Re: Ancient Veneti Warrios

[Domen]

Many sciences help to identify origins of Slavs: genetics, archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, history, etc.

Various theories indicate different origins of Slavs, depending on which branch of science (of these listed above and even more) they are based. A truly complex theory, encompassing and analyzing results of research of all branches of science into one logical conclusion, has yet to be developed.

=========================================

An excerpt from this book ("Anthropology about the origins of Slavs", published in 2008 in Poznań):

The book was published by scholars of the Institute of Anthropology of Poznań University:

Here is their website: http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html



"Dąbrowski (...) used for his research 168 male and female skulls of the Roman period, including 28 skulls classified as Przeworsk culture and 140 as Wielbark culture. Author has proven, that skulls classified as Przeworsk culture are not morphologically different from skulls classified as Wielbark culture, which means, that they are not distinguishable as two different populations. (...) In his comparative research Dąbrowski uses skulls classified as Chernyakhovsk culture (90 male skulls and 94 female skulls) and craniological materials from the Early Medieval period: Eastern Slavs - 835 male skulls and 456 female skulls, Western Slavs - 2652 male skulls and 2246 female skulls. Skulls were from various burial-grounds and represented, in case of Eastern Slavs, such ethno-tribal groups as: Dregowicze, Krywicze, Polanie, Radynicze, Siewierzanie, Słowenie, Wiatycze. In case of Western Slavs groups were distinguished basing on geographical-historical criterion: Czechs, Lesser Polans, Mazovians, Moravians, Pomeranians, Slovakians, Silesians, Greater Polans. Between 15 mentioned groups of Early Medieval Slavs Dąbrowski, thanks to data about individual sizes of skulls, counted so called D2 Mahalanobis biological distances. The analysis of this data has proven, that there exists a certain tendency that groups located closer to each other in geographical space, are more similar to each other. One such common group consists of skulls of Western Slavs, the other one of skulls of Eastern Slavs. (...) similar intergroup ties are present in case of both sexes. (...) Results of analyses published by Dąbrowski (2003, 2004, 2006, 2007) have been complemented by studies with use of new statistical methods and by larger number of chronologically diversified populations. Using matrixes of biological distances, present in Dąbrowski's work from 2007, we conducted comparative analysis of same morphorogical features of skulls in diachronic approach, that is comparing populations of the Roman period to Slavic populations. [COLOR="DarkOrange"]We have established a very high level of similarity between populations of both Przeworsk, Wielbark and Chernyakhovsk cultures to Slavic population (ill. 5, 6). Obtained by Dąbrowski (2007) and confirmed by us with use of another method, results of analyses indicate that populations living in basins of Oder and Vistula rivers during the period of Roman influences, were no different in terms of morphology from populations living in the same area during the Early Medieval period.[/COLOR] [COLOR="Green"]Moreover, results of Dąbrowski's research have been complemented by comparative analysis of Roman period populations (populations of Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures) with populations of basins of Oder and Vistula rivers from Medieval period as well as with Medieval populations from Scandinavia (cf. Piontek 2006, 2007, Piontek and others 2007).[/COLOR] In our comparative analysis we used the method of counting biological distance (square Euclidean distance) and the method of arranging matrixes according to Ward's method. [COLOR="Green"]Dendrogram divided the examined set of populations into two subgroups: the first subgroup - Medieval populations from basins of Oder and Vistula and Roman period populations, the second subgroup - Medieval and Late Medieval populations from Scandinavia and Western Pomerania.[/COLOR] [COLOR="DarkOrange"]After comparing 22 populations in terms of 6 defined morphological features of skull it has been proven, that populations of Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures are characterized by very high level of morphological similarity with Medieval populations from basins of Vistula and Oder rivers.[/COLOR] [COLOR="Blue"]On the other hand, populations of these Roman period cultures bear no morphological resemblance to populations from Scandinavia, that is to populations to whom populations of Goths who allegedly lived in basins of Vistula and Oder rivers during the Roman period should be very similar, and with whom Roman period populations are often being ethnically identified."[/COLOR]

[Domen]

Probable original homeland of Proto-Slavs and at the same time probable area of ethnogenesis of Slavs:



As you can see, anthropology indicates a larger area than archaeology.

Differences between Medieval skull shapes of Germanic people and Slavic people were significant:

http://s16.postimg.org/6z5c9bzw5/Differences.png



To better show statistical differences between skull shapes of Medieval Slavic populations and Medieval Germanic ones, I marked them below with two different colours:

http://s7.postimg.org/yxf3pi5vv/Differences2.png





To summ up both of my posts:

Roman era people of Vistula and Oder basins had statistically very similar skull shapes to Medieval Slavic populations of the same area.

Scandinavian and other Germanic people had statistically very different skull shapes from Roman era populations of Vistula and Oder basins.

Conclusion: Goths and other Germanic people did not live in significant numbers in Vistula and Oder basins of the Roman Era. There could be Gothic and other Germanic tribes living in this area, but they were just minority of entire population living there.

[Domen]

Here I answer some questions that I was asked on another forum regarding those two posts above:

How is it possible to tell from a 2000-year-old skull what language was spoken by its owner when alive?

It is not about language it is about ancestry.

It says that majority of Slavs who lived in this area in Medieval were descendants of people who lived in this area in the Roman era.

It doesn't necessarily mean that those people spoke Slavic languages already in the Roman era.

It doesn't say what language they spoke in the Roman era. But Anthropological data suggests that it is untrue that the bulk of population of this area moved somewhere else (to the West and to the South), and then was replaced by new population coming from the East.

If such a massive population replacement took place, Western Slavs would have different skulls than Roman era population of the same land.

On the other hand, the results of anthropological research show that most of Medieval population in Vistula and Oder basins were descendants of Roman era population from the same territory - not of people who came from the East after local population moved on to the West and South.

It also shows that people from Scandinavia (i.e. migrating Goths) were not a significant portion of population in Vistula and Oder basins. Not only Scandinavians, but also populations from lands of modern Germany had different anthropological features than Vistula-Oder population.

The similarity of skulls of the medieval population of a particular area to the skulls of a much older population living in the same region simply shows that there was no physical replacement of population in the intervening period, ie the medieval population was physically descended from the older one.

However, such similarity does not exclude the possibility of changes in the culture and language of that population between the two periods examined. That is to say, the fact that a particular language was spoken in the area where the medieval skulls were found does not mean that the same language was spoken by the physically similar population that lived in the same area in much earlier times, say Roman times.

An example is provided by the extensive germanisation of large Slavic populations in medieval times in the territory east of the Elbe. Presumably a Slav-speaker who learned to speak German and adopted a German culture would not thereby undergo a change of skull-shape.

Thus, the German-speaking population of a particular area might be substantially descended from a population that was Slavic-speaking in previous centuries, and therefore would have the same skull-shape as its physical ancestors, despite the change in language and culture.

In similar vein, a medieval Slavic-speaking population might be substantially descended from a population that spoke a Germanic language in Roman times.

Exactly! All of your points are correct. But it shows that the story about great migration of entire population, who left only deserted land behind them, and then was replaced by new (Slavic-speaking) population who came from the East - is wrong. Moreover, it shows that majority of Medieval Slavic-speaking population had ancestors in the same territory in the Roman era (which of course doesn't mean that those ancestors were also Slavic-speaking, but it denies the old theory of complete switch of population, with a period of totally deserted land in between).

By the way - genetic (haplogroups) research shows the same conclusion, and we already had a discussion about this on another forum.

Those are the sort of factors that make it very difficult to draw conclusions from the comparison of alleged "Slavic" skulls with alleged "German" skulls. If skulls from two different areas show marked differences in form, that shows a degree of genetic distance between the populations of those two areas, but those physical differences say nothing about the cultural and linguistic relationship of the two populations.

Yes, the research doesn't say that those were Slavic skulls. But it says that those were skulls of descendants of Medieval Slavic population of the same territory, rather than of descendants of Medieval Germanic population of diffferent parts of Europe (where Goths and other Germanic tribes, who allegedly lived in large numbers in the area of modern Poland during the Roman era, migrated). In other words - when you want to look for Medieval descendants of people who lived at the Vistula during the reign of Emperor Augustus, you will find majority of them living in the same place (also at the Vistula) during the reign of Charlemagne - rather than somewhere else (for example in Italy and Spain, where the Goths migrated).

Thus, the German-speaking population of a particular area might be substantially descended from a population that was Slavic-speaking in previous centuries, and therefore would have the same skull-shape as its physical ancestors, despite the change in language and culture.

Yes, when you change language, the shape of your skull is not changing because of this. So there are many modern Germans who descend from Medieval Slavs of Vistula and Oder basins, who in turn descend from Ancient population of the same area (Vistula and Oder basins).

This research is not completely denying that some migrations of various ethno-linguistic groups took place.

But this research is showing that majority of population of Vistula and Oder basins was stationary between Ancient and Medieval times. This contradicts the old theory that entire population moved away to Western and Souther Europe, being replaced by new population from the East.

skulls measuring and all this is like the nazi research before 1945 or Virchow -style.

Nazi measuring was claiming that one skull (and its owner) is inherently better than another skull (and its owner). And they claimed this basing on differences in skull shapes, which are completely immaterial except for purely comparative and parentage researching purposes.

It would be like claiming that people with fair hair are better because of hair colour (actually that's what the Nazis also claimed).

These 19th century research thought to classify people by skull features. Thas was already shown as nonsense decades ago.

Anthropology was shown as nonsense decades ago? Then why is this science still existing?

The 19th century research was thought to prove that owners of some skulls are superior to owners of other skulls because of their skulls (and such). But it is a matter of fact that various populations have - statistically - different shapes of nose, face, mouth, eyes, skull, etc.

Another thing is that shapes of skull, nose, eyes, etc., have no impact on mental abilities of its owner.

Not Anthropology is nonsense, but to make conclusion for ethnic groups on the base of skull features or genetic research.

If you define ethnic groups as language groups (like me) then it is not making any conclusions.

It makes conclusions when it comes to parentage, descent.

It concludes that descendants of Medieval Slavic population did not come from the East, but lived where they were.

It is possible that their Roman era descendants did not speak Slavic languages, of course.

But this research also proves, that there were no significant and / or long-lasting populations of Goths from Scandinavia in Vistula and Oder basins. Either there were relatively small groups of Goths from Scandinavia, or there could be large groups who quickly moved forward without staying in this area (Vistula-Oder) for a long time, and without interbreeding much with local populations.

If there were significant Gothic populations for long time, more skulls with Scandinavian shapes would be found.

=====================================

Here the discussion quoted above took place:

http://historum.com/european-history/609...ost1558535

[Domen]

Genetic (haplogroup) research is only confirming anthropological evidence quoted above:

===============================

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...ne.0054360

Some fragments from the study in the link above:

"(...) Based on the newest anthropological data it has been suggested that the area between the Oder and Vistula rivers witnessed continuity of human settlement between the Roman period and the early Middle Ages. Indeed, based on morphological features of skeletal materials it has been established that populations of the Przeworsk, Wielbark and Cherniakhovo cultures from the Roman period bear close similarities to the early medieval Western Slavs and not to the medieval Germanic-speaking populations [10], [11]. Furthermore, paleodemographic studies also point to the biological continuity of the populations inhabiting the Oder and Vistula basin in the Roman period and the early medieval Slavic populations of this region [10]. Therefore, anthropological data received thus far make the “allochtonic” hypothesis less plausible, especially in its extreme migrationist form. (...)"

And:

"(...) Indeed, we show here the existence of genetic continuity of several maternal lineages in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages. Thus, the data from complete mitochondrial genomes collected so far seems to indicate that the ancestors of Slavs were autochthonous peoples of Central and Eastern Europe rather than early medieval invaders emerging in restricted areas of the Prut and Dniestr basin and expanding suddenly due to migration, as suggested by some archeologists [9]. In this respect, the complete genome data on several mitochondrial subhaplogroups of probable Central European origin presented in this and previous studies [51], [52] are in a perfect agreement with the recent findings of physical anthropology, suggesting continuity of human settlement in central Europe between the Roman period and the early Middle Ages [11] as well as with earlier anthropological data pointing to the central Europe as the “homeland” of Slavs [54]. (...)"

And:

"(...) In order to deepen the understanding of the origin of the Slavs,
we have completely sequenced the mtDNAs of 63 Slavic samples
representing haplogroups H5 and H6. Comparison of these
haplotypes with the available complete mtDNA sequences allows
us to identify a number of novel subclades. Further analysis
enables us to demonstrate that both the founder node and the
oldest subclusters within haplogroup H5 could be traced back to
the time of last glacial period or even earlier in the case of
haplogroup H6. These are mainly represented by samples of
southern European origin, which further supports the idea of
Europe repopulation from southern European refugia after LGM
[12,46,47]. As expected, we show here that potentially Slavicspecific
components of H5 haplogroup are much younger than H5
subclades of southern Europe, as their evolutionary age was
calculated to approximately 4 kya. The formation of these clades
coincides with the expansion of Central and Eastern European
haplogroups U4a2, U5a2a and U5a2b1 [48,49]. Taken together,
this data points to a genetic continuity of several maternal lineages
in Central Europe from the times of Bronze and Iron Ages.
Interestingly, this picture could be also confirmed by expansion
time of Y-chromosome subcluster R1a1a1-M458 [51]. Thus, one
may exclude the migrationist assumption that Central European
territories were populated by the Slavs only at the very beginning
of sixth century, following whole scale depopulation of the
northern areas of Central Europe [1]. Indeed, the data presented
herein indicates that visible changes of material culture of Central
Europe in the fifth century did not result from extensive
demographic changes, but were rather accompanied by continuity
of some maternal and paternal lineages between Bronze and early
Middle Ages. (...)"

And:

"(...) Moreover, we were able to pinpoint some lineages which could possibly reflect the relatively recent contacts of Slavs with nomadic Altaic peoples (C4a1a, G2a, D5a2a1a1). (...)"

And also:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInform...erID=21698

About haplogroup R1a in English.

"We found that the most ancient R1a subclades (R1a1-M198- and R1a1a-M198+/M417-) bearers of which currently live in Europe (the present day haplotypes are scattered between England and the Balkans) appeared in Europe at least 7300 ybp,

The Z283 subclade split ~ 5500 ybp into three branches. One of them, Z280 (the Central Eurasian branch) moved east to the Russian Plain in 4800 - 4600 ybp, and formed at least 16 sub-branches there and in the course of the later westward repopulation of Europe in the 1st millennium BC – 1st millennium CE.

In the middle of 1st millennium CE, the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, multiple migrations of R1a were taking place eastward and westward; these migrations gradually formed the current landscape of R1a in Europe. All 38 branches and their datings are listed in the Appendix of this paper; current distribution maps are shown in the body of the paper."

=========================================

Conclusions:

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]By genetic parentage (haplogroups) as well as anthropologically / morphologically, majority of Medieval population of Vistula and Oder basins were descendants of majority of Roman era population of this area, while not being descendants of Goths from Scandinavia.

So called "great migrations" (in both directions) are thus vastly overrated.

At least when it comes to their scale.[/COLOR]

[Macedon]

Posts regarding the genetic ancestry of the Slavs help in no way to form an image of a Venetian warrior of Roman times, so I moved them to a new topic. You may go on from here Peter, as should anyone else who is interested in this issue.

[Domen]

Let's go on:

"Anthropology about the origins of Slavs", published in 2008 in Poznań:

The book was published by scholars of the Institute of Anthropology of Poznań University:

Here is their website: http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~anthro/html/indexe.html

English summary of this book (from last two pages):

http://postimg.org/image/krug5n0cd/



http://postimg.org/image/pp0cprsnv/



======================================

Chapter 6 of this 2008 book, is about [COLOR="DarkOrange"]paleodemographic studies.[/COLOR]

This chapter is generally showing, that it was impossible for the Slavs to grow from such a small area as some people claim they originally (ca. year 500 CE) lived in, into such a huge population over such a vast territory as they were in year 1000 CE, during just 500 years:

==================================

Slavs end of 4th century/first half 5th

===================================

At first, authors of the book quote E. Vielrose studies on population growth / natural growth rates in Medieval Europe:

Entire Europe = average annual growth during each 100 years (average annual growth from each 100 individual annual growths)



And some other data (Kurnatowski's data is more important for our discussion here):



Kurnatowski (1977), after analysis of archaeological and historical data, came to a conclusion, that:

"when it comes to the period of Roman influences, then most probably an average annual growth of entire population was not higher than 0,1%, and even in moments of increased dynamics which took place in some periods and in some areas, it was not higher than 0,15%. On the other hand when it comes to the population growth speed in the second half of the first millennium of Common Era, then I would suppose, that in the scale of entire Slavdom it could not be lower than 0,2% and could not be higher than 0,3%. It should be noted, that this estimation is in agreement with previous studies regarding the dynamics of population growth during the early and middle ages of our history."

Authors of the book comment:

"Of course estimations of population size and population growth for various Slavic countries are not to the same degree certain and exact. Their critical summary was presented for example by Łowmiański (1973), who accepted, that around year 1000 Eastern Slavs numbered 4 million people, Western Slavs 1,9 million and Southern Slavs 1,4 million. In total entire Slavdom around year 1000 was to be populated by - according to this estimation - 7,3 million people. Kurnatowski (1977) recognized this estimation as very cautious and rather underestimation than excessively overestimated, but he intentionally accepted the second starting point, which would represent the lowest possible extreme variant of population of Slavdom, and thus he decreased the population of Western Slavs by 100,000, of Eastern Slavs - by 500,000, and of Southern Slavs - by 200,000 (chart 10)."

============================================

Some further excerpts from the book:

"After obtaining data regarding population of Slavdom in year 1000 and the data (estimations) regarding the population growth rate in the second half of the first millennium CE, Kurnatowski (1977) calculated hypothetical size of Slavic population in earlier times that is by the end of the 7th century CE and by the end of the 5th century CE (chart 11). He presented his calculations for two variants of natural growth rates: 0,2% annually and 0,3% annualy. This data shows, that population of Slavdom could fluctuate by the end of the 7th century CE between 2,65 million and 4,1 million people, while by the end of the 5th century CE between 1,45 million and 2,68 million people.

Chart 11:



Thus Kurnatowski (1977) established hypothetical lower and upper population sizes, which after growing during 500 years with average annual growth rate of between 0,2% and 0,3% would in the end result in the approximate number of people close to estimations of Łowmiański (1973) for year 1000 (growth rate 0,3% annually) or of Kurnatowski (growth rate 0,2% annually).

Using the same method as Kurnatowski in 1977, we carried out similar calculations for data emerging from the hypothesis of Godlewski (1979). That hypothesis assumed, that the size of original area inhabited by Slavs before their expansion was around 300,000 km2. But we did not have any data regarding the population size and density of population living in that area. In such situation, we decided that the most comfortable solution is to accept the hypothetical lower and upper possible level of population density and to carry out calculations for both extreme variants. It should be expected, that real values will be located somewhere within the scope delimited by minimal and maximal possible level of population density. We accepted two extreme levels of population density: 1 person per km2 and 4 people per km2. Are these well balanced estimations as extreme values? Actually population density of 4 people per km2 corresponds to population density level in year 1000 in various parts of Slavic lands and thus it can be considered as an inflated estimation (Piontek 2002).

Anyway, for accepted estimations of population density, according to Godłowski's allochthonic hypothesis (1979), population of native Slavic territories (ca. 300,000 km2 around year 500 CE according to Godłowski) would be between 300,000 and 1,200,000 people. In chart 12 we presented calculations of Slavic population size around year 1000, carried out according to three different estimated levels of annual population growth. These calculations indicate, that Slavic populations, in order to settle the area in which they lived around year 1000, would need to be characterized by extremely high dynamics of population growth and high numerical amount of initial population (high population density already around year 500)."

Chart 12:



As you see, it would require a totally impossible growth rate of 0,5% per year, to increase from 0,3 million in 500 CE to 7,3 million in 1000 CE.

=================================

Godłowski's hypothesis, mentioned above, is as follows:

"... crystallization of Slavic culture and its formation in such shape, as we know it from archaeological materials of the Early Medieval period (...) took place in the 5th century CE in territory ranging from the [eastern] foot of Carpathian Mountains up to the Pripyat River and left-bank area of middle Dnieper River, size of which covered ca. 300,000 square km. Simultaneously, it was the initial area / exit area of the great expansion of this culture and these people, which took place during the next centuries."

=================================

"Accepting estimated data of Kurnatowski (1977) regarding population of territories of Eastern, Western and Southern Slavdom around year 1000, we also calculated what was the population of these territories around year 500, accepting various possible population growth rates (between 0,1% and 0,4%) - charts 13 to 15 (Piontek 2002).

Chart 13 - eastern Slavdom / Eastern Slavs

Chart 14 - western Slavdom / Western Slavs

Chart 15 - southern Slavdom / Southern Slavs (the only group of migrating Slavs, according to authors)



Conclusions drawn from these calculations are such, that initial levels of the size of Slavic population around year 500 accepted in Godłowski's allochthonic hypothesis (1979, 2000) are decidedly far too low. On the other hand, the size of Slavic population migrating South (which lead to emergence of Southern Slavs) did not have to be so high. Initial migrating population of Southern Slavs, in order to reach the level of ca. 1,200,000 people around year 1000, with natural growth rate estimated at between 0,2% - 0,3% annually, should have numbered between 260,000 and 440,000 people around year 500.

As the most probable ones, we can accept the following estimations regarding the Slavic population size in three inhabited by them areas around year 500 CE: eastern Slavs - between 2000 thousands and 1000 thousands people; western - 660 thousands to 400 thousands; southern (migrating group) - 440 thousands to 260 thousands. Of course, when it comes to southern Slavs, these calculations are just a hypothetical estimations, which is not taking into account the real chronology of their colonization and migrations.

Chapter 6.2: Condition and dynamics of Early Medieval Slavic populations:

We gathered data about life length / life expectancy of adult people [people who survived to their adulthood, rather than dying already as children - Domen] in Medieval populations of Eastern Slavs, Western Slavs and Southern Slavs, calculated by various authors (charts 16 - 20). Most of these examined Slavic populations are dated for 9th - 11th centuries. This data indicates, that the lowest values of average age at death among adult people were among populations classified as Eastern Slavs (36 - 40 years at death) and Western Slavs (32 - 41 years at death), while the highest values were among Southern Slavs (42 - 45,5 years at death). Charts 16 - 20.

[here I can scan and post also charts 16 - 19, if you want - Domen]

Chart 20 (of course "Słowianie Południowi" = "Southern Slavs"):



It must be also underlined, that areas inhabited by Early Medieval Slavic populations with very low dynamics of population growth, are exactly the same areas which are considered by some scholars (followers of allochthonic / migratory ["eastern"] theories of the origins of Slavs) as original territory of native Slavic populations, from which they supposedly migrated after year 500. On the other hand areas marked as inhabited by populations with high dynamics of population growth, are areas captured by Slavs during theri expansion. Another substantial fact is that populations living in basins of Pripyat, Dnieper and Prut rivers were characterized by low biologic dynamics, which is why their demographic expansion could only be limited, and their capabilities of achieving population growth were not very high.

(...)

Archaeologists accepting Godłowski's conception, concerning the origins and expansion of Slavs, as well as its author himself, have never shown any proofs which would support the hypothesis, that populations living in 5th century in the area between the eastern foot of Carpathian Mountains up to the Pripyat River and left-bank area of middle Dnieper River underwent a demographic tranformation, which would make them capable of demographic expansion.

For many years there is a dispute about this issue; both archaeologists and anthropologists raise arguments saying about the fact, that there are no traces of demographic expansion of early Slavs assumed by Godłowski, neither in examined archaeologic materials, nor in historical sources, nor in anthropological data.

The theory of demographic transition is one of most well-known / of the best recognized issues of the science of demography (Hassan 1981). We do expect, that the hypothesis about eastern origins of Slavs, presented by allochthonists, will at long last find its credible demographic substantiation. For we do not find any credible confirmation of this hypothesis in paleodemographic studies, which are aimed at evaluation of the condition and biological dynamics of Slavic population, basing on very numerous and diversified analyses of skeletal materials.

If one wants to prove the validity of Godłowski's hypothesis, about the eastern origins and then westward expansion of Slavs, one should at first present substantial arguments, which would explain the reasons of changes in reproductive system of groups of early Slavs - changes allowing them to rapidly increase their biological dynamics and, due to this fact, to rapidly expand into vast territories from their initial homeland. Sadly, we do not find any such arguments in discussed reconstruction of the processes of migrations and settlement of the Slavs. It is only said about some alleged regularity, that:

"(...) people until that time not playing any major role in history and living in a rather small area suddenly and amazingly start to work their way up in history and start to expand at a very fast pace over territories in terms of size multiple times exceeding their original homeland. In case of Slavs this situation occured with particularly unprecedented vibrancy (Godłowski, 2000).

-----------------------------

Authors of the book do not agree that such a "sudden and amazing" growth and expansion can be reasonably explained.

=============================

Some archeologists also oppose the hypothesis of eastern origins of Slavs.

Authors of the discussed book, quote for example Leciejewicz (2002):

"... Slavic inhabitants of Polish lands in the Early Medieval period were exhibiting accurate enough ties with heritage of their predecessors in this part of Ancient barbaricum, that we are authorised to claim native / local roots of their culture. On an ethnographic map of Early Medieval Europe, Slavs from this part of Europe were representing, just like their eastern kinsmen, an agrarian culture, significantly different from culture of Scandinavian vikings, Balts in their forested zone and nomadic people in the steppes around the Black Sea. Slavs were numerically significant, the most agrarian peoples living outside the Ancient limes of Europe and it does not seem possible, that the Slavic ethnos could be shaped in a relatively small territory, within the primeval forests and swamps of the upper Dniester river."

===============================

And one more quote from authors of the discussed 2008 book (an excerpt from "Final conclusions" chapter):

"Thesis about rapid / sudden demographic expansion of Slavic populations is highly speculative and cannot result from derivation studies / source studies, as some of its followers claim.

It thus cannot be claimed, that the area of basins of Oder and Vistula rivers was deserted after migration of Germanic tribes during the so called great migrations, and that it was once again populated by Slavic people not before the 5th / 6th centuries.

A new beginning in the studies of the process of ethnogenesis of Slavs seems possible only after rejection by archaeologists, of their highly speculative, allochthonic model / migratory model ["eastern model"] of the origins of Slavs.

Results of anthropological studies, including our own research, are increasingly strongly supporting the views of some scholars, who say that cultural processes taking place between the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages were too complicated to explain them just with simple migratory model."

==========================

Edit:

Here charts 16 and 17:

Western / Eastern Slavs:



Southern Slavs:



=====================================

See also this discussion:

http://historum.com/european-history/609...tc-11.html

===========================

Most probably the Western Slavs also consisted of a mixture of original non-Slavic peoples with Slavic-speaking immigrants. The use by German-speakers of the word "Wend" to denote the Slavic-speaking peoples living to the east of them suggests such a process, since that term originally denoted a distinct ethnic group that inhabited the lands stretching from the Baltic to the Adriatic, and was known to the Romans as the "Veneti", a name from which the modern toponyms Venice and Vienna are derived.

Polish historian Wyrozumski mentions the theory of another historian - Hensel - which is quite similar to what you wrote (except that according to Hensel, Proto-Slavic people perhaps replaced the original Venetic population and adopted their name, after the Veneti migrated away):

Wyrozumski writes:

"(...) the theory, that Proto-Slavs should be identified with the Trzciniec culture. After giving this theory a new shape and a convincing amplification by Witold Hensel, it looks as follows: The area, in which the ethnogenesis of Balto-Slavic community took place around the end of the Neolithic period, would be the triangle between the Baltic Sea, the San River and the middle Dnieper River. The Trzciniec culture which flourished during the Bronze Age (16th - 13th centuries BC) would be the product of perhaps already separated Proto-Slavic community. While its neighbouring in the west Proto-Lusatian culture would belong to people of the Venetic language group, which is either considered by scholars as related to Illyrian language group, or as a totally separate group. Initially there perhaps took place some mutual interfusing between both cultures, while later, around the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, the Veneti abandoned their homeland in the Oder river basin area, which opened the way for the Proto-Slavs to expand westward. In that area they perhaps took over (...) the name of their predecessors, under which they were known to Ancient writers."

And in another place of his book:

"(...) sources from first centuries of Common Era (Pliny the Elder who died in 79 CE, Tacitus who died in 120 CE, Ptolemy who died in 2nd century) mention the first name of inhabitants of our lands. Those were the Veneti. If originally this name probably denoted a separate Venetic language group, then already during first centuries of CE it denoted a number of tribes living in basins of Oder and Vistula rivers, especially - as it seems - in middle and upper parts of these rivers. This name was very viable / lively and it was expansive to at least the same degree, as a thousand years later the tribal name of Polani, or in Silesia - the tribal name of Sleenzane. The same name - Venedi / Wenedowie - is also applied to Slavs from Polish territories during the next centuries, and the last echo of this name can be found in a 9th century source, so called description of Germania, written in Britain during the reign of Alfred the Great (871 - 899). A persistent trace of this nomenclature survived even longer in German language in which the name for Medieval Slavic tribes living between the Oder river and the Elbe river was Wenden."

The same Wyrozumski, when describing arguments for western and eastern origins of Slavs, writes:

"(...) The main argument supporting the theory about western origins of Slavs, are traces of Slavic linguistic contacts with Germanic, Baltic, Illyro-Venetic and Iranian language groups. On the other hand, in Slavic languages there is a total absence of any loanwords from Finno-Ugrian languages, which would testify against the alleged eastern ethnogenesis of our ancestors. Followers of the western thesis were also highlighting the fact that names for cis (yew-tree) and bluszcz (ivy), which grow only in basins of Vistula and Oder rivers, are common for nearly all Slavic languages, which means that these names date back to the Proto-Slavic period, preceeding the dispersal of Slavs from their original homeland (Urheimat) and the emergence of several separate Slavic languages as a consequence of that dispersal. (...)"

But, according to Wyrozumski:

"(...) On the other hand, followers of the eastern theory, highlight the fact that names for buk (beech tree) and jawor (sycamore), which initially grew in Western and Central Europe, are loanwords in Slavic languages. This would suggest, that at the beginning Slavic people did not know these trees, considering that they had no their own terms to describe them, which suggests that they would originally live outside the zone where these trees grew. (...) The reference of Greek historian Herodotus about the Neuri, living to the north of / beyond the Iranian Scythians, somewhere in the region - as is usually thought - of upper Pripyat river or maybe Narew river, who are usually identified with Slavic people, would suggest the early settlement of Slavs in Ruthenian or rather Southern Ruthenian lands."

============================

See also this discussion:

http://historum.com/european-history/609...tc-13.html

============================

And more about anthropology from previous chapters of the 2008 book:

Illustration 29:

Multilayered scaling of square matrixes of euclidean distances for 32 male populations from Europe in terms of 10 metrical features of skull.

I replaced black dots by red dots for Medieval Germanic populations (majuscules) who were nearest neighbours of Medieval Slavic populations, green dots for Roman era populations (bold) and blue dots for Medieval Western (normal typestyle) and Eastern (italics) Slavic populations:

As for Medieval Germanic populations who were nearest neighbours of Slavs:

Burgundowie = Burgundians
Frankowie = Franks
Alamanowie = Alemanni
Sasi = Saxons
Bawarowie = Bavarians
Norwedzy = Norwegians
Islandczycy = Icelanders
Szwedzi = Swedes
Longobardowie = Lombards (Langobards)

Roman era populations:

K. czerniachowska = Chernyakhovsk culture
K. przeworska = Przeworsk culture
K. wielbarska = Wielbark culture

Medieval Western Slavs:

Małopolanie = Slavs from Lesser Poland [Vistulans? - Domen]
Meklemburgia = Slavs from Mękelnborg / Mecklenburg [Polabian Slavs, the Obotrites? - Domen]
Cedynia = Slavs from Cedynia [westernmost Polans / Lubuszanie aka Leubuzzi, Licikaviki, Liubusiki / Prissani? - Domen]
Pomorzanie = Pomerelians
Śleżanie = Silesians
Wielkopolanie = Slavs from Greater Poland [Polans? - Domen]
Słowacy = Slovaks
Lubelszczyzna = Slavs from Lublin Region [Lendians? - Domen]
Mazowszanie = Mazovians

Medieval Eastern Slavs:

Słowenie = Ilmen Slavs
Polanie = Polans [the eastern ones, those from Ukraine - Domen]
Galicz = Slavs from Galich / Halych region

Etc., etc.



Illustration 28:



Dendrogram arranging the matrix of square euclidean distances of 32 male populations of Europe:

I underlined Medieval Germanic populations which were nearest neighbours of Slavs (I listed them above) with red colour, Roman era populations with green colour and Medieval Western and Eastern Slavic populations (see above) with blue colour.

I also included each group of populations most closely biologically related to each other in a separate buckle. Each most closely related group is included in one buckle. According to the book: "it is difficult to trace further, less close relations between groups", which is why data about further connections between grups can be less accurate than data about closest relations:

As you can see all Germanic neighbours of Slavs, except the Lombards, were most closely related to each other, not with other ethnic groups.

On the other hand, the Lombards were most closely related to Slavic Małopolanie [Vistulans?], Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures.

Małopolanie [Vistulans?] themselves, were more closely related to Roman era populations, than to Medieval Lombards.

=====================================

In other words, populations most closely biologically related to Ancient Wielbark Culture were:

- Slavic Pomerelians
- Slavic Polabians / Obotrites (Mecklenburg region Slavs)
- westernmost Polans / Lubuszanie (Leubuzzi, Licikaviki, Liubusiki) / Prissani (Cedynia)

Slightly less closely biologically related to Wielbark Culture were:

- Mazovians
- Slavs from Greater Poland (Polans?)
- Ilmen Slavs
- Slavs from Słaboszewo (in Cuiavia) - but these skulls are from Later Medieval / Early Modern times, not from Early Medieval like others

While most closely biologically related to Ancient Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk Cultures were:

- Slavs from Lesser Poland (Vistulans I suppose) - they were especially very closely related to Chernyakhovsk Culture, while a bit less closely to Przeworsk Culture

Also closely related to these two Roman era cultures, but less closely than Vistulans, were Germanic Lombards.

Slightly less closely related to these 2 cultures than Vistulans and Lombards were:

- Slavs from Lublin Region (Lendians I suppose)
- Slavs from Galich / Halych region
- Silesians (Sleenzane)
- Moravians
- Slovaks
- Slavs from Łekno (in Cuiavia) - but these are skulls from Late Medieval / Early Modern times, not from Early Medieval like others.

What is very interesting, is that Germanic Lombards (Langobards) were much more closely biologically related to several groups of Slavic people (Slavs from Lesser Poland, Galich / Halych region, Lublin Region, Silesians, Moravians, Slovaks and Late Medieval / Early Modern period Slavs from Cuiavian Łekno area) than they were related to all other Germanic populations which lived in territories bordering Slavic territories.

Lombards - who apparently had much more of common ancestors with several Slavic groups, than with any other Germanic group:

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

Slavs from Lesser Poland (Vistulans?) and Lombards are also the 2 groups most closely related to Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk cultures.

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

Most of Slavic Vistulans and of Germanic Lombards were biological descendants of Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk Roman era people.

But Germanic Lombards were also very closely biologically related to several other Slavic groups, not just to Vistulans.

On the other hand, those Germanic Lombards were not closely biologically related to any other of Germanic tribes listed above.



================================

Edit:

By the way - let's see what Velleius Paterculus wrote about the Lombards (Langobards):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards#Ar...migrations

Paterculus says that under Tiberius the "power of the Langobardi was broken, a race surpassing even the Germans in savagery".[18]

As you can see, Velleius Paterculus suggests that the Lombards were not a Germanic tribe (were not "Germans").

He wrote that they were "surpassing even the Germans in savagery" - which means, that he considered them as distinct from "Germans".

This is confirmed by studies quoted above, which show that Lombards had more common ancestors with Slavs than with other Germanic people.

Of course this only means that in times of Paterculus' lifetime, the Lombards did not speak any of Germanic languages.

This does not exclude the fact, that they underwent Germanization later - and spoke German language during the Middle Ages.

However, ethno-linguistic Germanization of course did not change biological and genetic features of the Lombards.

==========================

Edit:

I am no expert for such anthropological research.

(...)

Why are mazovians, greater Poles closer related to eastern Poles, than to Little Poles, Silesians, germans?

I am also no expert so I probably wan't be able to explain all of your doubts (I also have doubts about some points in this book).

But when it comes to your question above:

As authors of the book I quoted say, when they are describing that illustration (Ryc.) 28, "it is difficult to accurately place [on this particular illustration] further, less close relations between groups", which is why data about further connections between grups on illustration 28 can be less accurate than data about closest relations.

So I would only look at those closer connections when it comes to illustration (Ryc.) 28.

On the other hand, to trace less close / farther connections, I would look at illustration (Ryc.) 29, and compare distances between points (as well as on which side of the graph these points are located - left / right / upper / lower, etc.).

So from Ryc. 29 it seems, that Moravians and Slovakians are closely related - when it comes to Germans - to Franks, Saxons and Burgundians.

According to the same Ryc. 29, Icelanders are most closely biologically related to Norwegians, Swedes and Allemanni.

"Fracti Langobardi, gens etiam Germana feritate ferocior" is hardly an evidence for being Slavs.

Yes, it is not an evidence for being Slavic-speaking. But it is an evidence for not being Germans in the Ancient period.

On the other hand, anthropology provides evidence that they had common ancestors with Slavs. Ryc. 29 two-dimensional graph posted above also shows this, placing the Langobard "point" closer to several Slavic groups than to all other Germanic groups. Langobards were also closely biologically related to Roman era cultures Wielbark and Chernyakhovsk, just like several Slavic groups, but unlike all other Germanic groups.

How do you explain their saga of Scandinavian origin?

(...)

Why are they so different from the saxons

Hard to say. Maybe their saga is simply wrong regarding their legendary origins?

After all, Polish "saga" says that Poles are of Sarmatian origins and this is disputed.

Or maybe they left Scandinavia very, very long time ago - and lived outside of Scandinavia, separated from the Saxons while close to some other people for a very long time, enough long that their biological features became more similar to other people, rather than Saxons?

Or maybe they intermarried a lot during their migrations with people who were ancestors of Medieval Slavs?

[Domen]

But let's take one more look at one issue of this anthropological study of biological (not necessarily ethnic or linguistic) connections:

(...) While most closely biologically related to Ancient Przeworsk and Chernyakhovsk Cultures were:

- Slavs from Lesser Poland (Vistulans I suppose) - they were especially very closely related to Chernyakhovsk Culture, while a bit less closely to Przeworsk Culture

Also closely related to these two Roman era cultures, but less closely than Vistulans, were Germanic Lombards. (...)

Vistulans (Wiślanie) - from Lesser Poland... Their most important stronghold was Cracow (Kraków).

There is a chronicle written by Wincenty Kadłubek (lived in ca. 1150 - 1223), which is considered by modern Polish historians as a total fairy tale and utter rubbish when it comes to its first chapters (about legendary beginnings of the Poles).

In those chapters Kadłubek describes duke Krakus / Gracchus - a legendary founder of Kraków (Cracow) - who was a king of some people living at the Vistula (Kadłubek does not give their name - he initially does not call them "Poles" and he does not call them "Slavs").

That duke Krakus / Gracchus - according to Kadłubek - fought wars against Ancient Gauls (or - to be precise - Celts, but Kadłubek did not distinguish them from each other). According to Kadłubek, warriors of Krakus / Gracchus repulsed the Gallic (Celtic) invaders, and even invaded the region of Pannonia (modern Western Hungary, which was inhabited by Celts for some time). Krakus / Gracchus also at some point travelled to the region of modern Carinthia (perhaps it was a peaceful travel, Kadłubek doesn't provide any details).

Celtic raids of the area of modern Cracow could indeed take place - Celts indeed penetrated into Silesia and what is now southern Poland.

Only after describing these events, and the return of Krakus / Gracchus from Carinthia, Kadłubek says that he was elected king and founded the "kingdom of Poland". Of course this is already total rubbish and fairy tale. In general the "legendary period" in his chronicle is considered a pure fairy tale.

But each legend has a grain of truth in it - is it possible that legendary stories were more long-lasting than tribes, languages or ethnic groups?

If there was continuity of settlement, then who knows - maybe an Ancient story, in a very distorted form of course, survived in verbal accounts among local population until Medieval times? Maybe Kadłubek did not entirely made up his story about Krakus, but compiled from various folk legends from the Vistula river area, verbal accounts passed from parents to their children during dozens of generations?

BTW - large settlements in area of modern Cracow (including the Wawel Hill) are confirmed by archaeologists already for the 14th century BC - and since that time there was continuity of settlement, of course with some temporary periods of population decrease, but the region was never totally deserted.

The first confirmed period of major population decrease (and cultural regress) in the area of modern Cracow and its neighbourhood was in 6th - 5th centuries BC, after the collapse of the Lusatian culture, caused perhaps by Scythian and Celtic invasions. The second period of major population decrease in this area, was, as is commonly known, in the 4th - 6th centuries AD and was caused most likely by Hunnic invasions and bubonic plague, which also decimated Mediterranean population at that time (and maybe also by those alleged large scale migrations).

[Domen]

They also quote the results and theories of genetic studies from other authors, already in first chapters of their book (before drawing their own anthropological conclusions, which I quoted above, in further chapters).

Here is an excerpt from chapter 3.5. of this 2008 book, titled "The results of studies of molecular biology":

"(...) Already for several years genetic analyses of Slavic populations are being carried out. They are based on studies of modern mitochondrial DNA (Malyarchuk 2001, 2004, Malyarchuk and others 2008, Grzybowski and others 2002, Grzybowski 2006, Toepf and others 2007) or Y chromosome (Perlic and others 2005). Until now studies of mtDNA have shown, that genetic pool of Western, Eastern and Southern Slavs is part of the complete genetic pool of European ethnic groups and has the highest number of phylogenetically related types of mtDNA.

Western Slavs occupy a central position among all Slavic ethnic groups, and their genetic pool includes a maximal number of rare shared and similar types of mtDNA in relation to Russians and Belarussians, while these two ethnic groups only to some extent show genetic similarity to each other.

It is also considered, that a large role in shaping the genetic structure of Slavs was played by interethnic processes - intermarrying and assimilation of populations, due to which Western Slavs show genetic similarity to germanic populations, such as Germans or Austrians, Bulgarians are similar in genetic terms to other Balkan populations, and Russians to Ugro-Finnic groups of northern and eastern Europe (Malyarchuk 2001, Grzybowski and others 2002).

In case of analyses of Y chromosome, there is - so far - no general consensus regarding the origins of Slavs. Basing on studies of Y-STR haplotypes, authors of one of articles alleged the presence of substantial genetic differences between Polish and Belarussian populations, which - according to them - mean that Belarussians could not originally arise from territory of Poland. Due to this, authors of mentioned article claim, that Slavs originate from the Dnieper basin (Rębała and others, 2007). On the other hand, other scholars think that the presence of haplogroup N in chromosome Y of Eastern Slavs (Belarussians, Russians and Ukrainians) and at the same time absence of this haplogroup in populations of Western and Southern Slavs means, that the main direction of Slavic migration was from the west towards the east and resulted in the fact, that Slavs partially intermarried with populations living in Eastern Europe. These populations were characterized by high frequency of haplogroup N (Perlic and others, 2005).

Recently Grzybowski (2006), while summarizing the results of polymorphism of mtDNA in Polish and Russian populations, came to a conclusion, that formation of modern Eastern Slavic populations was the result of intermarrying between Slavic tribes (whose Urheimat was most likely Central Europe), with Pre-Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, such as Ugro-Finnic tribes living in north-eastern and eastern peripheries of Eastern Europe, Baltic tribes in the west and Iranian tribes in the south.

This author also thinks, that "the increase of resolution / precision of analyses, allowed us to distinct essential components, which are distinguishing Poles and Russians from other European populations. The most important of these components is subclade U4a2, phylogenesis of which was reconstructed with use of complete sequences of mitochondrial genotypes. Contrary to previous estimations of the evolutionary age of U4a2 based on the clock of HVS I region (...), current results of dating based on diversification of sequences of the coding region indicate Neolithic origins of this subclade. Time period of around 7,000 years, during which diversification within entire U4a2 subclade observed in modern populations was shaping itself indicates, that expansion of this subclade in Central, Northern and Eastern Europe can coincide with expansion of archaeological culture of Corded Ware" (Grzybowski 2007, page 137). (...)"

[Domen]

It is also considered, that a large role in shaping the genetic structure of Slavs was played by interethnic processes - intermarrying and assimilation of populations, due to which Western Slavs show genetic similarity to germanic populations, such as Germans or Austrians, Bulgarians are similar in genetic terms to other Balkan populations, and Russians to Ugro-Finnic groups of northern and eastern Europe (Malyarchuk 2001, Grzybowski and others 2002).

But let me add my own comment on this:

Please note, that these molecular biologists are researching DNA of modern people, who live in the 21st century - unlike anthropologists, authors of discussed book from 2008, who are researching biological features of Ancient and Early Medieval human remains.

In my opinion, modern "genetic similarity" between Western Slavs and Germans or Austrians, results from ethno-linguistic Germanization of Western Slavs (which as we know started already in the High and Late Middle Ages during the "Ostsiedlung" as well as military expansion into Slavic lands, and continued during further centuries), rather than from the alleged assimilation of Germanic tribes by Slavic tribes in the Early Middle Ages.

These modern genetic studies on modern people thus cannot be considered as more reliable than studies of biological diversity conducted on real, original skeletons from Ancient and Medieval times, before the "Ostsiedlung", eastward expansion of German states, and the Germanization processes occuring between the High Middle Ages and the early 20th century in former Western Slavic lands (at first Slavic westernmost lands, then Lusatia, lands of Polabian Slavs, Western Pomerania, Silesia, some other parts of Poland, lands of the Kingdom of Prussia, etc., etc.).

There was of course also Slavicization (including Polonization) of many ethnic Germans - but vast majority of this process was also taking place in more modern times (since the High and Late Middle Ages, until the 20th century, and partially even in the 21st century - since the remaining German minority in Poland, which was not expelled from Poland after 1945, is still assimilating and Polonizing itself).

In such case, modern genetic studies are not as reliable as studies of biological diversity conducted on original human remains belonging to people who lived in Ancient and Early Medieval times.

[Dan Howard]

What is a "slav"? Is it someone who belongs to a group that shares a common culture and language or does he simply have to have a set of arbitrarily-defined biological traits?

[Paul Elliott]

Is it just me, but technical terms like 'Germanization' and 'Slavizisation' give me the feeling that cultural politics is up for debate here.

[markusaurelius]

I'm a little overwhelmed by the amount of info, but do have an interest in genetic markers and ancient history. Do you know what DNA haplogroup this study found?

[Epictetus]

I'm a little overwhelmed by the amount of info, but do have an interest in genetic markers and ancient history.

I second this. Perhaps a nice paragraph or two 'executive summary' of the point of all this would be helpful.

[Domen]

I'm a little overwhelmed by the amount of info, but do have an interest in genetic markers and ancient history. Do you know what DNA haplogroup this study found?

Yes. By the way - if you want you can join a similar discussion in the link.

I started it in 3 different forums at the same time, but here it is expanding faster than the other two places (already 22 pages):

http://historum.com/european-history/609...tc-22.html

BTW:

For Polish elite, (...) descendants of legendary Sarmatians

There is a theory that remnants of Sarmatians (destroyed by the Huns) escaped to lands inhabited by Slavs / Proto-Slavs, and there assimilated with them. As a matter of fact there were various strongly Sarmatian-style items found inside early Slavic burial-grounds.

There is perhaps some truth in this.

Already Early Medieval French chronicler Flodoard of Reims (894 - 966) called the Slavs - "Sarmatians".

============================

Here for example such an excerpt from the chronicle by Flodoard of Reims:

http://books.google.pl/books?id=OpsTS-E_...ns&f=false

"(...) A very large force of Magyars attacked Bavaria, seeking to invade Francia. King Otto [of Germany], along with Boleslav, the princeps of the Sarmatians, and Conrad [of Lotharingia], who was now reconciled to the king, fought against them. He cut down the Magyars, almost annihilating them. However, Conrad, who had fought very bravely that day and had inspired the king to victory, was killed. (...)"

This is about Boleslav, duke of Bohemia.

[Domen]

The most common Y chromosome haplogroup among Slavs is R1a (R-M420) - or rather some of its subclades. But recently it is considered that mtDNA research (maternal ancestry) is more reliable than Y chromosome (paternal ancestry). Regarding mtDNA it was described below in post 1 day 19 hours ago #342841.

When it comes to Y haplogroups - ca. 50% of Slavs have R1a, while the remaining 50% have a huge number of various other haplogroups.

======================

Edit:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_eu..._dna.shtml