Sign In
Register
HelpWelcome to DNA Forums
 |
Welcome to DNA Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information. Take advantage of it immediately, Register Now or Sign In.
|
| Guest Message © 2010 DevFuse | |
Subscribe to Distant Past
15 Comments
The Goths have been joined by the Gepids and Vandals, so that page is now renamed Goths and Vandals, as the Gepids seem to be a variety of Goth. The degree to which we can trace their movements in modern DNA is likely to get gradually weaker the further they moved from their homelands.
I suggest that the I1b-M227 sub-clade of the predominantly Nordic Y-DNA haplogroup I1 is the most likely marker. It is found in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It appears to have arisen in the last one thousand to five thousand years. It has been reported at modest levels (0.5-2.0%) in Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Slovenia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Croatia. So it could mark the movements of the Goths. We would expect to find its parent I1 among the Goths and Vandals as well, along with other haplogroups found in Scandinavia, but I1b-M227 is particularly interesting, as it is not found to any great degree in Scandinavia itself. It therefore may have arisen among the Goths around the Vistula.
On the main Peopling of Europe page, under section The great wandering, my short list of probable Y-DNA haplogroups among the speakers of Proto-Germanic has been expanded into a discussion, which attempts to avoid hard-and-fast conclusions, which are unwarranted on the available evidence:
I suggest that the I1b-M227 sub-clade of the predominantly Nordic Y-DNA haplogroup I1 is the most likely marker. It is found in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. It appears to have arisen in the last one thousand to five thousand years. It has been reported at modest levels (0.5-2.0%) in Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Ukraine, Switzerland, Slovenia, Bosnia, Macedonia and Croatia. So it could mark the movements of the Goths. We would expect to find its parent I1 among the Goths and Vandals as well, along with other haplogroups found in Scandinavia, but I1b-M227 is particularly interesting, as it is not found to any great degree in Scandinavia itself. It therefore may have arisen among the Goths around the Vistula.
On the main Peopling of Europe page, under section The great wandering, my short list of probable Y-DNA haplogroups among the speakers of Proto-Germanic has been expanded into a discussion, which attempts to avoid hard-and-fast conclusions, which are unwarranted on the available evidence:
Quote
As we shall see, the Germani apparently sprang from a mixture of peoples. So it is no surprise that they did not have just one genetic marker, to judge by their descendants. If and when scientists find ancient Y-DNA from men that we can guess spoke Proto-Germanic, it is most likely to be a mixture of I1, R1a1a, R1b-U106 and R1b-P312, to name only the most common haplogroups. As mentioned in the Indo-European genetics section, R1a1a is shared by Germanic, Baltic and Slavic speakers. R1b-P312 peaks in western Europe and correlates best with the former Celtic and Italic speaking zone. Its subclade R1b-L21 is strongly concentrated in the more northerly former Celtic-speaking region. So the presence of R1b-P312* and R1b-L21 in present-day Germanic-speakers no doubt partly reflects migration from former Celtic areas into Scandinavia over the centuries, and partly the fact that Germanic speakers spread out over parts of the former Celtic area, absorbing existing populations as they went. Yet some may have arrived in Scandinavia in the Bronze Age with Bell Beaker folk or even Corded Ware. We should not imagine an impassible genetic divide between overlapping and interacting cultures.
Quote
R1b-U106 has its peak in northern Europe and a distribution which correlates fairly well with Germanic speakers, past and present. With an estimated date rather older than R1b-P312, it may have spread initially from the European steppe around 4000 BC among those who brought the Funnel Beaker Culture to Scandinavia and the Baltic. Or it may have been concentrated in the Usatovo Culture and spread north into Corded Ware. We can only speculate. Yet it seem safe to expect that it spread long before Proto-Germanic developed.
Categories: Uncategorized
Share This Entry:
15 Comments On This Entry
Page 1 of 1
Norr
12 August 2010 - 11:29 AM
I tried to figure out the migrations my mtDNA HVR1 matches may have spread with and came up with this. I think Vandals may have been included in some of the migrations.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1271/mtdnamigr.jpg
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/1271/mtdnamigr.jpg
Norr
13 August 2010 - 12:51 PM
I was looking for possible connections between the Vandals and the Anglo-Saxons, and in Thomas Shore's book "Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race" I found this:
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/421/anglivand.jpg
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/421/anglivand.jpg
Jean M
13 August 2010 - 14:01 PM
Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race was published in 1906. It makes strange reading today! I can't imagine anyone publishing now a claim that that Anglo-Saxons were of Gothic extraction. English is a Western Germanic language. Gothic is Eastern Germanic. Of course people could have mixed easily within the parent Proto-Germanic homeland, but once the Goths took off southward and developed the Gothic language, contact between them and the Germanic heartland would be much more limited. As far as I know, the Vandal migrations did not cross paths with those of the Anglo-Saxons, being further to the south.
I do intend to write something on the Anglo-Saxons eventually.
I do intend to write something on the Anglo-Saxons eventually.
Norr
13 August 2010 - 14:51 PMJean M, on 13 August 2010 - 15:01 PM, said:
Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race was published in 1906.
Well, it's still closer to the Vandal and Gothic times. I have started to suspect that new research isn't always better than old, but can sometimes take us further away from the truth as time goes by (if you pick a wrong path and start to develop models and theories to convince yourself and others you're on the right path, time isn't necessarily your friend but can make you more and more lost). That's why I don't judge sources based just on their age.
Jean M
13 August 2010 - 17:31 PM
Sources contemporary with Vandal and Gothic times are likely to be the most reliable about them. None of them gives any indication that the Angles were a branch of the Goths.
Since I have no idea what Thomas Shore was actually thinking when he wrote that, it is hard to discuss. The Wikipedia page on the Angles gives some idea of the archaeological evidence that has been uncovered since the time Shore wrote.
Since I have no idea what Thomas Shore was actually thinking when he wrote that, it is hard to discuss. The Wikipedia page on the Angles gives some idea of the archaeological evidence that has been uncovered since the time Shore wrote.
Norr
21 August 2010 - 15:30 PM
Not all my mtDNA HVR1 matches have put their maternal ancestor on the map. The complete list shows that I also have matches for example in Romania and Hungary. It seems that the Hasding Vandals also settled in those countries:
http://www.wordiq.co...finition/Vandal
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9198/mtdahvr1.jpg
http://www.wordiq.co...finition/Vandal
Quote
The two subdivisions of the Vandals were the Silingi and the Hasdingi. The Silingi lived in an area recorded for centuries as Magna Germania, and later called Silesia. In the 2nd century, the Hasdingi, led by the kings Raus and Rapt (or Rhaus and Raptus) moved south, and first attacked the Romans in the lower Danube area, then made peace and settled in western Dacia (Romania) and Roman Hungary.
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9198/mtdahvr1.jpg
Wojewoda
29 August 2010 - 21:48 PM
I really hate the fact that I am the person who tells you that Santa doesn't exist:
http://www.kortlandt...ons/art198e.pdf
http://www.kortlandt...ons/art198e.pdf
Jean M
29 August 2010 - 22:24 PM
Don't worry. You are not forcing a rewrite. Kortlandt is always interesting and worth reading, but in this case is making the fundamental error of assuming that the proposed movement of the Goths from Scandinavia came after Proto-German had begun to split into dialects. Linguists are agreed that East Germanic (Gothic) is different from North Germanic (Scandinavian). That is not news.
Archaeologists now place the influence from eastern Sweden on the Vistula region in the Late Bronze Age - part of the movement southwards to escape the worsening climate, which produced the Jastorf Culture (600 - 0 BC), in which Proto-Germanic took shape.
Archaeologists now place the influence from eastern Sweden on the Vistula region in the Late Bronze Age - part of the movement southwards to escape the worsening climate, which produced the Jastorf Culture (600 - 0 BC), in which Proto-Germanic took shape.
Wojewoda
29 August 2010 - 23:19 PM
That it is different from North Germanic is not important. What is important is that it is WESTERN what is attested by the fact that its "phonology resembles that of Latin and Romance more than that of the other Germanic language" .
Jean M
30 August 2010 - 00:36 AM
You are missing the point. Let me explain again. The relationship of Gothic to other languages is completely irrelevant in every way to the question of whether the Goths originally came from Scandinavia. That movement from Scandinavia took place BEFORE Proto-Germanic developed its final form, therefore BEFORE the various Germanic languages went their separate ways. Therefore BEFORE GOTHIC EXISTED as a separate language. Therefore nothing whatsoever can be deduced from linguistics about that movement.
The location of the Goths beside the Black Sea is undisputed. The contact with Latin and Romance languages began there, as the Goths bordered on, and then entered, the Roman Empire. The bible was translated into Gothic by Wulfila, who spoke Greek, Latin and Gothic. That translation provides the bulk of the evidence for the Gothic language.
The location of the Goths beside the Black Sea is undisputed. The contact with Latin and Romance languages began there, as the Goths bordered on, and then entered, the Roman Empire. The bible was translated into Gothic by Wulfila, who spoke Greek, Latin and Gothic. That translation provides the bulk of the evidence for the Gothic language.
Wojewoda
30 August 2010 - 06:12 AM
I am not questioning that Goths originated from Scandinavia! We all suspect that Germanic people ULTIMATELY come from there. The source I linked questions the EASTERN - across the Baltic sea - route of the movements of Goths from Scandinavia to Ukraine and gives arguments for the WESTERN - Danubian - route. You have to read beyond the first paragraph.
Jean M
30 August 2010 - 08:15 AM
Since he started so badly, I didn't think it would get any better. I was right.
1) Kortlandt's discussion of the archaeological evidence is confused. The Przeworsk culture is seen as the material manifestation of the Vandals and Burgundians, not the Goths. And with good reason, as you will find out if you read my page on the Goths and Vandals. Polish archaeologists have given up trying to argue for it being Slavic. The Vistula was considered the eastern boundary of Germania in Ptolemy's day.
2) The Proto-Slavic homeland, deduced from the early Slavic hydronyms, was encircled by the Bug, Pripet, Dnieper and Dniester. Therefore it did not block the deduced route of the Goths, though they would need to skirt the Slavic territory, which explains the borrowings of Gothic words into Slavic.
3) The rest is sheer fancy - speculation on what the Goths might have done, regardless of evidence of what they actually did. It seems very poorly researched.
1) Kortlandt's discussion of the archaeological evidence is confused. The Przeworsk culture is seen as the material manifestation of the Vandals and Burgundians, not the Goths. And with good reason, as you will find out if you read my page on the Goths and Vandals. Polish archaeologists have given up trying to argue for it being Slavic. The Vistula was considered the eastern boundary of Germania in Ptolemy's day.
2) The Proto-Slavic homeland, deduced from the early Slavic hydronyms, was encircled by the Bug, Pripet, Dnieper and Dniester. Therefore it did not block the deduced route of the Goths, though they would need to skirt the Slavic territory, which explains the borrowings of Gothic words into Slavic.
3) The rest is sheer fancy - speculation on what the Goths might have done, regardless of evidence of what they actually did. It seems very poorly researched.
Wojewoda
30 August 2010 - 09:39 AMJean M, on 30 August 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:
1) Kortlandt's discussion of the archaeological evidence is confused. The Przeworsk culture is seen as the material manifestation of the Vandals and Burgundians, not the Goths. And with good reason, as you will find out if you read my page on the Goths and Vandals. Polish archaeologists have given up trying to argue for it being Slavic. The Vistula was considered the eastern boundary of Germania in Ptolemy's day.
I can see that Korlandt is not alone:
Quote
According to Michael Kulikowski, the theories explaining the appearance of the Goths at the Danubian frontier of the Roman Empire by a prior migration from the north are flawed.[28] Kulikowski argues that the Chernyakhov culture has no more in common with the Wielbark culture than with several other ones, and concludes: "One might argue, as most do, that the Santana-de-Mures/Cernjachov culture came into being because of a migration out of the Wielbark regions, but one might equally argue that it was an indigeneous development of local Pontic, Carpian and Dacian cultures or of the migration of steppe warriors from the east meeting Przeworsk-culture warriors from the west."[37] Kulikowski refers to Rolf Hachmann, who "disproved the Skandinavian connection" in 1970,[38] and explains the prevalent scholarly opinion as follows: "the topic is text-hindered: conciously or not, the archaeological question is always structured by Jordanes,[38] [...] it is only the text of Jordanes that leads scholars to privilege the Wielbark connection."[37] The reliability of Jordanes in turn, whose Getica Kulikowski describes as the only source suggesting "that the Goths had a history before the third century",[39] is dismissed by him as an unreliable source for early Gothic history.[40] According to Kulikowski, the formation of the Goths at the Danube frontier should be seen as an analogy to the formation of the Franks and Alamanni at the Rhenish frontier, "prompted by both the example of Roman provincial life and the threat of the Roman army", and as "the product of the provincialization of Dacia and the lower Danube provinces".[41]
Frederik Kortlandt follows Peter Heather's reasoning that a migration of the Goths from the Southern Baltic coast to the Black Sea along the Bug river is unlikely, because of discontinuities between the Przeworsk and Černjahov cultures, the lack of evidence that the Goths have crossed through the homeland of the Slavs assumed to be in that area, the unlikeliness of a migration taking place from the richer upland forest into the poorer lowland steppe as well as not following a direct route to the more a developed areas near the Roman border, including the crossing of the upper Danube like other Germanic tribes before.[7] Kortland concludes that "it seems probable that the historical Goths followed the course of the Danube downstream and entered the Ukraine from the southwest."[7] He further cites linguistic findings connecting the Gothic dialects to High German rather than Swedish, and conducted an analysis of Greek loanwords showing that the Goths had borrowed the Latinized version rather than immediately from the Greek, and concludes that this supports a first contact with the Romans further west and a subsequent eastward migration.[7]
Frederik Kortlandt follows Peter Heather's reasoning that a migration of the Goths from the Southern Baltic coast to the Black Sea along the Bug river is unlikely, because of discontinuities between the Przeworsk and Černjahov cultures, the lack of evidence that the Goths have crossed through the homeland of the Slavs assumed to be in that area, the unlikeliness of a migration taking place from the richer upland forest into the poorer lowland steppe as well as not following a direct route to the more a developed areas near the Roman border, including the crossing of the upper Danube like other Germanic tribes before.[7] Kortland concludes that "it seems probable that the historical Goths followed the course of the Danube downstream and entered the Ukraine from the southwest."[7] He further cites linguistic findings connecting the Gothic dialects to High German rather than Swedish, and conducted an analysis of Greek loanwords showing that the Goths had borrowed the Latinized version rather than immediately from the Greek, and concludes that this supports a first contact with the Romans further west and a subsequent eastward migration.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths
Jean M, on 30 August 2010 - 10:15 AM, said:
2) The Proto-Slavic homeland, deduced from the early Slavic hydronyms, was encircled by the Bug, Pripet, Dnieper and Dniester. Therefore it did not block the deduced route of the Goths, though they would need to skirt the Slavic territory, which explains the borrowings of Gothic words into Slavic.
Impossible as there is no linguistic evidence of the old enough Baltic languages contacts with Germanic languages:
WIKIPEDIA said:
As for the Baltic languages, all their prehistoric Germanic loanwords are either mediated through Slavic or are borrowed from Old Norse or Proto-Norse, i.e., borrowed during a period well after Slavic prehistory (which ended ca. 600 C.E).
So who did live in Poland before Goths arrived from Scandinavia according you?
Jean M
30 August 2010 - 15:23 PMQuote
So who did live in Poland before Goths arrived from Scandinavia according you?
The shorthand version:
Mesolithic, including Ertebølle: In Poland Late Mesolithic sites occur in the lowland of Pomerania, the Masurian Lake District, Northeast Masovia (Mazowieckie), Greater Poland, Lower Silesia and parts of central Poland (Nowak 2001). These I the people I suspect of bringing Y-DNA I1.
Neolithic: See my map of Neolithic expansion under First farmers. Note that a lot of Poland missed out on the LBK. In Poland remnants of Mesolithic cultures are thought to survive next to the farming societies of the Later Bandkeramik (Linienbandkeramik LBK), Stichbandkeramik (Stroke Ornamented Potery or STK), Lengyel culture and the Eastern Funnel Beaker culture (TRB) until 3500 cal BC (Nowak 2001). See Maximilian O. Baldia, The Ertebølle Culture for full refs. The handy summaries are from him.
Copper-Bronze Age: Corded Ware/Battle Axe Culture. Indo-European, but not yet differentiated into the modern language families. Precursors of Celtic and Baltic probably met in this area.
The Jastorf Culture apparently resulted from the push southwards around 700 BC of Scandinavian farmers into what is now northern Germany and Poland. Proto-Germanic appears to have developed in this culture c. 500 BC and spread out in all directions.
By c. 100 AD Most of Poland fell into Germania. The border between Germania and Sarmatia was the Vistula for Ptolemy, yet he places the Gotones, a clearly Germanic group, east of the river. However beyond them were Baltic and Finnic language people. As you will know, Prussian speakers later lived in that area.
Norr
31 August 2010 - 05:50 AM
The highest percentage of my mtDNA HVR1 matches is in Lithuania. Apparently the Przeworsk culture also influenced Lithuania. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if the people along Vistula had family ties with people in Lithuania.
http://www.leidykla...._10/163-173.pdf
http://www.leidykla...._10/163-173.pdf
Quote
or chisels (Iwanowska, 2006, s. 76, 86, 89). Actu-
ally we may fnd good parallels in the areas situated
to south-west from Lithuania. Such items were rela-
tively frequent in the Przeworsk culture (especially
in Silesia), Luboszyce culture, on the territory of
Bohemia and Moravia as well in the south-eastern
Poland in phase D. The latter has been attributed to
Heruls (Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska, forthcoming)
what seems to be very controversial because of chrono-
logical discrepancies between their chronology and da-
ting of the Heruls’ migration. Their function isn’t quite
sure; some scholar thought that it was multifunctional
whereas the others claimed that they served as punches
or even Roman stili (Szydłowski, 1977, s. 19–20).
ally we may fnd good parallels in the areas situated
to south-west from Lithuania. Such items were rela-
tively frequent in the Przeworsk culture (especially
in Silesia), Luboszyce culture, on the territory of
Bohemia and Moravia as well in the south-eastern
Poland in phase D. The latter has been attributed to
Heruls (Niezabitowska-Wiśniewska, forthcoming)
what seems to be very controversial because of chrono-
logical discrepancies between their chronology and da-
ting of the Heruls’ migration. Their function isn’t quite
sure; some scholar thought that it was multifunctional
whereas the others claimed that they served as punches
or even Roman stili (Szydłowski, 1977, s. 19–20).
Page 1 of 1
← September 2010 →
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Recent Entries
-
-
-
-
Goths, Gepids and Vandals
on 27 Jul 2010 12:47 PM
-
