The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Genealogy  % width posts: 70

Are Scandanavians a mix between Polish & Iberian stock?


Mieszkoł Iszy
1 Jul 2011 #31
Btw Mieszko is the one who's responsible for it, right? :-)

Yes because he mieszkoł pierwszy

You are off topic.
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #32
migration patterns in those days can't be determined solely by DNA records, nor can you describe anything in that period as being 'in Poland'.

No, They generally can.
As the Haplogroups are in the genes. Essentially Haplogroups are a genetic marker. a new genetic marker will come up. in one area.
Thus any tribe that has that same genetic marker came from that area. Then from there they might gain another genetic marker. Thus, We know again that from this spot people traveled else where.

The genes tell the history by the markers. (essentially) a slight glitch or change in the genes that link those genes back to a specific area!

There is not one word of truth here.

Lithuanian (lietuvių kalba) is the closest among all European languages to the Sanskrit, or even Proto- Indo-European language. "Anyone wishing to hear how Indo-Europeans spoke should come and listen to a Lithuanian peasant." - said a famous French linguist Antoine Meillet. Why exactly that folk out of all other European nations has preserved the ancient language roots?

1000petals.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/the-mysterious-beauty-of-lithuanian-language/
Monia
1 Jul 2011 #33
The appearance of Homo Sapiens on the territory of Poland, to the establishment of the Polish state ( 966 - adopting christianity and the begining of the state , 1025 - Kingdom of Poland ) is a span of roughly 800,000 years.

The area of present-day Poland went through the stages of socio-technical development known as the Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages, The best known archeological discovery from the prehistoric period is culture Biskupin fortified settlement.

Celtic, Germanic and Baltic tribes inhabited various parts of Poland. later , the area came to be dominated by Slavic tribes and finally became home to a number of West Slavic Polish tribes

The period from 375 to 500 CE constitutes the (pre-Slavic) Migration Period
Celtic peoples established settlements, beginning in the early 4th century BCE, mostly in southern Poland, the outer limit of their expansion.

Germanic peoples lived in what is now Poland for several centuries, during which many of their tribes also migrated southward and eastward
guesswho 4 | 1,278
1 Jul 2011 #34
We're talking about the people not the country itself.

I was talking about the country. Do you know of any document from the time before 966 calling your country Poland and your people Poles? I mean Poland and Poles, not Pomerania etc. I really don't know it and I'd like to learn some more about it. No bs here.

( 966 - adopting christianity and the begining of the state , 1025 - Kingdom of Poland )

thanks Monia, it's really helpful indeed. So Poland as a country exists since 1025, thanks again.
Boleslaw Chrobry, right?
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #35
I was talking about the country. Do you know of any document from the time before 966 calling your country Poland and your people Poles? I mean Poland and Poles, not Pomerania etc. I really don't know it and I'd like to learn some more about it. No bs here.

Mieszko I was a Polan & He was baptized Christian in 966 & created Modern Poland.

So, The Lechitic Tribe the Polans is a direct root of Poland.
as well as other Lechitic tribes in Poland that became Poland.
JonnyM 11 | 2,615
1 Jul 2011 #36
Why exactly that folk out of all other European nations has preserved the ancient language roots?

They haven't and Meillet (born 1866) and largely a scholar of the Greek oral tradition, was proved wrong on this point decades ago. Stop cutting and pasting from dodgy and inaccurate internet sites.
guesswho 4 | 1,278
1 Jul 2011 #37
So, The Lechitic Tribe the Polans is a direct root of Poland.
as well as other Lechitic tribes in Poland that became Poland.

look at the name of your topic, you said Polish. They weren't Polish yet.
Monia
1 Jul 2011 #38
thanks Monia, it's really helpful indeed. So Poland as a country exists since 1025, thanks again.
Boleslaw Chrobry, right?

966 is the right date , a state was established by Mieszko I , the kingdom by Bolesław Chrobry .
guesswho 4 | 1,278
1 Jul 2011 #39
you're a great help, thanks.
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #40
They haven't and Meillet (born 1866) and largely a scholar of theGreek oral tradition, was proved wrong on this point decades ago. Stop cutting and pasting from dodgy and inaccurate internet sites.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language

Lithuanian still retains many of the original features of the nominal morphology found in the common ancestors of the Indo-European languages like Sanskrit and Latin, and has therefore been the focus of much study in the area of Indo-European linguistics. Studies in the field of comparative linguistics have shown it to be the most conservative living Indo-European language.[2][3]

Lithuanian and other Baltic languages passed through a Proto-Balto-Slavic stage, from which Baltic languages retain numerous exclusive and non-exclusive lexical, morphological, phonological and accentual isoglosses in common with the Slavic languages, which represent their closest living Indo-European relatives. Moreover, with Lithuanian being so archaic in phonology, Slavic words can often be deduced from Lithuanian by regular sound laws.
PennBoy 76 | 2,432
1 Jul 2011 #41
Do you know of any document from the time before 966 calling your country Poland and your people Poles? I mean Poland and Poles

I know they didn't but it's irrelevant. It was the same people just called themselves different.
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #42
look at the name of your topic, you said Polish. They weren't Polish yet.

Since the R1a haplogroup is oldest in Europe in Poland & R1a in Europe spread from Poland.

Then, R1a in Scandanavia came from Poland at some time.
modafinil - | 419
1 Jul 2011 #43
The Haplogroup evidence suggests for at least 11 thousand years people in Poland have pretty much been genetically the same people.

From a mathematical perspective every european is related. If you go back to the 7th Century every one of the people from that time, providing they had children, is your ancestor. Most all issues on halogroups going further back than the 7th Cent is void when discussing european nationalities as they are now.

So yes, all europeans are mixed with Poles, if that's what you are trying to prove.

I doubt the above will stop you bleating about halogroups on near every post you make, but maybe expand your knowledge to other topics surrounding Polish issues.
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #44
Yes, Well at the end of the Glacier Europeans seemed to have been isolated into a few different groups.

One of the biggest groups seems to have been in Iberia where I1 haplogroup & R1b haplogroup people were.

Another one seems to be near Bosnia where I2 people were.

While the R1a Ice age settlement was in Poland & Slovakia.

At the end of the Ice age they spread from these areas.

Europeans are mixed but yet quite divided at the same time.

Especially in Y (Paternal DNA) Maternal DNA there is much less differences & Europeans are much closer to each other in Maternal DNA.
But, In paternal DNA there are some swift differences in Europe.
guesswho 4 | 1,278
1 Jul 2011 #45
I know they didn't but it's irrelevant. It was the same people just called themselves different.

baby boy :-) it is not really irrelevant. Look at the topic, he's talking about Poles, not about Slavs. To me Poland and Poles as such, exist since 966. Hey PB, nothing to bit*h about, great country with a long history anyway. I just don't like when some people are trying to change history to suit their preferences.

Since the R1a haplogroup is oldest in Europe in Poland & R1a in Europe spread from Poland.

Then, R1a in Scandanavia came from Poland at some time.

it still doesn't change the fact that you can't talk about Poland as a country before 966.
Mieszkoł Iszy
1 Jul 2011 #46
I mean Poland and Poles, not Pomerania

What do you mean not Pomerania?Pomerania was the Polish land since the creation of the state of Poland.I know Germans claim otherwise but Mieszko I whooped their a$$es at Cedynia back in 972 and proved them wrong.
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #47
To me Poland and Poles as such, exist since 966.

They were from Poland & they had R1a haplogroup like Poles.

What else can you call them?

Would you like it to be called Pre Polish Poland?

Essentially for 11,000 + years Poles have been genetically the same R1a haplogroup people as they are today.
pgtx 29 | 3,146
1 Jul 2011 #48
Topic reminder: Are Scandanavians a mix between Polish & Iberian stock?
guesswho 4 | 1,278
1 Jul 2011 #49
What do you mean not Pomerania?Pomerania was the Polish land since the creation of the state of Poland.I know Germans claim otherwise but Mieszko I whooped their a$$es at Cedynia back in 972 and proved them wrong.

now, when we start talking about this 1, it will be definitely off topic and we're gonna end up in the random. Create another thread (I'll participate).

They were from Poland

how's that possible if there was no Poland yet? Talk about Slavs and I'll be OK with it (more or less).
Monia
1 Jul 2011 #50
Poland - the name is derived from the most important Polish tribe - the Polans. Their name, on the other hand, derives from the polish word "pole" - english meaning " field" .

Some of the Polans began to surface further west and settled in what was later known as Greater Poland.

The following is the list of Polish and other conquered Slavic tribes that constituted the lands of Poland in the early Middle Ages, at the beginning of the Polish state. Some of them have remained a separate ethnicity while others have been assimilated into the culture of Poland.

Polans
Pomeranians
Pyrzyczanie
Wolinianie
Goplans
Lędzianie
Masovians
Vistulans
Silesian tribes
Bieżuńczanie
Bobrzanie
Dziadoszanie
Golęszyce
Lubuszanie
Opolanie
Ślężanie
Trzebowianie

Today`s polish geographical regions are divided accordingly to the settlements of these tribes.
JonnyM 11 | 2,615
1 Jul 2011 #51
Lithuanian still retains many of the original features of the nominal morphology found in the common ancestors of the Indo-European languages like Sanskrit and Latin, and has therefore been the focus of much study in the area of Indo-European linguistics.

Again, nonsense from wikipedia.

Studies in the field of comparative linguistics have shown it to be the most conservative

Disputed and refuted studies.

They were from Poland & they had R1a haplogroup like Poles.

What else can you call them?

Certainly not Poles. No respected historian uses that term for the people who lived on the present RP territory in that period. Being a nation isn't about DNA, it is about shared cultural values and experiences. Not descent. You, for example, are not part of the nation.

Would you like it to be called Pre Polish Poland?

That would be more accurate.

Essentially for 11,000 + years Poles have been genetically the same R1a haplogroup people as they are today

There were no Poles 11000 years ago.
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #52
Certainly not Poles.

How were the studies refuted? I have studied alot on Anthropology & Over the years I have found multiple arcticles showing Lithuanian is the closest or one of the closest European languages to Sanskrit & Lithuanian is also very close to Slavic.

Pretty much all sources I have seen have come to the same conclusion.

Fine, Proto Poles

You seem to nitpick alot & don't really seem to contribte or refute.
I notice alot of people do this on this forum.

You seem to think you know it all. Give me a direct refute.
JonnyM 11 | 2,615
1 Jul 2011 #53
I have studied alot on Anthropology & Over the years I have found multiple arcticles

Says a lot.

Fine, Proto Poles

That phrase isn't widely or respectably used.

If you had "studied alot on Anthropology", whatever that means, you would be aware of the latest and most reliable hypotheses.

You seem to think you know it all. Give me a direct refute.

What, in the name of the English language, is a "direct refute", OCD Boy?
Monia
1 Jul 2011 #54
In the 5 -th century , Slavic tribes came to dominate Poland, they formed small various states which were unified in the tenth century,

5th century - Slavs first migrate into Poland, filling the void left by the departing German tribes as they head west into the decaying Roman empire. By the eighth century, small states are beginning to emerge, and these coalesce in the ninth and tenth centuries until a single state is formed.

historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsEurope/EasternPoland.htm
OP PolskiMoc 4 | 323
1 Jul 2011 #55
What, in the name of the English language, is a "direct refute", OCD Boy?

All you do is say this is wrong. You never say what is right.

Tell me what is right?

Really? You don't know what studying anthropology means?

Do, Tell me the latest & most reliable theories?'

Because you keep talking but you keep saying nothing. LOL-
alexw68
1 Jul 2011 #56
Direct refutation - or, why the Baltic-Slavic commonality hypothesis is wrong:

Linguists easily recognize Latin words in English as borrowings by their phonological shapes no matter what their vintage. But they mark early borrowings between Baltic and Slavic only with considerable difficulty, and cannot at all mark early borrowings between just the Baltic languages and dialects.

Perhaps now you can see why the Common Baltic and Balto-Slavic myths are so durable. They are supported by large look-alike vocabularies which defy analysis. You can hardly, if at all, tell which words are native and which are borrowings between Baltic and Slavic types of speech and between only Baltic types of speech. The conservativeness of phonology obscures and conceals this. Yet none of this seemingly "common" vocabulary points to either a Common Baltic or, even less, a Balto-Slavic protolanguage.

PennBoy 76 | 2,432
1 Jul 2011 #57
baby boy :-)

Don't patronize me, I'm not a kid. I know Poland's history very well. It doesn't matter we started calling ourselves Poles a thousand years ago, it's just a name the point everyone is trying to make is that it was the exact same people as today. (ex. Ukrainians only since the last few centuries identify themselves as Ukrainians and only recently have an independent country, does that mean that "Little Russians" as they used to be know were different people????)
JonnyM 11 | 2,615
1 Jul 2011 #58
Do, Tell me the latest & most reliable theories?'

Just take your OCD meds and look at the latest studies, instead of sitting up at all hours (what time is it on your continent?) quoting from discredited studies posted on the internet by cranks. And quit saying that Poland existed 11000 yearsa ago.
guesswho 4 | 1,278
1 Jul 2011 #59
Don't patronize me, I'm not a kid.

I like you and that's why I called you that, not because I'm trying to patronize you :-)

It doesn't matter we started calling ourselves Poles a thousand years ago,

I don't think so PB. I don't think that back then, they called themselves Poles but I'll be happy to learn some more if you can provide any documented information about it.
PennBoy 76 | 2,432
1 Jul 2011 #60
I don't think so PB.

The name comes from Polanie the largest of the Slavic tribes that united and formed Poland. In the first centuries or so the people of the united state were know and Polanie (didn't matter if they were Polanie, Wislanie, Mazowszanie those were terms of self identity locally) later the term was modified to Polacy. Just like I gave the example with Ukrainians first being Little Russians then much much later Ukrainians, yet it was the same people all along.


Home / Genealogy / Are Scandanavians a mix between Polish & Iberian stock?