?

I think you'll need to answer these sorts of questions convincingly to convince me of your theories...



I'm not trying to place I2 outside of Europe myself, nor do I see how placing it within the proto-Germanic, proto-Celtic, etc. cultures, all of which formed in Europe, makes it any less indigenous.

I read other sources ( modern ) that place the germanic bastanae/peucini tribes as far east as the dniepr river, on the other side where "slavs" ( unsure if russian or other slavs)
 
I read other sources ( modern ) that place the germanic bastanae/peucini tribes as far east as the dniepr river, on the other side where "slavs" ( unsure if russian or other slavs)

They just place some tribes like the Bastarnae there, or they place proto-Germanic and East Germanic as having formed there? I can understand the first, but the second seems absurd to me, given how Germanic languages diversified.
 
I am dealing with a third-party quoting you who infers that this is a western-euro originating population that arises in western europe at the same time and within the same conditions as all other P312.
If someone misuses a quote from me, please dispute it rather than proliferate the misuse with additional misuses.

The TMRCA ancestor estimates and assumptions are effectively close to valueless, and many pundits have asserted their ability to confidently mathematically predict these ages, to the glee of those who wish to believe this. It is theory, and for specific mathematical reasons cannot be proven because of missing data that must be inferred, and mutational estimates that must be assumed....
Just because something is not proven beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt doesn't mean the evidence is valueless. On the other hand, unfounded opinions are valueless.

We have to work with the data we have, and we actually have quite a bit. The available mathematical models have been enhanced. For example, we now have Ken Nordtvedt's interclade estimation method which weeds out some of the biases with intraclade variance.

.... I think like a lot of other Hg or SNP, (i.e.- nordtvedt=I1) U-152 should be left in large part to those who are in U-152 and are researching their own clade/SNP.
Why? This is not very open and logical thinking. Should only men discuss Y DNA and paternal lineages? By the way, you might check out (and I think you have) your mother's father's lineage or her mother's father's lineage or your father's mother's lineage. You might find they are all not of the same haplogroup. That's what I've found.

If I can get Ken Nordtvedt or some of the other stronger minds to discuss my subclades, I'm pleased as punch. I (we) might learn something.

A lot of the comments regarding U-152 are coming from L21* individuals who are a VERY LARGE IN NUMBER, they are all members of the same message boards and same forums, and they are often basically "pissed" that there is very little they can determine, and are for some reason adamant on inserting themselves into discussion on U-152 and become furious if that discussion moves outside what they feel is the prevailing opinion on the array of message boards and forums that they are regurgitating information from.
Are you a pyschoanalyst or something?
 
They just place some tribes like the Bastarnae there, or they place proto-Germanic and East Germanic as having formed there? I can understand the first, but the second seems absurd to me, given how Germanic languages diversified.

i do not understand by what you mean second
 
i do not understand by what you mean second

I mean, do your sources just say that some Germanic peoples, like the Bastarnae, ended up so far East? That sounds reasonable to me. Or do they say that proto-Germanic or East Germanic formed so far East? That doesn't sound as reasonable to me.
 
I mean, do your sources just say that some Germanic peoples, like the Bastarnae, ended up so far East? That sounds reasonable to me. Or do they say that proto-Germanic or East Germanic formed so far East? That doesn't sound as reasonable to me.

The way I understand Ptolemy, the Bastarnae lived at the Dniester (not the Dniepr!) river. Tacitus doesn't exactly give a location for them, but mentions that "Bastarnae" is an alternate name for the Peucini, whom he places in the vicinity of the Sarmatians.

In any case, the formation/origin of the East Germanic peoples is a problematic issue due to the unclear archaeological affiliation (for example, it's somewhat questionable if the Pomeranian Culture was "Germanic" in any way, and it's highly doubtful if the earlier Lusatian Culture was "Germanic").
 
In any case, the formation/origin of the East Germanic peoples is a problematic issue due to the unclear archaeological affiliation (for example, it's somewhat questionable if the Pomeranian Culture was "Germanic" in any way, and it's highly doubtful if the earlier Lusatian Culture was "Germanic").

And to which culture belonged the Proto-Goths people? Because I read that it was a legend that they came from Scandinavia and that they actually formed in Northern Poland.
 
And to which culture belonged the Proto-Goths people? Because I read that it was a legend that they came from Scandinavia and that they actually formed in Northern Poland.

Well, not just 'Proto-Goths' but Eastern Germanic peoples in general. The legend about the East Germanic peoples coming from Scandinavia is well-known, but from the archaeological perspective it's very hard to verify this. As I mentioned, the (bronze age / early iron age) Lusatian Culture, which is the northeastern outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, is certainly too early to be Germanic in any way. The Pomeranian Culture, which follows it, is also questionable in it's identity. The only archaeological cultures we can be certain about that they're East Germanic (because they fall into the times of historic record!) are really the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures.
 
Well, not just 'Proto-Goths' but Eastern Germanic peoples in general. The legend about the East Germanic peoples coming from Scandinavia is well-known, but from the archaeological perspective it's very hard to verify this. As I mentioned, the (bronze age / early iron age) Lusatian Culture, which is the northeastern outgrowth of the Urnfield Culture, is certainly too early to be Germanic in any way. The Pomeranian Culture, which follows it, is also questionable in it's identity. The only archaeological cultures we can be certain about that they're East Germanic (because they fall into the times of historic record!) are really the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultures.

Thank you. Lusatian has much in common with the Villanovian culture which itslef is the direct ancestor of Latin people therefore Lusatian people might have spoken some sort of Italic language.
Btw what do you imply when you say that it is too early to be Germanic? you mean before the Grimm's Law?
 

This thread has been viewed 174642 times.

Back
Top