Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Question on Further Understanding 12 Marker Matches

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Also they contradict themselfs by actually accepting that Poland and Eastern-Germany had been predominant R1a by the 1th century AD already. That when it was settled by Eastern-GERMANIC tribes. Wich is 500 years before the Slavs showed up in Poland and 600 before they settle in Eastern Germany.
    Last edited by Daniel72; 11 May 2009, 12:31 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Daniel72 View Post
      Also they contradict themselfs by actually accepting that Poland and Eastern-Germany had been predominant R1a by the 1th century AD already. That when it was settled by Eastern-GERMANIC tribes. Wich is 500 years before the Slavs showed up in Poland and 600 before they settle in Eastern Germany.
      The referenced page is clearly labeled as an (over)simplification. It references another page that takes a more nuanced approach. With respect to R1a, this latter page says:
      ---
      The Germanic branch of Indo-European languages probably inherited more from the R1b cultures, although R1a is likely to have arrived earlier in Scandinavia, during the Corded Ware period. R1a people would have mixed with the pre-Germanic I1 aborigines to create the Nordic Bronze Age (1800-500 BCE). R1b would have reached Scandinavia later as a northward migration from the contemporary Hallstatt culture (1200-500 BCE). The first truly Germanic tongue could have been a blend of Hallstatt Proto-Celtic and the Corded-Ware Proto-Slavic with a few pre-Germanic loan words. The fact that present-day Scandinavia is composed of roughly 40% of I1, 20% of R1a and 40% of R1b reinforces the idea that Germanic ethnicity and language had acquired a tri-hybrid character by the Iron Age.
      ---

      I don't necessarily agree with that page's expressed views, but one can see that they are making some attempt to reconcile genetic, archaeological, and linguistic data.

      My own interpretation of the genetic data is that Central Europe received successive waves of R1a. The first wave, which must have reached Eulau, Germany, at least 4600 years ago, seems to correlate with the spread of Indo-European. The last wave, historically dated to the 6th century, was Slavic. It is the middle wave, associated with the Przeworsk culture and dating from the 2nd century B.C. to the 4th century A.D., which is perhaps the most disputed.
      Last edited by lgmayka; 12 May 2009, 06:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
        The current scholarly view is a balanced compromise:
        ---
        Therefore, modern thinking leans towards assigning the [Przeworsk] culture to an association of tribes of proto-Slavic, Germanic and Celtic origins.
        ---

        Comment


        • #34
          There are anyways a lot of problems of defining people.
          I dont know that much about Slavic people somehow. *sigh*

          But I know about "Germanic people" that there is not ONE definition but several. And neither of these definition does exactly match the others. Up to the claim that "Germanic peoples" have never existed at all but are an invention of Caesar to fool the Roman senate about a new, powerfull enemy. That they let roll some more coins for the Roman Army and agree to more fighting (much like: there are WMD in Iraq....)

          There is a linguistic definiton:
          Whatever tribe spoke a Germanic language belongs to the Germanic peoples.
          Problem: Most of these people had no writing and we have no clue what they spoke.

          the Historic definition:
          Whatever tribe names itself "Germanic" or is named "Germanic" by someone outside in any historical source is a "Germanic tribe".
          Problem: The goth, who we KNOW spoke an (East)Germanic language and are a "Germanic tribe" by the definition of the Linguists, was in no historical source ever called a "Germanic tribe".

          The Franks, who we aswell know spoke a (West)Germanic language refuse to be a "Germanic tribe" but claim to be survivors of Troy....o....k....

          The tribe whos name was used for the Germanic people was actually a Celtic tribe *deep sigh* So the whole name is totaly wrong.

          Tacitus tells about several tribes that claim to be Germanic people, but tacitus is absolutely sure these people are Celts and lie to be Germans.

          so the "historical Definition" is also quiet problematic.

          Then there is another definiton.
          the "Cultural/Archeological Definition".
          Whatever tribe uses a culture that matches the culture of tribes, accepted to be "Germanic" by either linguistic or historical definition is Germanic. Thats roughly 8 totaly different cultures btw... LOL)
          Several scientists claim, its totaly nonsense to name all these totaly different people under a single name "Germanic people" and claim there is no archeological evidence of the existence of something that can be called "Germanic people" (too much totaly different cultures that all suposedly are in this box)

          iGENEA says they know all this. But still claim they found the genetic singularity that connects all these tribes.
          with the3 exception of the Vandals, who have their very own marker.

          BUT
          On the other side they aswell say, that the "Indigenious people" they found are genetically one people and related, but are not nessecarily absolute identical with the political, historical, linguistical definitions existing.....

          Hmmmmm

          Tahts what we need. another definition that does not nessecarily match with the other definitions.
          Last edited by Daniel72; 12 May 2009, 09:24 PM.

          Comment

          Working...
          X