The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Genealogy  % width posts: 4

Belief of Sarmatian descend of Szlachta in the Renaissance is not entirely wrong, but not quite right either


Gabriel Krakow
4 Dec 2020 #1
All Poles who possess moderate knowledge of the history of Poland and of course people who are somewhat into Polish history would have heard of the Sarmatians and Sarmatism during the Renaissance in Poland

So what is the verdict of genetics and archaeology on the Sarmatian ancestry of contemporary Poles and/or Polish-Sarmatian genetic relationship? It is as follows:

- Most Polish people (actually something like 55% of the male paternal haplogroup lineage) shares the same metapopulation with the Sarmatians, therefore the further you go back in time on paternal line, the closer the genetic proximity will be between Poles and Sarmatians (i.e. in the Iron Age it would have been really close)

- Some Poles, although a small minority, will actually have the exact same chromosomal y-haplogroup marks as those found in Scythian and Sarmatian kurgan burials, meaning a direct ancestry from the Iron Age Sarmatian population

Source: youtube.com/watch?v=aqOSGnjjpR0 "Pochodzenie, pokrewieństwo i etnogeneza polskiego rycerstwa w świetle badań DNA"

Is it more prevalent among the Polish Szlachta than among the non-Szlachta Poles? No, no evidence of that correlation. A non-szlachta Pole is just as likely to be of direct descendant of Sarmatians/Scythians, or more likely an indirect cousin of that population via shared metapopulation in the Bronze Age, as in a Szlachcic.

What is however very interesting is that there was almost no Sarmatian descent among the Szlachta of the Wielkopolska region - and there was instead a huge Norman and Germanic descent among them (more than previously anticipated, even in excess of 1/3, this is also discussed in the source above).
Crow 146 | 8,826
4 Dec 2020 #2
no Sarmatian descent among the Szlachta of the Wielkopolska region - and there was instead a huge Norman and Germanic

Your crucial error is to think of Sarmatians as of people with identical haplogroup. Its so naive. At their maximum Sarmats lived from British islands, over entire Europe, Eurasia, Near East to the Ind river. Even if you exclude mixing with outsiders it is IMPOSSIBLE Sarmats to have same haplogroup on such a large inter-continental space.

Do you understand that? All Europeans are Sarmatians in origin. All are genetic Sarmatians who once also shared their Sarmatian common cultural and linguistic heritage. But there is the trick. Only Slavs remained Sarmatians in every sense. In genetic, cultural and linguistic sense. Only Balkan, Lusatian and Kashub Serbs, from all Slavs, still using local versions of once original Sarmatian name. Other Whites remained only genetic Sarmatians but abandoned their direct cultural and linguistic connection to ancestors. Indirect cultural/lingual connection exist but not direct.

Or to tell this way. People is one thing and nation is the novelty. See, Slavs are still people. They are as were their ancestors. Non-Slavic Whites aren`t same people anymore. They are now nations. They just originate from Sarmatian people but they are something else now. Not new people because they still have Sarmatian genetics. They are new cultures, a nations that originate from Sarmatian people. Most probably exactly that fact explains their atavistic hate on us who remained Slavs ie Sarmatians. As long as we live, live fact that non-Slavic Whites abandoned their ancestral original Western culture, while we who are still Slavs ie Sarmats did not. We remained traditional, true, original.

Pardon. Name of Shwabi, Swedi, Spaniards (possible even some more national names) are also local versions of Sarmatian name. Possible corrupted with foreign influences but as far as I know also could evolve naturally that way due to distance from cultural core and isolation. Those Sarmat names are still in use. Interestingly, name remained but culture and direct connection to ancestral language are lost. And shockingly, those who using them even don`t understand that they bear name of true native Europeans, their original ancestors.
OP Gabriel Krakow
4 Dec 2020 #3
@Crow
Well Crow what you describe as "Sarmat" would actually be "Indo-European" or more specifically "Proto-Indo-European" or maybe even "Eastern Hunter Gatherer (EHG)" which is the R-M173 (ancestral to both R1a and R1b) metapopulation ancestral to all peoples ranging from Celtic to Illyrian to Balto-Slavic to Indo-Iranian.

However, Sarmatians were just part of Indo-Europeans, specifically an offshoot of proto-Indo-Iranians that ultimately have origin in the Sintashta-Andronovo complex. And before that there was a metapopulation which Balto-Slavs and Scytho-Sarmatians share.

But in any case I do not at all disagree with you identifying as a "Sarmat" - you are actually half right. Even today on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) chart modern Poles are relatively quite close to certain Iron Age Sarmatian burials, and again, some even descend directly from them, but the vast majority shares the same metapopulation. So Poles of the Iron Age would be even closer to Iron Age Sarmatians than, let us say, Finnish and Estonian people today to each other, or French and the Franks, for a comparison.
Crow 146 | 8,826
5 Dec 2020 #4
Sarmat is original name of people (I mean Greco-Latinized version of name). Some original forms of original Sarmatian name you would find in names (how they call themselves) of Lusatian, Kashub and Balkan Serbs and also other local forms- possible also corrupted by foreign influence- Shwabi, Swedi, Spaniards. Other names ("Indo-European" or "Eastern Hunter Gatherer) you mentioned are political constructs. Not scientific. Political.


Home / Genealogy / Belief of Sarmatian descend of Szlachta in the Renaissance is not entirely wrong, but not quite right either
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.