R1a1a among Germans

[CordedWhelp]

My paternal lineage appears to be R1a1a and I have a pretty common German surname (in the top ten, near the bottom of it, we'll say). What are some guesses of some early ethnic Associations? (I say associations as to which ethnic "vehicle" brought it...). I understand that it is tricky to say that R1a1a IS Germanic, or IS Slavic/Scythian/what have you...but what are some of your thoughts on the matter? Were more of my paternal ancestors Wends? Is it still firmly "Germanic"?

[Not a Cop]

R1a1 is widespread haplgoroup it's common among East and North Germans and Scandos aswell, ofcourse there is propability that you gained it from baltic or slavic ancestors, but to tell orgin of your subclade you have to make more detalied test of your Y.

[Peterski]

My paternal lineage appears to be R1a1a and I have a pretty common German surname

If your paternal ancestors were Slavic but became Germanized (started speaking - and maybe also identifying as - German) before surnames became widespread - which is very likely because surnames in what is today Eastern and Northern Germany became common very late, much later than for example in Britain - then they would adopt a German surname, not a Slavic one. Slavic surnames in Germany were adopted only by those who still spoke Slavic language or identified as Slavs by the time of adopting their surnames.

Moreover, certain categories of surnames - particularly occupational surnames (surnames derived from occupation of a person) - tended to be German even for Non-Germans living in areas culturally dominated by German language. For example, if there was a Slavic person who was a miller, who was already Christianized and lived in the HRE but continued to speak Slavic language (and maybe also spoke German but as his secondary language), then he could be "granted" surname Müller (German for miller) anyway, despite being Slavic.

When it comes to surnames derived from given names - if your surname is derived from a given name of Slavic origin then it is probable that by the time of adopting that surname, your ancestors spoke some Germanic dialect.

Many surnames are derived from typically Christian names which were common in entire Europe and cannot be associated with any particular ethnicity. Some surnames are derived from place names - like for example settlements, regions, etc. - which can give a hint about ethno-linguistic origins if we know what ethno-linguistic group was dominant in that settlement or in that region.

[StonyArabia]

I think that R1a1 in Germany might indicate Slavic roots from the Wends and Sorabs and possibly the old Prussians, who were a Baltic people. Though some Scando people even have R1a1 but I believe this would depend on the sub clad in the process.

[Peterski]

I think that R1a1 in Germany might indicate Slavic roots from the Wends and Sorabs and possibly the old Prussians, who were a Baltic people.

Also from Poles, Pomeranians, Czechs, Slovenes, etc. Generally - from West Slavonic and West Baltic populations.

Also from some South Slavonic populations too, mainly Slovenes (but this is more common in Austria).


Though some Scando people even have R1a1 but I believe this would depend on the sub clad in the process.

R1a Scandos are mostly Z284 subclade. Among Slavic neighbours of Germans more common are M458, M558 and Z282.

[StonyArabia]

^ It's quite interesting, is German Y-lineages dominated by R1b? This probably especially true of Western side of Germany.

[revealman]

germans are not germanic people at all they are predominately celtic and slavic R1a r1b, few of them are germanic haplogroup I
the only thing they have germanic is the language

[Peterski]

^ It's quite interesting, is German Y-lineages dominated by R1b?

Well R1b is the most common haplogroup in Germany but it is not absolute majority.

Percent of R1b (as well as other haplogroups) in Germany is different according to each source.

For example Kalevi Wiik 2008 has only 38,9% of R1b in Germany, while Natalie Myres 2010 - 43,9%. Eupedia even more - 44,5%.

Anyway, R1b in Germany is certainly not absolute majority, but less than half.

There is more R1b in Western & Southern (South-Western) Germany than in Eastern & Northern (North-Eastern) Germany.


few of them are germanic haplogroup I

Haplogroup I as a whole is also hardly Germanic.

But certain subclades - especially large part if not most (but not all) of I1 - are associated with Germanics.

I1 is older than emergence of Germanic languages, but many people with this HG were absorbed by Proto-Germanic speakers.

[Peterski]

germans are not germanic people at all they are predominately celtic and slavic R1a r1b

Germans have a lot of Celtic and Slavic ancestry indeed. And also some Baltic (Old Prussians).

But Germanic element was also present, languages do not spread "just like that", migrating people spread them.

Then one population can adopt a language of another population if they merge into one society.

[revealman]

Then one population can adopt a language of another population if they merge into one society.
exactly this happened to many slavs which adopted hungarian language and german language and to many greco romans in instanbul area who nowdays think they are turks..

and for example the bavarians are completely different from other germans they are 100% celtic by mentality they are closer genetically and culturally to czechs than germanic people, the czechs are a mixture of celts and slavs, both czechs and bavarians love beer and stelze, the austrians are also bavarian slavic mix :)

[revealman]

My paternal lineage appears to be R1a1a and I have a pretty common German surname (in the top ten, near the bottom of it, we'll say). What are some guesses of some early ethnic Associations? (I say associations as to which ethnic "vehicle" brought it...). I understand that it is tricky to say that R1a1a IS Germanic, or IS Slavic/Scythian/what have you...but what are some of your thoughts on the matter? Were more of my paternal ancestors Wends? Is it still firmly "Germanic"?
i think the vikings were more haplogroup I.. in poland there is a wiking festival every year in wolin the polish people have significant happlogroup I and there were wiking harbours in poland in the wiking era

r1a is slavic and r1b celtic

[Reith]

I is not the only Germanic marker. Germanic tribes were not of one haplotype, or could you say that of any group. Even in Scandinavian countries there is a good R1b/R1a/I mix and this is where proto-germanic is believed to have been developed

[Peterski]

Reith - R1b in Scandinavia was most likely increased in numbers by German immigration. In the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era immigrants from the Holy Roman Empire and their descendants made up a very significant part of inhabitants of Scandinavian towns and cities - so significant that in the early 1500s the Kalmar Union prohibited Germans from occupying more than 50% of seats in town councils, to reduce their political influence. Medieval Denmark had its border along the Eider River and the Bay of Kiel, but later large areas north of that line were Germanized and the first historical capital of Denmark - Hedeby - is today located in Germany, just like the city of Schleswig - another historical capital of Denmark. Many Scandinavians have surnames indicating southern immigrant origins, for example Lars von Trier.

[FeederOfRavens]

I is not the only Germanic marker. Germanic tribes were not of one haplotype, or could you say that of any group. Even in Scandinavian countries there is a good R1b/R1a/I mix and this is where proto-germanic is believed to have been developed

Yep, when it came to the Vikings you could have R1b, R1a, I1, N1c1, Q, etc all on the same Longboat.

[Peterski]

Here are some examples of Germanized originally Slavic surnames of Polish origin:

http://pl.polskawarmia.de/images/document/8097/EmigracjadozaglebiaRuhry.pdf?t=1276276284.32

http://s11.postimg.org/sjguikygj/Surname_Germanization.png

[Peterski]

Yep, when it came to the Vikings you could have R1b, R1a, I1, N1c1, Q, etc all on the same Longboat.

Yes, but that was because the Vikings were not an ethnic group - their units consisted of people from many ethnic groups, including many Non-Germanic ones. Not all Vikings were Germanic-speakers of ethnic Germanic origin. There were also Slas, Balts, Baltic Finns and other peoples from the Baltic World and from the Mediterranean World involved in Viking activities.

"Viking movement" was born among Scandinavians, but did not stay restricted to them, and did not encompass only Germanic peoples.

Today interpretations of the Viking Age also start to change, but in the past the evidence that Vikings were multi-ethnic was largely ignored by Germanic chauvinists. Although the Viking Movement started in Scandinavia, it is wrong to claim that it spread only through demic difusion and not through cultural difusion.

Sources explicitly mention Slavic participation in the Viking movement (such as Saxo Grammaticus who mentioned Slavic warriors serving for Danish kings as mercenaries, as well as participating in naval battles at the Baltic Sea), but of course in the past Germanic national chauvinists interpreted those sources in such a way, that those Slavs were "people of Germanic origin who settled in Slavic countries and then came back to Denmark, and were called Slavs due to geography - place from which they came" - or other similar excuses. When evidence that Slavic pottery was exported across the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia was found, Germanic chauvinists started to claim that pottery was produced by Saxons and Scandinavians who settled in Slavic lands, and then exported their products back to Scandinavia. When Slavic settlements were discovered in Denmark, it was claimed that they did not come as free men. Book VIII of "Gesta Danorum", which describes adventures of Slavic Vikings in Scandinavia, has not even been translated to English or German yet, AFAIK.

Here is Polish translation:

https://sites.google.com/site/margreteerykiunia/44-saxo/ksiega-08


Z tych wodzów, którzy przyłączyli się do Haralda, nie można pominąć najbardziej znanych Svenda i Sambara, Ambara i Ellego, Ratego Fiończyka, Salgarda i Ro, który zawdzięczał przydomek swej długiej brodzie. Do nich dochodzą Skalk Skanijczyk i Alf, syn Aggego, Ølve Szeroki, Gnepja Stary i Gard, który założył miasto Stange. Ponadto krewni Haralda, Blend, który miał dom w najdalszym Thule, i Brand o przydomku Okruszek. Do nich przyłączyli się Thorny i Thorving, Tejt i Hjalte. Ci ludzie pożeglowali do Lejre fizycznie przygotowani do walki, lecz wyróżniali się również najwspanialszymi zaletami ducha, i do ich okazałej powierzchowności pasował ten zapał, z jakim oddawali się ćwiczeniom umysłu; wypuszczali mianowicie oni strzały strzelając nie jedynie z łuku, lecz także z katapult, walczyli głównie z wrogiem jeden na jednego, i byli również nadzwyczaj doświadczeni w układaniu strof w języku ojczystym. Tak wielce oni przykładali znaczenie do równego ćwiczenia ducha i ciała. Lecz z Lejre przybyli Hjort i Borg, Bele z Bejgadem, a do nich przyłączyli się Barre i Toke. Z miasta Szlezwiku pod dowództwem Hed i Wisny przybyli Hake z cięciem na policzku oraz Tymme Żaglomistrz. Dowódców tych natura obdarzyła dzielnością mężczyzn w ciele kobiety. Vebjørg przepełniona była taką samą dzielnością, a za nią szedł Bo, syn Bramego i Jutlandczyk Brat, stęsknieni wojny. W tej samej drużynie był Orm Anglik, Fryzyjczyk Ubbe, Are Jednooki, Alf i Got. Po nich wymieniają Dala Grubego i Słowianina Duka. Wisna, która była nadzwyczaj twardą kobietą i niezwykle doświadczoną w tym, co dotyczyło spraw wojennych, otaczała się grupą Słowian, z których Barre i Gnizle byli najznamienitszymi, lecz inni w drużynie mieli bardzo długie miecze oraz osłaniali ciała małymi tarczami w kolorze błękitu, które w bitwie zarzucali na plecy lub dawali do noszenia służbie, po czym nie osłaniając piersi i mając ciało narażone na wszystkie możliwe niebezpieczeństwa, z wyciągniętym mieczem rzucali się w bój. Z najwybitniejszych pośród nich wyróżniali się Tolkar i Yme. Po nich wymienia się ze względu na sławę Tokego z Jom razem z Otrytem, który miał przydomek Młody. Hed, otoczona świtą żwawych mężczyzn, prowadziła jedną zbrojną drużynę do walki; pomiędzy nimi najznaminitszymi byli Grimar i Grensle. Po nich wymienia się Gera z Liwonii, Hamego i Hungera, Humblego i Bjarrego jako najdzielniejszych pomiędzy królami.

In this excerpt Saxo describes a Viking company consisting of multiple ethnic groups - we can see an Englishman Orm, a Frisian guy Ubbe, a Slavic man Duk, a Slavic female warlord Wisna, surrounded by a group of Slavic male warriors. There is also a Livonian (Baltic Finnic) guy.

The participation of Slavic Obotrite, Pomeranian and Polish mercenaries and / or allies in several Danish invasions of Britain is usually not mentioned in Western history books. You need to go directly to Medieval primary sources to find information about that (for example English chronicler Orderic Vitalis, also known as Ordericus, mentioned the Poles and the Veleti participating in the Viking invasion of England as allies or mercenaries of the Danish army under command of Sweyn Estridsson).

[FeederOfRavens]

Yes, but that was because the Vikings were not an ethnic group - their units consisted of people from many ethnic groups, including many Non-Germanic ones. Not all Vikings were Germanic-speakers of ethnic Germanic origin. There were also Slas, Balts, Baltic Finns and other peoples from the Baltic World and from the Mediterranean World involved in Viking activities.

Viking is a Scandinavian exclusive term. A Slav or a Balt living a seafaring lifestyle still isn't a Viking as he is non-Scandinavian. He is simply a Pirate(or whatever the Balto-Slav word for Pirate is).
All of the Haplos(R1a, R1b, I1, N1c1, Q) I mentioned can be found in Scandinavians.



"Viking movement" was born among Scandinavians, but did not stay restricted to them, and did not encompass only Germanic peoples.


Vikings by definition have to be North Germanic Seafarers from Scandinavia.


Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) were Germanic Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.

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




Today interpretations of the Viking Age also start to change, but in the past the evidence that Vikings were multi-ethnic was largely ignored by Germanic chauvinists. Although the Viking Movement started in Scandinavia, it is wrong to claim that it spread only through demic difusion and not through cultural difusion......


Germanic chauvinists started to claim that pottery was produced by Saxons and Scandinavians......


but of course in the past Germanic national chauvinists interpreted those sources in such a way,......

You seem to love using "Germanic chauvinism" as an accusation. Can I call you a Polish nationalist or Pan-West Slavist then? You're clearly Polonocentric and it shows in every single post you make on this forum.

[Artek]

R1a1 among Germans is mostly Slavic and Baltic but there are also germanic and iranic clades present.


Some clades are too old to be classified (various cases of M417-, Z283, Z282*, old Z280 clades), probably connected with Corded Ware remnants and others.

[Sisak]

Slavs used to live up to the Denmark. Germany is full of Slavic toponyms, the city of Dresden is Slavic toponym. For Vatican is also thought that the name have preslavic origin.

[Artek]

r1a is slavic and r1b celtic
Stop spreading pseudo-science.

[Rugevit]

Slavs used to live up to the Denmark. Germany is full of Slavic toponyms, the city of Dresden is Slavic toponym. For Vatican is also thought that the name have preslavic origin.

East Germany is has many Slavic toponyms. Some of the better known

Chemnitz - Kamjenica
Lausitz - Łužica
Rostock - place where water spreads in different directions.
Prenzlau - Prenzlawj
Zossen - Sosny
Brandenburg - Braniboŕ
Schwerin - Zwerin.

[Rudel]

East Germany is has many Slavic toponyms. Some of the better known

Chemnitz - Kamjenica
Lausitz - Łužica
Rostock - place where water spreads in different directions.
Prenzlau - Prenzlawj
Zossen - Sosny
Brandenburg - Braniboŕ
Schwerin - Zwerin.
Most of the land in the Elbe valley and East of it is basically land taken over Slavs as well as Danes during the last millenium.

[CordedWhelp]

All excellent points. I think it really is as simple as saying r1a1a=balto-slav and r1b=west euro continuum, but it is also probably the case such groups mixed early on.

Thus due to admixture and all that Jazz, an r1a1a Dane in Jutland could be mostly "Germanic", but deeply paternally there was a Wend who fathered the lot.

[CordedWhelp]

Also, I I would guess predates Germanic-speakers, but early Germanics were likely culturally indo-europeanized (or a version of it with some surviving pre-indo-european north sea substratum) and "I" would still be highly associated with them...even if I just didn't pop up magically once the language shifted some.

[Artek]

Also, I I would guess predates Germanic-speakers, but early Germanics were likely culturally indo-europeanized (or a version of it with some surviving pre-indo-european north sea substratum) and "I" would still be highly associated with them...even if I just didn't pop up magically once the language shifted some.
Early Germanics were early Germanics :). There weren't any Germanics without R1b centum-speaking indo-europeans.
Before them, in Scandinavia, there were hunter-gatherer groups like Pitted Ware Culture (consisting of I2 and I*, maybe even some Q?) and some kind of satem-speaking Corded Ware, mostly as Y3295 (pre-Z284) or early Z284, that were mostly pushed north and likely germanised later. I think that they haven't played any important role in forming a Jastorf culture, that is considered to be proto-Germanic. Otherwise, we would've seen Scandinavian Y2395(including Z284) in all places where also continental germanics have settled.

[LightHouse89]

Yes, but that was because the Vikings were not an ethnic group - their units consisted of people from many ethnic groups, including many Non-Germanic ones. Not all Vikings were Germanic-speakers of ethnic Germanic origin. There were also Slas, Balts, Baltic Finns and other peoples from the Baltic World and from the Mediterranean World involved in Viking activities.

"Viking movement" was born among Scandinavians, but did not stay restricted to them, and did not encompass only Germanic peoples.

Today interpretations of the Viking Age also start to change, but in the past the evidence that Vikings were multi-ethnic was largely ignored by Germanic chauvinists. Although the Viking Movement started in Scandinavia, it is wrong to claim that it spread only through demic difusion and not through cultural difusion.

Sources explicitly mention Slavic participation in the Viking movement (such as Saxo Grammaticus who mentioned Slavic warriors serving for Danish kings as mercenaries, as well as participating in naval battles at the Baltic Sea), but of course in the past Germanic national chauvinists interpreted those sources in such a way, that those Slavs were "people of Germanic origin who settled in Slavic countries and then came back to Denmark, and were called Slavs due to geography - place from which they came" - or other similar excuses. When evidence that Slavic pottery was exported across the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia was found, Germanic chauvinists started to claim that pottery was produced by Saxons and Scandinavians who settled in Slavic lands, and then exported their products back to Scandinavia. When Slavic settlements were discovered in Denmark, it was claimed that they did not come as free men. Book VIII of "Gesta Danorum", which describes adventures of Slavic Vikings in Scandinavia, has not even been translated to English or German yet, AFAIK.

Here is Polish translation:

https://sites.google.com/site/margreteerykiunia/44-saxo/ksiega-08



In this excerpt Saxo describes a Viking company consisting of multiple ethnic groups - we can see an Englishman Orm, a Frisian guy Ubbe, a Slavic man Duk, a Slavic female warlord Wisna, surrounded by a group of Slavic male warriors. There is also a Livonian (Baltic Finnic) guy.

The participation of Slavic Obotrite, Pomeranian and Polish mercenaries and / or allies in several Danish invasions of Britain is usually not mentioned in Western history books. You need to go directly to Medieval primary sources to find information about that (for example English chronicler Orderic Vitalis, also known as Ordericus, mentioned the Poles and the Veleti participating in the Viking invasion of England as allies or mercenaries of the Danish army under command of Sweyn Estridsson).

I know that Frisians engaged in Viking activities.

[LightHouse89]

Early Germanics were early Germanics :). There weren't any Germanics without R1b centum-speaking indo-europeans.
Before them, in Scandinavia, there were hunter-gatherer groups like Pitted Ware Culture (consisting of I2 and I*, maybe even some Q?) and some kind of satem-speaking Corded Ware, mostly as Y3295 (pre-Z284) or early Z284, that were mostly pushed north and likely germanised later. I think that they haven't played any important role in forming a Jastorf culture, that is considered to be proto-Germanic. Otherwise, we would've seen Scandinavian Y2395(including Z284) in all places where also continental germanics have settled.

Not to go off topic but I notice on some genetic tests many Dutch and British people cluster close together. This proves the Anglo-Saxons were real. Maybe not exactly Anglo-Saxon but more likely just waves of Germanic peoples who invaded the British Islands.

[Rudel]

Not to go off topic but I notice on some genetic tests many Dutch and British people cluster close together. This proves the Anglo-Saxons were real. Maybe not exactly Anglo-Saxon but more likely just waves of Germanic peoples who invaded the British Islands.
Unlike many invasions of the Barbaric ages, the one on Britain did lead to a replacement of population over England, in a sufficient quantity than Britons would organize to massively emigrate to the tip of coastal Gaul (hence Brittany). An invasion in turn important enough to somewhat displace the locals and completely replace the language with that of the newcomers (which is usually a sign of either sheer quantity or technological superiority, as it was with Rome).

[Hevo]

I think that they haven't played any important role in forming a Jastorf culture, that is considered to be proto-Germanic. Otherwise, we would've seen Scandinavian Y2395(including Z284) in all places where also continental germanics have settled.

Yes, Western Continental Germanics usually have R1a L664,(for example the FTDNA admin Voorwinden) S24902 and some minor corded ware leftover lineages.:) R1a L664 could have played a significant role in the Jastorf Culture.

[Artek]

Yes, Western Continental Germanics usually have R1a L664,(for example the FTDNA admin Voorwinden) S24902 and some minor corded ware leftover lineages.:) R1a L664 could have played a significant role in the Jastorf Culture.
Even if not significant(modern frequencies are low), probably at least L664 played "some" role. But S24902 cathegory recently expanded into Balto-Slavs thanks to testing one person from Z280(xCTS1211xZ92) cluster.

[Peterski]

Not to go off topic but I notice on some genetic tests many Dutch and British people cluster close together. This proves the Anglo-Saxons were real.

First you should ask if Dutch people are more Germanic or more Celtic, or 50/50.

Area which is today the Netherlands used to be Celtic in Ancient times:

http://www.medpovrly.cz/en/ImgCont/historie01_en.jpghttp://oaks.nvg.org/keltimap.gifhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UZEE69h9p0I/Tt35RnJrRNI/AAAAAAAADcU/oxiTqh6fofs/s1600/imagesCA2X2J4K.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Celts_ua.GIF

http://felc.gdufs.edu.cn/britishliterature/contents/Medieval/Celts2.png

This map even claims that the Netherlands was part of the area where Celts emerged:

http://c0.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/celts-630x392.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/tdFDkfB.png

[Roy]

East Germany is has many Slavic toponyms. Some of the better known

Chemnitz - Kamjenica
Lausitz - Łužica
Rostock - place where water spreads in different directions.
Prenzlau - Prenzlawj
Zossen - Sosny
Brandenburg - Braniboŕ
Schwerin - Zwerin.

Actually majority of toponyms in East Germany is of Slavic origin - Berlin included.

[Peterski]

And some more:

https://www.pinterest.com/lilahven/celts/

Ancient Celtic territories:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/30/6e/f5/306ef5ddba436489b137aeacb9935e2f.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ri5xEnuyI40/UJGt52HpbWI/AAAAAAAAA6s/kFKDVgrwDmE/s1600/mapa21celtas.jpg

Celtic place names (toponyms):

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c2/a3/ab/c2a3abe8b769fa10b2b7a613d3d14a75.jpg

[LightHouse89]

Unlike many invasions of the Barbaric ages, the one on Britain did lead to a replacement of population over England, in a sufficient quantity than Britons would organize to massively emigrate to the tip of coastal Gaul (hence Brittany). An invasion in turn important enough to somewhat displace the locals and completely replace the language with that of the newcomers (which is usually a sign of either sheer quantity or technological superiority, as it was with Rome).

Yes very true. Infact I notice that the King Arthur mythology or romanticism came after the invasion of the Normans and Bretons who later conquered Britain. My surname supposedly comes from Brittany,France and is recognized as a Breton-Norman origin surname in Ireland and England. Powers is the name and it is believed to have come from Poher, Brittany or that region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cl%C3%A9den-Poher

However it is argued that there are also two othe origins of the surname. One from Picardy and it could mean A Vow of poverty in old latin or something according to surname experts. However most experts believe it originated in Poher Brittany.

I d not mean to go off topic hahah. But yes it would seem the Germanic waves made a big impact on England and its creation. I tend to think the aristocracy were Angles, Saxons and Jutes while a great many of the peasantry or warriors/farmers were Frisians or proto Nederlanders hahaha.

[Peterski]

Vikings by definition have to be North Germanic Seafarers from Scandinavia.

Feed your ravens because I am not going to feed you troll. :)

There were also West Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and Finnic people among them.


All of the Haplos(R1a, R1b, I1, N1c1, Q) I mentioned can be found in Scandinavians.

R1a is found in Scandinavia in small amount and it is mostly just one subclade - Z284 (especially in Norway Z284 is almost all of R1a). Oher subclades are rare and were introduced by Slavic and Baltic settlers. For example in Sweden, Malmo, R1a amounts to 11,3% in a sample of 141, of which: R1a-M458 2,1%; M558 2,8%; Z284 3,5%; Z282(xM458,M558,Z284)1,4%; Z2125 0,7% and M417(xZ282,Z93) 0,7%. Of these subclades M458, M558 and most of Z282 and M417 were brought by Slavic and Baltic people. As for Z284 it is found in the following proportions:

Norway - 20,3% (24 out of 118)
Denmark - 7,1% (8 out of 112)
Southern Sweden (Malmo) - 3,5% (5 out of 141)
Southern England - 3,4% (1 out of 29)
Switzerland - 1,3% (1 out of 75)
Ireland - 1% (1 out of 100)
Germany - 0,9% (3 out of 322)

Much of R1b could be introduced to Scandinavia by German settlers. For your information HRE Germans were so influential in Scandinavia that in the early 1500s the Kalmar Union prohibited them from occupying more than 50% of seats in town councils.

Surnames such as Lars von Trier are South-West German (from Trier).

Haplogroup N1c1 was absorbed into Scandinavians from Finnic and Baltic peoples, who are their neighbours (both by land and across the sea) and also lived in large part of Sweden. Sagas also mention Finnic and Baltic peoples raiding and invading Scandinavia.

Q came to Scandinavia when Huns invaded Scandinavia.

Read - Lotte Hedeager, "Scandinavia and the Huns: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Migration Era":

https://www.academia.edu/5352394/Scandinavia_and_the_Huns_an_Interdisciplinary_Appr oach_to_the_Migration_Era

I1 came probably with first Neolithic farmers. The oldest I1 found so far is from the LBKT Neolithic farming culture in Hungary.

I1 from LBKT culture in Hungary is so old that it is very close to the time when I1 mutation most likely emerged.

[FeederOfRavens]

Feed your ravens because I am not going to feed you troll. :) There were also West Germanic, Slavic, Baltic and Finnic people among them.

How am I trolling? A Viking has to be A North Germanic Seafarer from Scandinavia by definition. It doesn't matter if other peoples travelled with them the point is that the vast majority of Men who ventured in longboats and all Vikings were Norsemen from Scandinavia. Fact. If you can't accept it then that is your problem


R1a is found in Scandinavia only in negligible amount and it is mostly just one subclade - Z284. Oher subclades are rare and were introduced by Slavic and Baltic settlers. For example in Sweden, Malmo, R1a amounts to 11,3% in a sample of 141, of which: R1a-M458 2,1%; M558 2,8%; Z284 3,5%; Z282(xM458,M558,Z284)1,4%; Z2125 0,7% and M417(xZ282,Z93) 0,7%. Of these subclades M458, M558 and most of Z282 and M417 were brought by Slavic and Baltic people. As for Z284 it is found in the following proportions:

Norway - 20,3% (24 out of 118)
Denmark - 7,1% (8 out of 112)
Southern Sweden (Malmo) - 3,5% (5 out of 141)
Southern England - 3,4% (1 out of 29)
Switzerland - 1,3% (1 out of 75)
Ireland - 1% (1 out of 100)
Germany - 0,9% (3 out of 322)

How is 20% in Norway Negligible? There's also quite a bit of R1a(19%) in Sweden(Not counting Scania).
In Denmark 7.1% of R1a-Z284 makes it the third largest Haplo after R1b-U106 and I1.


Much of R1b could be introduced to Scandinavia by German settlers. For your information HRE Germans were so influential in Scandinavia that in the early 1500s the Kalmar Union prohibited them from occupying more than 50% of seats in town councils.

This mostly applies to R1b in Sweden. Dutch and Scottish settlers in the 16th and 17th century also increased R1b(Mostly U-106) in Sweden.



Haplogroup N1c1 was absorbed into Scandinavians from Finnic and Baltic peoples, who are their neighbours (both by land and across the sea) and also lived in large part of Sweden.

Baltic peoples never settled in Scandinavia. Finnic peoples did in Northern Sweden and Northern Norway. The vast majority of the population and fertile land of both of these countries lays in the Southern halves so while the land inhabited by the Finnics in Scandinavia was vast it was more sparse and desolate compared to the South.).


Sagas also mention Finnic and Baltic peoples raiding and invading Scandinavia.

Sagas also mention Scandinavian peoples raiding and invading Finnic and Baltic peoples.


Q came to Scandinavia when Huns invaded Scandinavia - read Lotte Hedeager, "Scandinavia and the Huns: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Migration Era":

https://www.academia.edu/5352394/Scandinavia_and_the_Huns_an_Interdisciplinary_Appr oach_to_the_Migration_Era

That's one of the theories.


I1 came to Scandinavia probably with first Neolithic farmers. The oldest I1 found so far is from the LBKT Neolithic farming culture in Hungary.

What was the point of all this, Litvin? Yes, most Haplogroups found in Scandinavia originated somewhere else at some point but you could say the same for most countries in Europe.

[Peterski]

The definition of term Viking has nothing to do with any ethno-linguistic association:

Noun "víkingr" - a person traveling for adventure; verb "víking" - to travel or participate in an adventure.

Or maybe you refer to the linguistic origin of the word ???

But it would be like saying that each historian is by definition Greek, because the word is of Greek origin... :picard1:

[Peterski]

Slavs were among the Vikings (even though of course Slavic name was different, Chasnicy - but it denoted the same thing).

They even participated in the largest naval battle between various Viking groups in history - the battle of Svoldr in year 1000 AD:

https://iaepan.academia.edu/PrzemyslawUrbanczyk

https://www.academia.edu/6437432/Building_the_Legend_of_the_Battle_of_Svoldr



Involvement of Slavs in the Øresund encounter

The legendary aspects of the tradition also include the problem of the Slavs’ participation that seems to be confirmed by the seventh stanza of Halldórr ókristni’s Eiríksflokkr which mentions Slavic ships (Vinda skeiðr).51 For his part Hallfreðr Óttarsson calls Óláfr Tryggvason ‘Slayer of the Slavs’ (Vinda myrði).52 Therefore, it seems very plausible that there were some Slavs among those who fought in Øresund.53

Their possible support for Sveinn Tjúguskegg may be deduced from the presence of Slavic settlements in southern Sweden and eastern Denmark, which is proved by both archaeological evidence and by specific toponyms.54

The same stanzas were used by later saga authors who composed a new story of the battle, where Óláfr Tryggvason was encouraged by his wife Þyra, Sveinn’s sister, to regain her property in the Slavic lands. Therefore, he was ready to lead an army to the south despite his worries about a hostile attitude of the king of Denmark. He sailed to Jómsborg to see Earl Sigvaldi and his wife Ástrið, Búrizleif’s daughter. All the accounts emphasize that the king of Norway was warmly welcomed in Vindland by Búrizleifr (Bolesław Chrobry), and that he met Óláfr Tryggvason’s expectations. However, during his stay there Óláfr was unexpectedly deserted by most of his warriors who returned home.

Happily, Óláfr Tryggvason received military support. The synoptic versions mention generally Slavic assistance while Oddr Snorrason and the author of Fagrskinna point directly at Ástrið as the one who provided these troops. However, Snorri and after him the author of Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta claim that the military support was provided by Earl Sigvaldi. He gave Óláfr 11 ships and the crew of one of them consisted of Búrizleif’s daughter’s people. Most accounts, except the synoptic histories, state that the king of Norway left Vindland with a fleet of 71 ships.

Thus, the saga authors associated the Slavs with Óláfr Tryggvason, just like many scholars today. Leon Koczy suggested that they were probably Pomeranians from the area of the Oder.55 Bugge and Ellehøj presented similar views,56 while Labuda concluded that they came from the Obodrites, Wagrians or Rugians and fought at Sveinn Tjúguskegg’s side.57

Rumours about Óláfr’s survival

The Slavic connection re-emerges in the legend recorded by almost all later sagas and chronicles, which mention rumours suggesting that Óláfr Tryggvason did not fall during the battle but managed to escape with the help of his Slavic friends. He was to live later either in Vindland or somewhere in the south of Europe

[Peterski]

Another good article - Deconstructing the "Nordic Civilization":

https://www.academia.edu/6437408/Deconstructing_the_Nordic_Civilization_


Scandinavian archaeologists traditionally interpreted the visible unevenness of cultural manifestations as merely local variations of one unified cultural tradition. this deeply rooted assumption may be checked by studying collective death rituals that were important for both the external differentiation of particular communities and their internal integration. Fredrik svanberg’s (2003a and 2003b) analyses of south-east scandinavia during the period 800–1000 aD, indicate that there were eleven quite distinct burial traditions (svanberg 2003b, Fig. 61). this undermines the popular concept of some homogenous “viking age culture” because territorial variability of grave types indicating differentiation in burial customs and death rituals, may be interpreted in terms of religious differentiation. this, in turn, undermines the concept of common pan-scandinavian religious symbolism and eschatological beliefs because “…it is hard to see how a number of different traditions may all simply be reflections of one and the same coherent mythology or religion” (Svanberg 2003a, 142).

In other places different burial traditions and material cultures are interpreted as different ethnic groups.

Why should Scandinavia be the only exception, where despite distinct material cultures you still claim that it was all one ethnic group? Myths created in the 19th century by Germanic chauvinists persist so strongly that even scientific evidence is being rejected for the sake of myths.

For instance, the idea that Scandinavia was a place of emigration rather than a place of immigration throughout history. In all of Europe distinct burial traditions and material cultures are usually interpreted by archaeologists & historians as signs of ethnic diversification. Apparently an exception is Scandinavia, for which a concept of a kind of "isolation" and "lack of immigration" exists, despite evidence showing the opposite:


This added an “historiosophic” dimension to the picture of the uniqueness of the homogenous north which had already been established through the combined efforts of scandinavian geographers, linguists, historians and archaeologists. the idea of an ancient unity and a common destiny is, however, undermined by yet another, equally strong historiographic tradition which divides this huge “nordic civilization” into original “ethnic” subregions. It is generally taken for granted that the earliest history of Scandinavia concerns the primordial Danish, norwegian, and swedish peoples who were soon to be followed by the Faroese and the icelanders. They are all the obvious subjects of national(istic) scholarly interests. thus, the idea of “national” continuities determined the tracks of the historical narratives that refer to the nordic early middle ages. even in Iceland, the desire for a deeply-rooted ethno-political continuity is so strong that it is necessary to be reminded that “…those who first settled in iceland were not Icelanders, but immigrants” (Orri Vésteinsson 2006, 85).

[Peterski]

You seem to love using "Germanic chauvinism" as an accusation.

Yes, Germanic chauvinism = nationalistic / racist views like these ones here:

From a 2000 essay "Where Are We Going? Attitudes Towards Migrations in Archaeological Thought", by Kerstin Cassel:

http://s15.postimg.org/gc457n8jv/Scand_Chavunism.png

http://s15.postimg.org/gc457n8jv/Scand_Chavunism.png

In the past numerous evidence for Slavic settlements in Scandinavia and the role of Slavic and Baltic Finnic warriors in the Viking movement was being ignored due to nationalism, despite clear hints in both Medieval written sources and archaeology. For example English wikipedia article about the battle of Svolder - one of the largest if not the largest of naval battles of the Viking Age in the Baltic Sea - does not even mention Slavic participation in that battle:

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

Whereas such participation is recorded by Medieval Scandinavian written sources - as that article linked above about the battle of Svolder explains.

English chronicler Orderic Vitalis mentioned participation of West Slavic - including Veleti and Polish - warriors as allies of kings of Denmark in Danish invasions of Britain. Saxo Grammaticus in his "Gesta Danorum" ("Deeds of the Danes") also mentioned the presence of Slavic warriors (including females - like the female warlord named Wisna) in fights between various Viking companies in Scandinavia; and presence of Slavic mercenaries (or allies) in the army of Danish kings. German chronicler Thietmar wrote about Polish-Danish alliance. This was confirmed also by "Cnutonis regis gesta sive enconium Emmae".

Archaeologists excavated skeletons of some of those Slavic mercenaries - a group which fought for Harald Bluetooth:

https://www.academia.edu/622731/Who_was_in_Harold_Bluetooth_s_army_Strontium_isoto pe_investigation_of_the


Danish chronicler Saxo, in his ‘Danish History’ gives an account of the reign of Harald Bluetooth (...) He also reports that the king, towards the end of his rule and in a period contemporary with the Trelleborg fortresses, based his power on an army composed of ‘Danes and Slavs’. According to a twelfth-century chronicler, the so-called ‘law of the Kings’, retainers became necessary because of the heterogeneous ethnic composition of the royal retinue at the beginning of the eleventh century (for a more detailed review of the sources compare M. Andersen 1982; Damgaard-Sørensen 1991; Dobat 2010).

Genetic studies on both extant and past (aDNA) populations that became available in the 21st century also prove that Scandinavia saw many immigrations, including relatively recent (Medieval & Early Modern) ones. Y-DNA of Slavic, German, Dutch, Scottish and Baltic-Finnic origin was identified.

[Peterski]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkQE0S7VZD4

[Artek]

Yes, Germanic chauvinism = nationalistic / racist views like these ones here:

From a 2000 essay "Where Are We Going? Attitudes Towards Migrations in Archaeological Thought", by Kerstin Cassel:

http://s15.postimg.org/gc457n8jv/Scand_Chavunism.png

http://s15.postimg.org/gc457n8jv/Scand_Chavunism.png
I agree with an excerpt from this essay, though what's the point? To switch directly from Scandinavian chauvinism into denying their existence and implying that they are a newly-estabilished mix?


In the past numerous evidence for Slavic settlements in Scandinavia and the role of Slavic and Baltic Finnic warriors in the Viking movement was being ignored due to nationalism, despite clear hints in both Medieval written sources and archaeology. For example English wikipedia article about the battle of Svolder - one of the largest if not the largest of naval battles of the Viking Age in the Baltic Sea - does not even mention Slavic participation in that battle:

Archaeologists excavated skeletons of some of those Slavic mercenaries - a group which fought for Harald Bluetooth:

https://www.academia.edu/622731/Who_was_in_Harold_Bluetooth_s_army_Strontium_isoto pe_investigation_of_the
And that's another reason for presence of slavic subclades of R1a(the safest proxy) among Danes and in former area of Danelaw in England - as confirmed by analysing R1a project.


Genetic studies on both extant and past (aDNA) populations that became available in the 21st century also prove that Scandinavia saw many immigrations, including relatively recent (Medieval & Early Modern) ones. Y-DNA of Slavic, German, Dutch, Scottish and Baltic-Finnic origin was identified.
Something similar can be said about y-dna among modern Poles. What's the point?
I don't really know what are you trying to force. anyway.

You also constantly post wrong data of Underhill, as he phylogenetically replaced Z280 with Z282.

[FeederOfRavens]

The definition of term Viking has nothing to do with any ethno-linguistic association:

Yes it does.

Vikings by definition have to be North Germanic Seafarers from Scandinavia:


Vikings (from Old Norse víkingr) were Germanic Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.



Slavs were among the Vikings (even though of course Slavic name was different, Chasnicy - but it denoted the same thing).
They even participated in the largest naval battle between various Viking groups in history - the battle of Svoldr in year 1000 AD:

Then those Slavs were Chasnicy not Vikings. Why do you feel the need to connect them to a Germanic term(Viking) instead of a Slavic one(Chasnicy) if they mean the same thing?
If it makes you feel any better, Litvin, I was aware that Slavs participated at Svolder :icon_wink:



Why should Scandinavia be the only exception, where despite distinct material cultures you still claim that it was all one ethnic group?

I've never claimed anything of the sort? Don't put words in my mouth. No one seriously claims Scandinavia was a completely isolated cocoon for it's entire history. What I said:


Baltic peoples never settled in Scandinavia. Finnic peoples did in Northern Sweden and Northern Norway. The vast majority of the population and fertile land of both of these countries lays in the Southern halves so while the land inhabited by the Finnic peoples in Scandinavia was vast, it was more sparse and desolate compared to the South.




Myths created in the 19th century by Germanic chauvinists persist so strongly that even scientific evidence is being rejected for the sake of myths.

"Germanic chauvinism" died after WW2, you're living in the past. On the other hand there are tons who want to destroy Germanic history and attack and tear apart Germanic identity, mostly due to political reasons after WW2. You are a good example of this to some extent.

[LightHouse89]

Yes it does.






"Germanic chauvinism" died after WW2, you're living in the past. On the other hand there are tons who want to destroy Germanic history and attack and tear apart Germanic identity, mostly due to political reasons after WW2. You are a good example of this to some extent.

Yes I notice this after WW2 it seems there has been an assault on Germanic peoples by 'political correctness'. Here in America traditionally the only real Americans were Germanic peoples :cool: Now everyone is an American according to Jewish intellectuals from the 1920s.

[Rugevit]

Yes it does.

Vikings by definition have to be North Germanic Seafarers from Scandinavia:




There're no concrete definitions. Besides, the concept of ethnicity was not perceived similar 1000 years ago the same it is perceived today. Vikings were predominantly from Scandinavia, but they were not the only Vikings. Some Baltic Slavs, Curonians (Balts) and Finns were also Vikings. Baltic Slavs were building their own boats. One boat was found in eastern Germany. Two boats were reconstructed not long ago.

[LightHouse89]

There're no concrete definitions. Besides, the concept of ethnicity was not perceived similar 1000 years ago the same it is perceived today. Vikings were predominantly from Scandinavia, but they were not the only Vikings. Some Baltic Slavs, Curonians (Balts) and Finns were also Vikings. Baltic Slavs were building their own boats. One boat was found in eastern Germany. Two boats were reconstructed not long ago.

Some Vikings came from the British Islands like Ireland and Scotland. They intermarried with the locals and formed their own tribes. I have some ancestry of them in my family tree along with Normans and Anglo-Saxons :cool:

[Rugevit]

Reconstructed Slavic boat. The prototype was found in Rugen dated to 11th century


http://koehler-bs.de/Bildergalerie2004/11%20Ukranenschiff-Nachbau.JPG

[FeederOfRavens]

There're no concrete definitions. Besides, the concept of ethnicity was not perceived similar 1000 years ago the same it is perceived today. Vikings were predominantly from Scandinavia, but they were not the only Vikings. Some Baltic Slavs, Curonians (Balts) and Finns were also Vikings. Baltic Slavs were building their own boats. One boat was found in eastern Germany. Two boats were reconstructed not long ago.

It's well known that Finns, Balts, etc had a seafaring lifestyle similar or even identical to the Vikings but it doesn't make them Vikings. A 10th century Spanish Galician pirate who raids and trades, is he a Viking? Is a 9th century Arab raider a Viking? Where does it end? I believe it should be a Scandinavian exclusive term and other ethnic groups should stick to their own denotations for pirates or raiders(In the Slavs case, Chasnicy) to refer too non-Scandinavian "Vikings". Why should Baltic or Slavic pirates be called a North Germanic term like Viking as opposed to their own ethnic words which have the same definition?

[Rugevit]

It's well known that Finns, Balts, etc had a seafaring lifestyle similar or even identical to the Vikings but it doesn't make them Vikings. A 10th century Spanish Galician pirate who raids and trades, is he a Viking? Is a 9th century Arab raider a Viking? Where does it end? I believe it should be a Scandinavian exclusive term and other ethnic groups should stick to their own denotations for pirates or raiders(In the Slavs case, Chasnicy) to refer too non-Scandinavian "Vikings". Why should Baltic or Slavic pirates be called a North Germanic term like Viking as opposed to their own ethnic words which have the same definition?

That's your definition in which you link Vikings to ethnicity or people who spoke the same language or similar dialects. When pirates were sailing in their boats across Baltic sea or North sea penetrating major waterways of Europe, the locals were referring to them as Vikings regardless of the language they spoke.

[Rugevit]

Pictures of unearthed and reconstructions of Slavic boats in north-eastern Germany : http://nap1000.livejournal.com/6450.html

[FeederOfRavens]

That's your definition in which you link Vikings to ethnicity or people who spoke the same language or similar dialects.

Actually it's the standard defintion:


a member of a group of Scandinavian people who attacked the coasts of Europe in the 8th to 10th centuries A.D.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viking


Viking, also called Norseman or Northman, member of the Scandinavian seafaring warriors who raided and colonized wide areas of Europe from the 9th to the 11th century and whose disruptive influence profoundly affected European history.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628781/Viking

[LightHouse89]

Reconstructed Slavic boat. The prototype was found in Rugen dated to 11th century


http://koehler-bs.de/Bildergalerie2004/11%20Ukranenschiff-Nachbau.JPG

One of my German ancestors came from that area. Either way Northern stronk! It is a tremendous honor to be descended from Northern Europeans :cool: Our ancestors be them slavs, balts, Germanic or celts were a fierce people:thumb001:

[Rugevit]

Actually it's the standard defintion:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viking



This is not a credible source of information on history. A short article on Viking may not even be written by a historian.



http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628781/Viking

Britannica discusses those Vikings , who colonised Europe. Not all of them were colonisers.

[Rugevit]

This is a scholar article by Lithuanian archaeologist Vladas Žulkus , who suggests that piracy was a phenomenon of social character (read as not based on ethnicity): http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/16/16_058-071_Zulkus.pdf


In the 12th century, the Curonians dwelt in the east Baltic region between the Rīga area in the north and Klaipėda in the south. They reached the peak of their economic, political and cultural achievements in the 11th century and the first half of the 12th century. The roots of piracy as a phenomenon have a social character. The most active period of the Curonian Vikings begins in around the mid-tenth century, and lasts until the arrival of the Germans in the 13th century. The well-organised piracy of the Curonians became dangerous to navigation on an important maritime trading route along the east Baltic coast.

[FeederOfRavens]

This is not a credible source of information on history. A short article on Viking may not even be written by a historian.

It's about the definition. This is the most standard and widespread definition. When you look up the word Viking definitions like those come up.



Britannica discusses those Vikings , who colonised Europe. Not all of them were colonisers.

Britannica said Raided and Colonized.



This is a scholar article by Lithuanian archaeologist Vladas Žulkus , who suggests that piracy was a phenomenon of social character (read as not based on ethnicity): http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/16/16_058-071_Zulkus.pdf


In the 12th century, the Curonians dwelt in the east Baltic region between the Rīga area in the north and Klaipėda in the south. They reached the peak of their economic, political and cultural achievements in the 11th century and the first half of the 12th century. The roots of piracy as a phenomenon have a social character. The most active period of the Curonian Vikings begins in around the mid-tenth century, and lasts until the arrival of the Germans in the 13th century. The well-organised piracy of the Curonians became dangerous to navigation on an important maritime trading route along the east Baltic coast.

It would be more accurate for him to refer to them("Curonian Vikings") as Jūrininkas(The Lithuanian word for raider). These Curonians definitely didn't refer to themselves as Vikings.

My point that Viking should be a Scandinavian exclusive term(and is recognized as such). If Slavic and Baltic pirates can be called vikings then why not Spanish, Arab and even Chinese pirates of the 8-11th centuries. And why should a non-Scandinavian feel the need to be referred to by a Scandinavian term instead their own ethno-linguistic denotations which have the exact same meaning?(Chasnicy for Slavs, Jūrininkas for Balts)

[Rugevit]

It's about the definition. This is the most standard and widespread definition. When you look up the word Viking definitions like those come up.



You want it to be a standard definition, while it's not a standard definition among historians and archaeologists. What you probably mean by the standard definition is that many people associate Vikings with Norsemen because Norse Vikings most numerous and dominant. In reality Vikings were pirates of many ethnicities.




Britannica said Raided and Colonized.

Raided and colonised. But not all Vikings were colonisers.





It would be more accurate for him to refer to them("Curonian Vikings") as Jūrininkas(The Lithuanian word for raider). These Curonians definitely didn't refer to themselves as Vikings.



If you want to highlight the ethnicity of the Vikings, then the most accurate definition would be Norse Vikings, Curonian Vikings, Finnic Vikings, Slavic Vikings. Vikings were pirates.


My point that Viking should be a Scandinavian exclusive term(and is recognized as such). If Slavic and Baltic pirates can be called vikings then why not Spanish, Arab and even Chinese pirates of the 8-11th centuries. And why should a non-Scandinavian feel the need to be referred to by a Scandinavian term instead their own ethno-linguistic denotations which have the exact same meaning?(Chasnicy for Slavs, Jūrininkas for Balts)

It may have to do with the region of Baltic sea from which those pirates were arriving. Finns, Balts, Norsemen and Baltic Slavs lived on the shores of the Baltic Sea.

[Skomand]

This is a scholar article by Lithuanian archaeologist Vladas Žulkus , who suggests that piracy was a phenomenon of social character (read as not based on ethnicity): http://briai.ku.lt/downloads/AB/16/16_058-071_Zulkus.pdf


In the 12th century, the Curonians dwelt in the east Baltic region between the Rīga area in the north and Klaipėda in the south. They reached the peak of their economic, political and cultural achievements in the 11th century and the first half of the 12th century. The roots of piracy as a phenomenon have a social character. The most active period of the Curonian Vikings begins in around the mid-tenth century, and lasts until the arrival of the Germans in the 13th century. The well-organised piracy of the Curonians became dangerous to navigation on an important maritime trading route along the east Baltic coast.


The German Wikipedia also includes Baltic marauders as Wikinger while the English doesn't:

Als Wikinger werden die Angehörigen von kriegerischen, zur See fahrenden Personengruppen aus meist nordischen, teils auch baltischen[1] Völkern des Nord- und Ostseeraumes während der Wikingerzeit im Frühmittelalter (800–1050 n. Chr.) bezeichnet.

[FeederOfRavens]

You want it to be a standard definition, while it's not a standard definition among historians and archaeologists. Viking were pirates of many ethnicities. Norsemen were people of Scandinavian descent.

What is the standard definition then? Because when I look up the word Vikings all the definitions presented to me have 3 things in common:

1: They were Seafarers
2: They Raided, Traded, Explored and/or Colonised
3: They were Norse/North Germanic people from Scandinavia



Raided and colonised. But not all Vikings were colonisers.

Nitpicking.



If you want to highlight the ethnicity of the Vikings, then the most accurate definition would be Norse Vikings, Curonian Vikings, Finnic Vikings, Slavic Vikings.

Says who? In the definitions I've seen the Norse are synonymous with Vikings. Why would they feel the need to be referred to by a Germanic ethic denotation? What's the mentality behind that?



Vikings were pirates.

So a Tang or Song Era Chinese pirate is a Viking? Or a Early Islamic North African Berber pirate is a Viking? Don't you see what's wrong with that logic? Vikings were not just pirates.



It may have to do with the region of Baltic sea from which these pirates were arriving. Finns, Balts, Norsemen and Baltic Slavs lived on the shores of the Baltic Sea.

Maybe, but it still makes no sense why a Baltic raider should referred to by a Scandinavian denotation as opposed to a Baltic one? Same goes for Slavic and Finnic raiders. What's the mentality behind wishing to be called a Scandinavian term?

[Rugevit]

What is the standard definition then? Because when I look up the word Vikings all the definitions presented to me have 3 things in common:

1: They were Seafarers
2: They Raided, Traded, Explored and/or Colonised
3: They were Norse/North Germanic people from Scandinavia



Vikings were pirates of different ethnicities living on the shores of the Baltic sea. That's a historic fact.



Nitpicking.


Exactly. You nitpicked the definition from a general encyclopedia.



Says who? In the definitions I've seen the Norse are synonymous with Vikings. Why would they feel the need to be referred to by a Germanic ethic denotation? What's the mentality behind that?


Vikings and Norsemen are often synonymous because Norsemen were most numerous and active group of people among Vikings. In reality, Viking were pirates of different ethnicities living in the Baltic region.





So a Tang or Song Era Chinese pirate is a Viking? Or a Early Islamic North African Berber pirate is a Viking? Don't you see what's wrong with that logic? Vikings were not just pirates.


The term Viking was applied to people of different ethnicities living on the shores of Baltic Sea.




Maybe, but it still makes no sense why a Baltic raider should referred to by a Scandinavian denotation as opposed to a Baltic one? Same goes for Slavic and Finnic raiders. What's the mentality behind wishing to be called a Scandinavian term?

It makes a lot of sense, because the term Viking was applied to people of different ethnicities living in the Baltic region in the past. You want to create a standard definition referring to the fact that many people associate Vikings with Norsemen, because Norsemen were most numerous and dominant group among Vikings. In reality the term was applied to many ethnicities from the Baltics.

[Rugevit]

The German Wikipedia also includes Baltic marauders as Wikinger while the English doesn't:

Als Wikinger werden die Angehörigen von kriegerischen, zur See fahrenden Personengruppen aus meist nordischen, teils auch baltischen[1] Völkern des Nord- und Ostseeraumes während der Wikingerzeit im Frühmittelalter (800–1050 n. Chr.) bezeichnet.


I suspect English may apply the term Vikings only to those people who came to England, who were predominantly Norsemen.

[Skomand]

Great map of Viking raids:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Z%C3%BCge%2C_Landnahmen_und_Siedlungsgebiete_der_N ordm%C3%A4nner_-_800-1050.png

[FeederOfRavens]

Vikings were pirates of different ethnicities living on the shores of the Baltic sea. That's a historic fact.


Vikings and Norsemen are often synonymous because Norsemen were most numerous and active group of people among Vikings. In reality, Viking were pirates of different ethnicities living in the Baltic region.


The term Viking was applied to people of different ethnicities living on the shores of Baltic Sea.


It makes a lot of sense, because the term Viking was applied to people of different ethnicities living in the Baltic region in the past. You want to create a standard definition referring to the fact that many people associate Vikings with Norsemen, because Norsemen were most numerous and dominant group among Vikings. In reality the term was applied to many ethnicities from the Baltics.

Since when was the term Viking was limited to the Baltic Sea and the peoples around it? Why are you making stuff up? In Old Norse the word Vikingr could be mean any pirate. If a group of Arab or Moorish pirates sailed to the Kattegat and started raiding the coasts they would've been called Vikingr by the Norse. Using Vikingr and Viking as synonyms isn't suitable in modern historiography as Vikingr could mean anything while the modern word Viking has a specific Era, Ethnic group, material culture and lifestyle associated with it.

Again you ignored my question:

Why would Balts or Slavs feel the need to be referred to by a North Germanic/Scandinavian ethnic denotation? What's the mentality behind that?



Exactly. You nitpicked the definition from a general encyclopedia.

No I didn't. I took the first definitions which showed up.

[Rugevit]

Since when was the term Viking was limited to the Baltic Sea and the peoples around it? Why are you making stuff up? In Old Norse the word Vikingr could be mean any pirate. If a group of Arab or Moorish pirates sailed to the Kattegat and started raiding the coasts they would've been called Vikingr by the Norse. Using Vikingr and Viking as synonyms isn't suitable in modern historiography as Vikingr could mean anything while the modern word Viking has a specific Era, Ethnic group, material culture and lifestyle associated with it.

Find a group of people outside of the Baltic region who were referred to as Vikings in the past. Exception maybe ancestors of Norwegians living on the coast of North sea.


Again you ignored my question:

Why would Balts or Slavs feel the need to be referred to by a North Germanic/Scandinavian ethnic denotation? What's the mentality behind that?



Slavs and Balts don't need to be referred to as Vikings. Slavs, Balts and Finns refer to those groups of people speaking Slavic, Baltic and Finnic who were known as Vikings.

[FeederOfRavens]

Find a group of people outside of the Baltic region who were referred to as Vikings in the past. Exception maybe ancestors of Norwegians living on the coast of North sea.


The word Vikingr meant to raid so any raider met by the Norse would be named Vikingr. Do you deny this? find me a source that states Viking is a Baltic exclusive term.



Slavs and Balts don't need to be referred to as Vikings. Slavs, Balts and Finns refer to those groups of people speaking Slavic, Baltic and Finnic who were known as Vikings.

Chasnicy, Jūrininkas these should be the terms for Balto-Slav pirates not Viking.

[Rugevit]

The word Vikingr meant to raid so any raider met by the Norse would be named Vikingr. Do you deny this? find me a source that states Viking is a Baltic exclusive term.

Strawman. We are not talking about etymology of the term. We are talking about the groups of people to which the term was applied in the past. The term was applied to a particular social group of many ethnicities mostly living in the Baltics.





Chasnicy, Jūrininkas these should be the terms for Balto-Slav pirates not Viking.

It does not matter what you or anyone else thinks about the terms that should be applied. What matters is how those people were identified in the past.

[FeederOfRavens]

Strawman. We are not talking about etymology of the term. We are talking about the groups of people to which the term was applied in the past. The term was applied to a particular social group of many ethnicities mostly living in the Baltics. It does not matter what you or anyone else thinks about the terms that should be applied. What matters is how those people were identified in the past.

We are talking about the etymology of the term. Vikingr has never meant Baltic Sea raider but it does mean any Pirate or Raider in general regardless of ethnicity, location, material culture or era which is why I don't think it is suitable to be used in Synonym with the modern term Viking.

[Rugevit]

We are talking about the etymology of the term. Vikingr has never meant Baltic Sea raider but it does mean any Pirate or Raider in general regardless of ethnicity, location, material culture or era which is why I don't think it is suitable to be used in Synonym with the modern term Viking.

It wasn't us talking about etymology. It was you who decided to talk about etymology of the term, after you are realised the defintion of Viking is inaccurate in historic context.

Speaking of etymology the term 'socialist' has Latin origin came through French. Latin/French origin of the term does not make Swedish socialists to be Latin or French. In fact, there are many terms applied to social groups that have Greek or Latin etymology, which are applied to certain groups of many ethnicities.

As I wrote, Viking and Norsemen are synonymous in some sources, because Norsmen were most numerous and active among Vikings. But Norsemen were not the only people among Vikings during the Viking age. Among Vikings there were Polabian Slavs living in present day north-east Germany and north-western Poland. Baltic tribe Curonians from western Latvia. Ancestors of some Estonians and ancestors of some Finns.

[FeederOfRavens]

It wasn't us talking about etymology. It was you who decided to talk about etymology of the term, after you are realised the defintion of Viking is inaccurate in historic context.

The Vikingr has never meant Baltic Sea Raider. No modern definition says Vikings were any pirates from the Baltic Sea So you're theory that Vikings are any raider from the Baltic is wrong. What Vikingr it does mean any Pirate or Raider in general regardless of ethnicity, location, material culture or era. If Viking and Vikingr are synonymous modern Somali pirates can be Vikingr or Viking. Why are trying to edit definitions of terms?



Among Vikings there were Polabian Slavs living in present day north-east Germany and north-western Poland.

Chasnicy


Baltic tribe Curonians from western Latvia.

Jūrininkas


Ancestors of some Estonians and ancestors of some Finns.

Insert Baltic Finn word for pirate here.

[FeederOfRavens]

Great map of Viking raids:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Z%C3%BCge%2C_Landnahmen_und_Siedlungsgebiete_der_N ordm%C3%A4nner_-_800-1050.png

Pretty Good Map. However Brittany, Anglesey in Wales, the rest of England, a larger part of Frisia(Including Utrecht and Dorestad) and more sections of the North Polish/Pomerian and North-East German coast should be in blue as well as small areas in Russia while Närke and Nord-Trondelag should be purple as the lands were predominately Norse before 800 AD. By the 9th-10th centuries Jamtland had been colonized so it should be in blue.

BTW Leif Ericson's voyage was not the only trip to Vinland/Markland/Helluland and it's likely that Norse visited Jan Mayen Isle.

[Rugevit]

The Vikingr has never meant Baltic Sea Raider. No modern definition says Vikings were any pirates from the Baltic Sea So you're theory that Vikings are any raider from the Baltic is wrong. What Vikingr it does mean any Pirate or Raider in general regardless of ethnicity, location, material culture or era. If Viking and Vikingr are synonymous modern Somali pirates can be Vikingr or Viking. Why are trying to edit definitions of terms?

Another strawman. I didn't introduce any theories about the meaning of the term Viking. I listed the groups of people to which the term Viking was applied in the past. Those people lived on the shores of the Baltic sea. But not people living on the shores of the Baltic Sea were Vikings, as the term was applied only to certain groups of people irrespective of their ethnicities. In fact, ethnicity was not perceived the same way as it is perceived today. Also, you are desperately trying to equate Vikings to Norsemen. And only to Norsemen referencing definitions from general encyclopedia.

[FeederOfRavens]

Another strawman. I didn't introduce any theories about the meaning of the term Viking.

Yes, you did:


It may have to do with the region of Baltic sea from which those pirates were arriving. Finns, Balts, Norsemen and Baltic Slavs lived on the shores of the Baltic Sea.




I listed the groups of people to which the term Viking was applied in the past.

The term Vikingr was applied to these people not Viking.



But not people living on the shores of the Baltic Sea were Vikings, as the term was applied only to certain groups of people irrespective of their ethnicities. In fact, ethnicity was not perceived the same way as it is perceived today.

The term Vikingr was applied irregardless of ethnicity but not the term Viking which if you want be technical is a modern definition imposed on certain groups of Scandinavians who lived during the Viking Age.



Also, you are desperately trying to equate Vikings to Norsemen. And only to Norsemen referencing definitions from general encyclopedias.

Why you're trying to connect Balts and Slavs to a Scandinavian term. Whats so bad about the term Chasnicy or Jūrininkas, that you need to refer to a Scandinavian term?

I'll repeat this again a Viking by definition has to be a Norse/North Germanic Seafarer from Scandinavia that lived between the 8th to 11th centuries. A Slav or a Balt living a similar or even identical lifestyle during the same time period is still not a Viking as he is non-Scandinavian. He is Chasnicy. He is Jūrininkas. The Slav/Balt may be Vikingr but even Bronze Age Egyptian pirates, Ming period Chinese pirates or Modern day Somali pirates fit the definition of Vikingr which is to Pirate/Raid. Every pirate who ever exist can be Vikingr but not a Viking.

[Rugevit]

Yes, you did:

It was a speculation. Not a theory.







The term Vikingr was applied to these people not Viking.




The term Vikingr was applied irregardless of ethnicity but not the term Viking which if you want be technical is a modern definition imposed on certain groups of Scandinavians who lived during the Viking Age.


We are communicating in English and not in old Norse. Viking is the English term used to refer to those people.







Why you're trying to connect Balts and Slavs to a Scandinavian term. Whats so bad about the term Chasnicy or Jūrininkas, that you need to refer to a Scandinavian term?

I'll repeat this again a Viking by definition has to be a Norse/North Germanic Seafarer from Scandinavia that lived between the 8th to 11th centuries. A Slav or a Balt living a similar or even identical lifestyle during the same time period is still not a Viking as he is non-Scandinavian. He is Chasnicy. He is Jūrininkas. The Slav/Balt may be Vikingr but even Bronze Age Egyptian pirates, Ming period Chinese pirates or Modern day Somali pirates fit the definition of Vikingr which is to Pirate/Raid. Every pirate who ever exist can be Vikingr but not a Viking.


I am not making any connections. I am stating historic facts about the term Viking applied to various groups of people living around the Baltic Sea, which seem to be inconvenient for you. The other thing is maybe you are one of those persons from new world, who does not know basic geography and history, and Webster dictionary is the ultimate authority on the subject.

[FeederOfRavens]

It was a speculation. Not a theory.

Irregardless it's wrong.





We are communicating in English and not in old Norse. Viking is the English term used to refer to those people.

Viking is the term used to refer to the Norse Seafarers. In English Vikingr is Raider/Pirate.



I am stating historic facts about the term Viking applied to various groups of people living around the Baltic Sea,

The term Vikingr applied to various groups of people living around the Baltic Sea. The term Viking didn't.


The other thing is maybe you are one of those persons from new world, who does not know basic geography and history, and Webster dictionary is the ultimate authority on the subject.

Ad Hominem (http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/)

[Rugevit]

Irregardless it's wrong.

How is it wrong? I asked to find a group of people outside of the Baltic region to which the term was applied during the Viking age.


Viking is the term used to refer to the Norse Seafarers. In English Vikingr is Raider/Pirate.


The term is not only referred to Norse seafarers. I linked you to a scholarly article in which it was applied to Curonians. I can find scholar articles to which it is applied to ancestors of Estonians and Polabian Slavs. But it does not matter how one or the other author uses a particular term. What is important is how those people were identified in the past.



The term Vikingr applied to various groups of people living around the Baltic Sea not the term Viking.

Knowing the term in its original form won't give you any credits in the context of discussing to which groups of people the term was applied in the past.




Ad Hominem (http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/)


But that's true what I wrote.

[FeederOfRavens]

How is it wrong? I asked to find a group of people outside of the Baltic region to which the term was applied during the Viking age.

And I asked find me any source which states that the Vikingr were a Baltic exclusive term. Icelanders, Norwegians don't border the Baltic and they were obviously Vikingr(Pirates)



The term is not only referred to Norse seafarers. I linked you to a scholarly article in which it was applied to Curonians. I can find scholar articles to which it is applied to ancestors of Estonians and Polabian Slavs. But it does not matter how one or the other author uses a particular term.

Then the Scholar used the term(Viking) erroneously. Slavs, Balts and Aesti being referred to as Vikingr does not make them Vikings.


What is important is how those people were identified in the past.

So if Basque pirates sailed to the Kattegat and started pillaging and the Norse identified them as Vikingr would that make them Vikings?



But that's true what I wrote.

And what the fuck makes you think I don't know Basic History and/or Geography and why would it be because I am from the New World?

[Rugevit]

And I asked find me any source which states that the Vikingr were a Baltic exclusive term. Icelanders, Norwegians don't border the Baltic and they were obviously Vikingr(Pirates)

Iceland was settled by Norsemen. Norway was the only region outside of the Baltic region, which is a neighbouring region to the Baltic Sea.


Then the Scholar used the term(Viking) erroneously. Slavs, Balts and Aesti being referred to as Vikingr does not make them Vikings.


Scholars don't use the terms erroneously. They introduce the terms for convenience. Calling Curonian or Saaremaa Vikings, as Vikings may cause confusion among the readers.



So if Basque pirates sailed to the Kattegat and started pillaging and the Norse identified them as Vikingr would that make them Vikings?


If Basques were identified as Vikings, then they would have been Vikings. You are making a mistake linking Vikings to a specific ethnicity. Vikings were a social group of many ethnicities.






And what the fuck makes you think I don't know Basic History and/or Geography and why would it be because I am from the New World?


I've been long enough on the forum to know you are clueless, who cannot think outside of square sticking to the definitions from Webster dictionary. Dude! Buy a decent book and a globus.

[FeederOfRavens]

Iceland was settled by Norsemen. Norway was the only region outside of the Baltic region, which is a neighbouring region to the Baltic Sea.

Whatever. You and I both know Vikingr is not a Baltic specific term but rather an Old Norse denotation for any pirate.


Scholars don't use the terms erroneously. They introduce the terms for convenience. Calling Curonian or Saaremaa Vikings, as Vikings may cause confusion among the readers/

Exactly. He called them Vikings simply to make it easier for people to understand their lifestyle and behaviour as Curonians and Norsemen had a lot in common. If he wanted to be accurate he would called them the Baltic equivalent for seafaring Raider.



If Basques were identified as Vikings, then they would have been Vikings. You are making a mistake linking Vikings to a specific ethnicity. Vikings were a social group of many ethnicities.


If any random pirate from any Ethnic group, time period, material culture or lifestlye can just identify as a Viking and become one just like that then this term becomes meaningless and synonymous with Pirate.

A secondary definition of Viking is "A sea-roving bandit or pirate" but going by this definition

Modern day Somalian Pirates who operate around the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea: Vikings
Sea Peoples who threatened the Aegean and Mediterranean in the 14th century BC: Vikings
Late Republic to Early Imperial Roman Era Anatolian Pirates who operated in the Eastern Mediterranean: Vikings
North African Berber/Arab/Moorish pirates/slavers in the Mediterranean from the 8th to 18th centuries: Vikings
Caribbean Pirates of Colonial West European origin(French, British, Dutch, Spanish) from 1600-1720: Vikings
East Asian(Chinese, Japanese and Korean) pirates operating in the East China Sea, Yellow Sea and South China Sea: Vikings
Russian Cossack pirates operating in the Black on Turkish ships and coastal Turkish towns: Vikings

Don't you see how F*ed up this definition is?

[FeederOfRavens]

Anne Bonny, Female Viking from 18th century Papist Ireland

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Bonney%2C_Anne_%281697-1720%29.jpg/225px-Bonney%2C_Anne_%281697-1720%29.jpg



Sir Francis Drake, true Viking Barbarian from 16th century Elizabethan England

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/1590_or_later_Marcus_Gheeraerts%2C_Sir_Francis_Dra ke_Buckland_Abbey%2C_Devon.jpg/220px-1590_or_later_Marcus_Gheeraerts%2C_Sir_Francis_Dra ke_Buckland_Abbey%2C_Devon.jpg



Modern day African Vikings

http://natocouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/somali-pirates-1024_149678k.jpg
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/11/phillips_pirates.jpg.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.jpg



Ching Shih, Female Oriental Viking of the Qing dynasty

http://www.annebonnypirate.com/images/annebonnypirate/ching_shih.jpg



Barbary/Moorish Viking, from the Ottoman Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Mola_Pirata.jpg/425px-Mola_Pirata.jpg



Mulai Ahmed er Raisuli, the last Muslim North African Viking

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Raisuli.JPG/377px-Raisuli.JPG

[Rugevit]

Exactly. He called them Vikings simply to make it easier for people to understand their lifestyle and behaviour as Curonians and Norsemen had a lot in common. If he wanted to be accurate he would called them the Baltic equivalent for seafaring Raider.

Authors could have another term to describe activities of people similar to those of the Vikings to avoid ambiguity. Yet, scholars are specifically using the term Viking in case of some groups of people living in the Baltic including Curonians and Eesti. There is a reason why the term is applied to these groups by the scholars.





If any random pirate from any Ethnic group, time period, material culture or lifestlye can just identify as a Viking and become one just like that then this term becomes meaningless and synonymous with Pirate.

A secondary definition of Viking is "A sea-roving bandit or pirate" but going by this definition

Modern day Somalian Pirates who operate around the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea: Vikings
Sea Peoples who threatened the Aegean and Mediterranean in the 14th century BC: Vikings
Late Republic to Early Imperial Roman Era Anatolian Pirates who operated in the Eastern Mediterranean: Vikings
North African Berber/Arab/Moorish pirates/slavers in the Mediterranean from the 8th to 18th centuries: Vikings
Caribbean Pirates of Colonial West European origin(French, British, Dutch, Spanish) from 1600-1720: Vikings
East Asian(Chinese, Japanese and Korean) pirates operating in the East China Sea, Yellow Sea and South China Sea: Vikings
Russian Cossack pirates operating in the Black on Turkish ships and coastal Turkish towns: Vikings

If the term Viking was applied to any group of people, then there is a reason why it applied to that group. So, if Basques were identified as Vikings during the Viking age, then they were Vikings regardless of their ethnic backgrounds. Viking is not an ethnicity and scholars are quite clear about groups of Vikings consisting of many ethnicities. In fact, there was no concept of ethnicity during the Viking age among Norsemen, Slavs and Balts, the way we perceive ethnicity today. There were culturally and linguistically related tribes and clans . Many related tribes and clans were constantly fighting against each often forming coalitions with groups of people who are not linguistically related to them. The idea of associating a specific ethnicity to a social group that was ethnically diverse stuck in your mind. It's no good projecting modern views on a thousand year old realities. Basically, Vikings were Norsemen, Polabian Slavs, Curonians, some ancestors of Finns and Estonians. Maybe others.




Don't you see how F*ed up this definition is?

Don't search for the definition in modern dictionaries or encyclopedia. Search for historic chronicles to see if the term was applied to groups of people other than Norsemen.

[FeederOfRavens]

If the term Viking was applied to any group of people, then there is a reason why it applied to that group.

Stupid reasons I'm sure. Applying the term Viking to a Slav or a Balt has about as much legitimacy as applying it to an Arab or Spaniard.


So, if Basques were identified as Vikings during the Viking age, then they were Vikings regardless of their ethnic backgrounds.

It would be impossible for Basques to Identify as Vikings or to be identified by others as Vikings as the term Viking is a modern imposition a specific group(Norse Seafarers).



Viking is not an ethnicity and scholars are quite clear about groups of Vikings consisting of many ethnicities.

Vikingr is not an ethnicity and scholars are quite clear about groups of Vikingr consisting of many ethnicities.




Don't search for the definition in modern dictionaries or encyclopedia. Search for historic chronicles to see if the term was applied to groups of people other than Norsemen.

Historical chronicles never mention Vikings as it is a modern term for Norse Seafarers/Raiders/Traders from Scandinavia who operated between the 8th and 11th centuries. Vikingr on the other hand is found in Historical chronicles(Norse Sagas) and it's quite clear they used it as a general term for any pirate.

[Dragoon]

Many Slavic tribes might have been Germanized hundreds of years ago (Obotrites, Veleti, Rani, etc), so that may explain part of it.

[Rugevit]

Stupid reasons I'm sure. Applying the term Viking to a Slav or a Balt has about as much legitimacy as applying it to an Arab or Spaniard.

It does not matter what you think. What matters is to which groups of people the term was applied in the past.



It would be impossible for Basques too Identify as Vikings or to be identified by others as Vikings as the term Viking is a modern imposition a specific group(Norse Seafarers).



It would have been possible to identify Basques as Vikings, if they were identified as such irrespective how the term was spelled or pronounced in different languages in the past. That is, Vikingr in Old Norse, and whatever term was used in Greek or Slavic to refer to that group of people at the time. Viking is not specific to Norse seafarers only. You were linked to Lithuanian and German sources, in which Curonians were identified as Vikings.



Historical chronicles never mention Vikings as it is a modern term for Norse Seafarers/Raiders/Traders from Scandinavia who operated between the 8th and 11th centuries. Vikingr on the other hand is found in Historical chronicles(Norse Sagas) and it's quite clear they used it as a general term for any pirate.


In English, the term Viking is applied to seafarers/raiders of different ethnic groups from the Viking Age. Hence, modern term Viking is acceptable to refer to people that lived in the Viking age, as we are communicating in English.

[StonyArabia]

Many Slavic tribes might have been Germanized hundreds of years ago (Obotrites, Veleti, Rani, etc), so that may explain part of it.

Probably, the Prussians were Baltic once, and the Vandals originated form Poland from what I read

[FeederOfRavens]

It does not matter what you think. What matters is to which groups of people the term was applied in the past.

if they were identified as such irrespective how the term was spelled or pronounced in different languages in the past.

The term Viking did not exist in the past. The term Vikingr which has a different definition did.




It would have been possible to identify Basques as Vikings,

No, it is impossible as Viking is a modern imposition a specific group(Norse Seafarers).




That is, Vikingr in Old Norse,

Used to denote any Pirate


Viking is not specific to Norse seafarers. In English, the term Viking is applied to seafarers/Raider/Traders to different ethnic groups from the Viking Age.

So a Dorset culture Inuit Raider/Trader who existed in the same era is a Viking? A Early Medieval Chinese Sea Raider is a Viking?
Viking and Vikingr have different meanings. If you wan't to use them as synonyms then modern Somali pirates and Early Medieval Chinese Sea-Dogs become Vikings. If you actually believe this definition then I think you have quite a strange train of thought.

[Rugevit]

The term Viking did not exist in the past. The term Vikingr which has a different definition did.
No, it is impossible as Viking is a modern imposition a specific group(Norse Seafarers).

Vikingr was the term in Old Norse. Varangoi, Variagoi were Greek terms applied those Vikings (Vikingr), who were elite guard in the Byzantine empire. Varyags was the term in Slavic. Viking is the modern term. Throw away your definitions. All terms refer to the same multi-ethnic group of people.


So a Dorset culture Inuit Raider/Trader who existed in the same era is a Viking? A Early Medieval Chinese Sea Raider is a Viking?
Viking and Vikingr have different meanings. If you wan't to use them as synonyms then modern Somali pirates and Early Medieval Chinese Sea-Dogs become Vikings. If you actually believe this definition then I think you have quite a strange train of thought.

Any group of people irrespective of their ethnicity would have been known as Vikings today, if they were identified as Vikingr, Varangoi, Varyags or any other name in different languages in the past. Vikingr, Varingoi, Varyags, Vikings were not an ethnicity.

Here is some historic evidence for you.

--
Hakonar saga goda names Danes and Wends as Vikings. Wends were Polabian Slavs living not far from the Danes

Then Hakonar Konung sailed east along the coast of Scania ravaging the country, taking ransoms and taxes killing the Vikings, where he found them as the Danes and the Wends.

---

Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar. Ancestors of Estonians were named as Vikings.

"When they sailed eastward, they were attacked by the Vikings. These were Eesti.. "

[FeederOfRavens]

You're confused. Vikingr was the term in Old Norse. Varangoi, Variagoi were Greek terms applied those Vikings (Vikingr), who were elite guard in the Byzantine empire. Varyags was the term in Slavic. Viking is the modern term.

Vikings and Vikingr are NOT synonyms. The definition of Vikingr is to Raid. If you use the Viking and Vikingr as synonyms it makes any Pirate who ever raided from the Sea Peoples to Somalis Vikings which is insane.


Throw away your definitions.

No, and they are not my definitions



Vikingr, Varingoi, Varyags, were not an ethnicity.


Correct


Vikings were not an ethnicity.

Incorrect.


Here is some historic evidence for you....snip

In the Original, Old Norse text of the Saga it's Vikingr not Viking. The translator of this is erroneously using Vikingr as the equivalent of Viking when the two have a different meaning. Unless he believes Somalian pirates are Vikings.


Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar. Ancestors of Estonians were named as Vikings.

It names them as Vikingr not Vikings. This erroneous English translation names them as Vikings.


Hakonar saga goda names Danes and Wends as Vikings.

It names them as Vikingr not Vikings. This erroneous English translation names them as Vikings. They should be named Chąśnicy

[Rugevit]

Vikings and Vikingr are NOT synonyms. The definition of Vikingr is to Raid. If you use the Viking and Vikingr as synonyms it makes any Pirate who ever raided from the Sea Peoples to Somalis Vikings which is insane.


This is not primary school where you are tested for the definitions. Find the facts in primary sources of information and analyse them yourself. The term Viking is used to refer to Vikingr in Old Norse. If it is not, then you are drawing erroneous conclusions or the definition is inaccurate.



No, and they are not my definitions


Then , you are drawing wrong inferences from the definitions or the definition are not accurate.



It names them as Vikingr not Vikings. This erroneous English translation names them as Vikings.


Viking is the modern English term which is used to refer to people known as Vikingr in Old Norse or under other names in other languages.



It names them as Vikingr not Vikings. This erroneous English translation names them as Vikings. They should be named Chąśnicy


Viking is the modern English term which is used to refer to Vikingr and other names in other languages. People who told sagas knew better how certain groups of people should had been named.

[FeederOfRavens]

The Old Norse feminine noun víking refers to an expedition overseas. It occurs in Viking Age runic inscriptions and in later medieval writings in set expressions such as the phrasal verb fara í víking, "to go on an expedition". The derived Old Norse masculine noun víkingr appears in Viking Age skaldic poetry and on several rune stones found in Scandinavia, where it refers to a seaman or warrior who takes part in an expedition overseas. In later texts, such as the Icelandic sagas, the phrase "to go on a viking" implies participation in raiding activity or piracy and not simply seaborne missions of trade and commerce.


Vikings were Germanic Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.


The word Viking was introduced into Modern English during the 18th-century Viking revival, at which point it acquired romanticised heroic overtones of "barbarian warrior" or noble savage. During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (like Iceland and the Faroe Islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture that produced said raiders during the period from the late 8th to the mid-11th centuries, or more loosely from about 700 to as late as about 1100.

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

[Rugevit]

^Any modern name could have been invented for Vikingr in other languages. It's not the form of the name, it's the fact that scholar refer to Vikingr using other names.

[FeederOfRavens]

Insert Drivel here

Fuck off with trying to claim Scandinavian terms and find your own terms.

Slavic "Viking": Chąśnicy

Baltic "Viking": Jūrininkas

Start using em'.

[FeederOfRavens]

^Any modern name could have been invented for Vikingr in other languages. It's not the form of the name, it's the fact that scholar refer to Vikingr using other names.

Vikingr(Old Norse Word): Refers to a seaman or warrior who takes part in an expedition overseas.

Viking(Modern Word): Seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (like Iceland and the Faroe Islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture that produced said raiders

Balto-Slav pirates qualify for Vikingr but not Vikings, the same way Somali pirates qualify for Vikingr but not Vikings.(Not too antagonize Balts or Slavs or Finns)

[Rugevit]

Fuck off with trying to claim Scandinavian terms and find your own terms.

Slavic "Viking": Chąśnicy

Baltic "Viking": Jūrininkas

Start using em'.

I suspected all along that you are a clever individual. ;)

[Rugevit]

Vikingr(Old Norse Word): Refers to a seaman or warrior who takes part in an expedition overseas.

Viking(Modern Word): Seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (like Iceland and the Faroe Islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture that produced said raiders

Balto-Slav pirates qualify for Vikingr but not Vikings, the same way Somali pirates qualify for Vikingr but not Vikings.(Not too antagonize Balts or Slavs or Finns)


Scholars apply modern term Viking to Vikingr known in Old Norse. Simple, really.

[FeederOfRavens]

I suspected all along that you are a thick individual.

Thank you for adding more Ad Hominem to the thread. I'd rather say you're thick for not accepting facts.

[FeederOfRavens]

Scholars apply modern term Viking to Vikingr known in Old Norse. Simple, really.

But they don't. And even if they did they shouldn't. The Modern word Viking and the definition evolved from the Old word Vikingr and definition to mean something different.

[Rugevit]

Thank you for adding more Ad Hominem to the thread. I'd rather say you're thick for not accepting facts.

You have not provided any facts other than definition from Webster dictionary. I pointed you to the facts from primary sources.

[Rugevit]

But they don't. And even if they did they shouldn't.

They do. You are not in a position to judge how the term should be used by the scholars.

[FeederOfRavens]

You have not provided any facts other than definition from Webster dictionary. I pointed you to the facts from primary sources.

Are you blind?


The Old Norse feminine noun víking refers to an expedition overseas. It occurs in Viking Age runic inscriptions and in later medieval writings in set expressions such as the phrasal verb fara í víking, "to go on an expedition". The derived Old Norse masculine noun víkingr appears in Viking Age skaldic poetry and on several rune stones found in Scandinavia, where it refers to a seaman or warrior who takes part in an expedition overseas. In later texts, such as the Icelandic sagas, the phrase "to go on a viking" implies participation in raiding activity or piracy and not simply seaborne missions of trade and commerce.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#cite_note-12 Originally from:
http://sagadb.org/grettis_saga.en2 and http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/text/word_viking.htm



Vikings were Germanic Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings Originally from Roesdahl's book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Vikings-Else-Roesdahl/dp/0140252827) pg 9-22


The word Viking was introduced into Modern English during the 18th-century Viking revival, at which point it acquired romanticized heroic overtones of "barbarian warrior" or noble savage. During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (like Iceland and the Faroe Islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture that produced said raiders during the period from the late 8th to the mid-11th centuries, or more loosely from about 700 to as late as about 1100.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings Originally from:
http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=vikings-raiders-traders-and-settlers-links (http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=the-term-viking)

[FeederOfRavens]

They do. You are not in a position to judge how the term should be used by the scholars.

Says who? You still haven't explained your logic as to why Viking and Vikingr should be synonyms

[Rugevit]

Are you blind?



I am not blind seeing your extraordinary abilities. The same historic personalities are known as Vikingr in Norse sagas, Varangoi in Greek chronicles, Varyags in east Slavic chronicles . Vikings in modern literature. It is not the name or someone's definition, it is the fact that different names are applied to the same people. If you have read some literature on the subject, then you would have known this.

[Rugevit]

Says who? You still haven't explained your logic as to why Viking and Vikingr should be synonyms

I am writing this. The same historic personalities are labelled under different names whether it's Norse saga, historic chronicles or modern day literature.

[FeederOfRavens]

I am writing this. The same historic personalities are labelled under different names whether it's Norse saga, historic chronicles or modern day literature.

This is because all Vikings are Vikingr but not all Vikingr are Vikings. For example Egil Skallagrimsson would fit the definition of both Viking(A Norse Seafarer) and Vikingr(a Seaman who raids)
A Somalian pirate would fit the definition of Vikingr(a Seaman who raids) but not a Viking(A Norse Seafarer). Unless you want too use Viking and Vikingr as synonyms where a Viking is any Seaman who Raids including Somali Sea-Dogs.


Is he a Viking to you?

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2013/01/AP348980180592.jpg

Yes or No?

If your answer is Yes then I can finally dismiss you as a crazy man

If your answer is No then you agree with the standard definition for Viking.

Answer the question.

[Rugevit]

This is because all Vikings are Vikingr but not all Vikingr are Vikings. For example Egil Skallagrimsson would fit the definition of both Viking(A Norse Seafarer) and Vikingr(a Seaman who raids)
A Somalian pirate would fit the definition of Vikingr(a Seaman who raids) but not a Viking(A Norse Seafarer). Unless you want too use Viking and Vikingr as synonyms where a Viking is any Seaman who Raids including Somali Sea-Dogs.


Viking is the modern term used to refer to people who were known as Vikingr in Norse Sagas. This is not even disputable. Forget dictionary and wikipedia definitions and read history books or journal articles.





Is he a Viking to you?


Yes or No?

If your answer is Yes then I can finally dismiss you as a crazy man

If your answer is No then you agree with the standard definition for Viking.

Answer the question.


Neither Viking, nor Vikingr in Old Norse nor any other names used in other languages was an ethnic term. Any ethnic group could have been labelled as Viking in modern literature if that group of people was known as Vikingr in Old Norse or any other name in other languages in the past. People who were telling sagas calling Wends, Danes and Eesti as Vikingr (read as Viking in modern literature) did not have prejudices towards ethnicities that you have them today. In fact, the concept of ethnicity was not perceived by Norse, Slavs, Balts or Baltic Finns thousands years ago the same way as you perceive it today.

[Hevo]

First you should ask if Dutch people are more Germanic or more Celtic, or 50/50.

Area which is today the Netherlands used to be Celtic in Ancient times:

http://www.medpovrly.cz/en/ImgCont/historie01_en.jpghttp://oaks.nvg.org/keltimap.gifhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UZEE69h9p0I/Tt35RnJrRNI/AAAAAAAADcU/oxiTqh6fofs/s1600/imagesCA2X2J4K.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Celts_ua.GIF

http://felc.gdufs.edu.cn/britishliterature/contents/Medieval/Celts2.png

This map even claims that the Netherlands was part of the area where Celts emerged:

http://c0.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/celts-630x392.jpg


None of these maps are accurate. There is no evidence that there was a Celtic presence in Northern Netherlands. The Northern Belgae tribes were probably only Celtized.

[FeederOfRavens]

Insert Drivel here

My sources were backed up by history books and journal articles.

Do you think this is a mother fucking game? I don't want to here the same Bullshit you keep parroting.

Is he a Viking to you?


http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2013/01/AP348980180592.jpg


Yes or No?



Answer the goddamn question




Or never quote me again.

[Rugevit]

My sources were backed up by history books and journal articles.

Your sources were not backed by history books and journal articles


Do you think this is a mother fucking game?


I like to make fun of 'clever' people occasionally.



I don't want to here the same Bullshit you keep parroting.

Then don't parrot and piss off.




Is he a Viking to you?


Yes or No?



Answer the goddamn question


I've answered you already.




Or never quote me again.

I will make sure I will quote you.

[FeederOfRavens]

Don't bull shit. Your sources were not backed by history books and journal articles

Maybe if you actually read what I posted you would see.



I've answered you already.

No you didn't answer. It's a simple Yes or No question

Is he a Viking to you?

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2013/01/AP348980180592.jpg

[Rugevit]

Maybe if you actually read what I posted you would see.

I've read your posts. You kept repeating about some definitions from dictionaries and Wikipedia. I pointed you to sagas. Then, I pointed to the fact that the same historic personalities and groups of people participating in voyages were known under different names (Vikingr, Viking and other) in different sources.





No you didn't answer. It's a simple Yes or No question

Is he a Viking to you?




You're really a narrow-minded individual posting the same picture asking the same stupid question for which you have received the answer.

[FeederOfRavens]

I've read your posts. You kept repeating about some definitions from dictionaries and Wikipedia. I pointed you to sagas. Then, I pointed to the fact that the same historic personalities and groups of people participating in voyages were known under different names (Vikingr, Viking) in different sources.

Reread until you find them because I know I posted them. Sources from Books, Sagas and Journals.





You're really a narrow-minded individual posting the same picture asking the same stupid question for which you have received the answer.

Repeat your answer then. Yes or no?

[Rugevit]

Reread until you find them because I know I posted them. Sources from Books, Sagas and Journals.

No, you didn't.


Repeat your answer then. Yes or no?

You're funny, you know.

[Rugevit]

Skipping all the nonsense with pictures of Somali pirates from clever people.

Some Slavs, some Balts and some Baltic Finns were known as Vikingr , Varyags, Varangoi in saga and chroncles. In modern day English literature these people are referred to as Vikings. Vikingr, Varyags, Varangoi (Viking in modern day literature) was not referred to a specific ethnicity, clan or tribe. Although, Norsemen were most numerous and dominant among Vikingr (read as Viking). Hence, Vikings (Vakingr in Old Norse) are commonly associated with Norsemen in literature.

[FeederOfRavens]

No, you didn't.

My post:


Are you blind?


The Old Norse feminine noun víking refers to an expedition overseas. It occurs in Viking Age runic inscriptions and in later medieval writings in set expressions such as the phrasal verb fara í víking, "to go on an expedition". The derived Old Norse masculine noun víkingr appears in Viking Age skaldic poetry and on several rune stones found in Scandinavia, where it refers to a seaman or warrior who takes part in an expedition overseas. In later texts, such as the Icelandic sagas, the phrase "to go on a viking" implies participation in raiding activity or piracy and not simply seaborne missions of trade and commerce.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#cite_note-12 Originally from:
http://sagadb.org/grettis_saga.en2 and http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/text/word_viking.htm




Vikings were Germanic Norse seafarers, speaking the Old Norse language, who raided and traded from their Scandinavian homelands across wide areas of northern and central Europe, as well as European Russia, during the late 8th to late 11th centuries.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings Originally from Roesdahl's book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Vikings-Else-Roesdahl/dp/0140252827) pg 9-22




The word Viking was introduced into Modern English during the 18th-century Viking revival, at which point it acquired romanticised heroic overtones of "barbarian warrior" or noble savage. During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (like Iceland and the Faroe Islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture that produced said raiders during the period from the late 8th to the mid-11th centuries, or more loosely from about 700 to as late as about 1100.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings Originally from:
http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=vikings-raiders-traders-and-settlers-links (http://www.archeurope.com/index.php?page=the-term-viking)




You're funny, you know.

Yes or No?

[Rugevit]

My post:
Regardless of individual definitions, scholar use Vikingr and Viking interchangeably depending on the sources of information to refer to the same historic personalities.




Yes or No?


Yes, you are a funny! ;)

[FeederOfRavens]

Skipping all the nonsense with pictures of Somali pirates from clever people.

Some Slavs, some Balts and some Baltic Finns were known as Vikingr , Varyags, Varangoi in saga and chroncles. In modern day English literature these people are referred to as Vikings. Vikingr, Varyags, Varangoi (Viking in modern day literature) was not referred to a specific ethnicity, clan or tribe. Although, Norsemen were most numerous and dominant among Vikingr (read as Viking). Hence, Vikings (Vakingr in Old Norse) are commonly associated with Norsemen in literature.

Vikings and Vikingr cannot be synonyms without making every pirate who ever existed from prehistoric times to the modern day a Viking.

[FeederOfRavens]

Yes, you are a funny! ;)

I'm going to take that response as a Yes, Somali Pirates are Vikings. Which means Yes, you are insane and Yes, I can dismiss you.

[Rugevit]

I'm going to take that response as a Yes, Somali Pirates are Vikings. Which means Yes, you are insane and Yes, I can dismiss you.

Are you sure you don't want to continue posting pictures of Somali pirates ? ;)

[Wyszemir]

Early Germanics were early Germanics :). There weren't any Germanics without R1b centum-speaking indo-europeans.
Before them, in Scandinavia, there were hunter-gatherer groups like Pitted Ware Culture (consisting of I2 and I*, maybe even some Q?) and some kind of satem-speaking Corded Ware, mostly as Y3295 (pre-Z284) or early Z284, that were mostly pushed north and likely germanised later. I think that they haven't played any important role in forming a Jastorf culture, that is considered to be proto-Germanic. Otherwise, we would've seen Scandinavian Y2395(including Z284) in all places where also continental germanics have settled.

Does anybody know of any aDNA studies underway for Iron Age people that lived between Elbe and Oder rivers? Were they more similar gentically (high % of R1a), in appearance to modern Lusatian Sorbs, Poles, etc. or Western Germans?

[FeederOfRavens]

Does anybody know of any aDNA studies underway for Iron Age people that lived between Elbe and Oder rivers? Were they more similar gentically (high % of R1a), in appearance to modern Lusatian Sorbs, Poles, etc. or Western Germans?


Many Slavic tribes might have been Germanized hundreds of years ago (Obotrites, Veleti, Rani, etc), so that may explain part of it.

Hello, completely random Polish descended members, that have nothing to do with each other, who just happened to register within a few hours of each other and post in the exact same thread.

[Rugevit]

Vikings and Vikingr cannot be synonyms without making every pirate who ever existed from prehistoric times to the modern day a Viking.

Vikings and Vikingr are used synonymously depending on the source of information. The conclusion you're drawing reading 'defintions' are irrelevant. I already wrote that Vikingr, Varangoi, Varyags (read as Viking) with the exception of ancestors of Norwegians and Icelanders were applied to people that came from the Baltic sea region.

[Rugevit]

Does anybody know of any aDNA studies underway for Iron Age people that lived between Elbe and Oder rivers? Were they more similar gentically (high % of R1a), in appearance to modern Lusatian Sorbs, Poles, etc. or Western Germans?

I know one study on people that lived in Hungary during different periods of time. There is one sample Ir8 , which is similar to modern day Belarusians. That person (Ir8) may had been native to the region unlike Ir1 which looks more like an immigrant from the steppes. I don't think Ir8 would have been different to populations living between Elbe and Oder on autsomal DNA. But it depends on the time frame in Iron age period. From 6-7th centuries AD Slavs began expanding into eastern Germany. : http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_F2.html


http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg

[FeederOfRavens]

Vikings and Vikingr are used synonymously depending on the source of information

Any source which is using the terms Vikingr and Viking synonymously are using the terms Vikingr and Viking erroneously.


The conclusion you're drawing reading 'defintions' are irrelevant. I already wrote that Vikingr, Varangoi, Varyags (read as Viking) with the exception of ancestors of Norwegians and Icelanders were applied to people that came from the Baltic sea region.

Wrong, the definition of the Old Norse word Vikingr is to Raid. Any other use of the word(Like your Baltic Exclusive Vikingr theory) is fallacious.

[Rugevit]

Any source which is using the terms Vikingr and Viking synonymously are using the terms Vikingr and Viking erroneously.

Wrong, the definition of the Old Norse word Vikingr is to Raid. Any other use of the word(Like your Baltic Exclusive Vikingr theory) is fallacious.


Definitions are arbitrary. It is not about the definition, it's about the fact that the same terms are used to refer to the same group of people and historic individuals.

[FeederOfRavens]

Definitions are arbitrary.

Definitions were applied for a reason



It is not about the definition

Yes, it is. If something doesn't fit the definition then it can't fit the term.

[Rugevit]

Definitions were applied for a reason



There was no uniform definition.



Yes, it is. If something doesn't fit the definition then it can't fit the term.

If it the term Viking is widely applied to the same group of people referred to as Vikingr in Old Norse , then it's time to update the definition.

[Wyszemir]

From 6-7th centuries AD Slavs began expanding into eastern Germany.

Thank you for quick reply.

Is there any evidence for expansion from the East in written sources from the early Middle Ages?

Well, without any proper aDNA studies we cannot be certain that for example Polabian Slavs were not autochthonous population (biological ancestors of Iron Age people), while "Germanic" R1b appeared there later.

[FeederOfRavens]

There was no uniform definition.

Yes, there is. When I look up the word Viking all the definitions presented to me have 3 things in common:

1: They were Seafarers
2: They Raided, Traded, Explored and/or Colonized
3: They were Norse/North Germanic people from Scandinavia


If it the term Viking is widely applied to the same group of people referred to as Vikingr in Old Norse , then it's time to update the definition.

It isn't widely applied and those that do apply it should be called out on their mistakes. The definition has already been updated to be a Scandinavian exclusive term. The shift in etymology happened sometime in the 20th century.


During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (like Iceland and the Faroe Islands), but secondarily to any member of the culture that produced said raiders during the period from the late 8th to the mid-11th centuries, or more loosely from about 700 to as late as about 1100.

[Rugevit]

Yes, there is. When I look up the word Viking all the definitions presented to me have 3 things in common:

1: They were Seafarers
2: They Raided, Traded, Explored and/or Colonized
3: They were Norse/North Germanic people from Scandinavia



It isn't widely applied and those that do apply it should be called out on their mistakes. The definition has already been updated to be a Scandinavian exclusive term. The shift in etymology happened sometime in the 20th century.


Think of the rules that exist in many languages. If a particular rule is no longer in use, then the rule is obsolete and no longer is the rule. The same is with arbitrary definitions, which are not axioms or universal laws. If the definition offered by a someone is no longer fits the description used in literature, then the definition is obsolete and must be updated. Besides, you're confused and I am not trying to insult you. First, you found a definition in dictionaries for Viking. Then, you looked for etymology of Vikingr. Finally, you concluded both term don't correspond, therefore both terms refer to different groups of people. The term Viking was established to refer to the group of people who were identified as Vikingr in Old Norse. There was no other purpose to adopt the term Viking. If people want to highlight ethnic origin of Vikingr/Viking, they would use terms such as Norse or people of Scandinavian descent etc.

[Faklon]

/subscribed


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUnrWo6z9WY

[Artek]

Yeah. You really should stop, people. That's starting to be ridiculous.


Anyway


Thank you for quick reply.

Is there any evidence for expansion from the East in written sources from the early Middle Ages?

Well, without any proper aDNA studies we cannot be certain that for example Polabian Slavs were not autochthonous population (biological ancestors of Iron Age people), while "Germanic" R1b appeared there later.

We can be almost certain that Polabian slavs aren't an autochtonous population since Iron Age, though exact homeland of Slavs can be debated.

Their (likely) similarity to Corded Ware culture people that were here before the (proto)Germanics is another thing, since it doesn't prove continuity in that particular area.

There are records of undoubtedly Germanic tribes inhabiting this region like Semnones, Varini(part of a Suevi tribal confederation)

[Wyszemir]

We can be almost certain that Polabian slavs aren't an autochtonous population since Iron Age (...)

Are there any anthropological and genetic studies supporting your claims?


There are records of undoubtedly Germanic tribes inhabiting this region like Semnones, Varini (part of a Suevi tribal confederation)

Is there any reference in Tacitus, Pliny or Strabo clearly suggesting that people between Elbe and Oder rivers spoke Germanic (Teutonic) language? I'm just curious...

[Rugevit]

Is there any reference in Tacitus, Pliny or Strabo clearly suggesting that people between Elbe and Oder rivers spoke Germanic (Teutonic) language? I'm just curious...

Autsomal DNA may not suitable to prove Polabian Slavs lived in Iron age, as autosomal DNA is subject to recombination with each generation. The combination of mtDNA, Y-chromosome or IBD may more better suitable to compare modern day population and population that lived more than 1,500 years ago. Tacitus placed Germanic Lugi in centre of Poland in 98AD, while he was gathering intelligence information on Germans. It is accepted in historeography that Slavs expanded westward with the expansion of Prague-Korchak horizon in 6-7AD. There were some assimilations of local populations in east Germany and western Poland.


http://kdet.ucoz.ru/Picture/4/4-57.jpg

[Artek]

Are there any anthropological and genetic studies supporting your claims?
For now,when it comes to the genetics, we have only comprehensive knowledge on the branching of slavic subclades of R1a and quite precise calculations - based on multiple sequencing results of R1a haplotypes. According to that, 99% of R1a-M458(the safest proxy for slavic expansion) comes from only 2 bottlenecked lines (L260 and CTS11962) that initiated branching after 1 AD. It took many generations to become numerous and start expanding and it's visible.

What's more, pre-M458 lineage is likely found in one Russian, M458* is found in a family of eastern Poles and one Pole from Greater Poland. Branches that are found on the western fringes are generally the youngest, what shows a direction of migration quite well.

So I find very unlikely that a population rich in R1a-M458 is autochtonic to Polabia. It would mean that they were already slavic around 0 AD and that there was a big population movement in earlier timeframe that was for some reason omitted by archeologists. Also how it would be omitted by ancient sources? Why it doesn't fit quite precise calculations, when it fits the spread of Prague-Korchak that took place later.



Is there any reference in Tacitus, Pliny or Strabo clearly suggesting that people between Elbe and Oder rivers spoke Germanic (Teutonic) language? I'm just curious...
Tacitus , Germania, for example


"The Semnones give themselves out to be the most ancient and renowned branch of the Suevi. Their antiquity is strongly attested by their religion. At a stated period, all the tribes of the same race assemble by their representatives in a grove consecrated by the auguries of their forefathers, and by immemorial associations of terror. Here, having publicly slaughtered a human victim, they celebrate the horrible beginning of their barbarous rite. .....

Suevi are mentioned by Gaius Julius in context of Ariovistus campaign in Gaul(Ariovistus was a germanic leader of Suevi).

However, I don't deny existence of a Balto-Slavic-like population before Germanics came.
Lusatian culture before downturn and replacement is a good candidate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Eastern_and_Central_Europe_around_750_BC.png.
Earlier, there was a Trzciniec Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trzciniec_culture), also Balto-Slavic. And even earlier, some kind of satem pre-balto-slavic Corded Ware.

[Wyszemir]

Autsomal DNA may not suitable to prove Polabian Slavs lived in Iron age, as autosomal DNA is subject to recombination with each generation. The combination of mtDNA, Y-chromosome or IBD may more better suitable to compare modern day population and population that lived more than 1,500 years ago.

You're absolutely right.


Tacitus placed Germanic Lugi in centre of Poland in 98AD, while he was gathering intelligence information on Germans (?).

I'll ask again...Is there any reference in Tacitus, Pliny or Strabo clearly suggesting that people between Elbe and Oder rivers spoke Germanic (Teutonic) language?


It is accepted in historeography that Slavs expanded westward with the expansion of Prague-Korchak horizon in 6-7AD.

You should add that this view is accepted only by some scholars, who support allochthonous origins of the Slavs.

According to Jordanes, Slavs (he refers to them as descendants of the populous race of the Venethi, "Venetharum natio populosa") were already present in East Germany during Heruli migration (509-512).


There were some assimilations of local populations in east Germany and western Poland.

So, in that case, we should have some territories within East Germany or West Poland were Germanic language was still spoken in the Middle Ages. As you probably know, it is impossible to assimilate huge territories without leaving some remote areas, where the "old language" is still spoken. See for example Slavic Drevani, Polabian Slavs, Lusatian Sorbs, etc. Among them Slavic language survived ~1000 years, and they were surrounded by speakers of other language.


"The Semnones give themselves out to be the most ancient and renowned branch of the Suevi[/B]. Their antiquity is strongly attested by their religion. At a stated period, all the tribes of the same race assemble by their representatives in a grove consecrated by the auguries of their forefathers, and by immemorial associations of terror. Here, having publicly slaughtered a human victim, they celebrate the horrible beginning of their barbarous rite. .....

Nothing about the language and location...


So I find very unlikely that a population rich in R1a-M458 is autochtonic to Polabia. It would mean that they were already slavic around 0 AD and that there was a big population movement in earlier timeframe that was for some reason omitted by archeologists. Also how it would be omitted by ancient sources? Why it doesn't fit quite precise calculations, when it fits the spread of Prague-Korchak that took place later.

We don't have any anthropological and genetic (aDNA) studies from the Elbe-Oder region, so I wouldn't use "very unlikely" term.

[Artek]

Nothing about the language and location...

The name of the Suebi — which designated a larger group of tribes and was used by Caesar somewhat indiscriminantly when describing Germanic tribes east of the Rhine — was possibly a Germanic word which was used to describe a broad classification of Germanic speakers (*swē-ba- "authentic").
L. Rübekeil, Suebica. Völkernamen und Ethnos, Innsbruck 1992, 187–214.




Etymologists trace the name from Proto-Germanic, *swēbaz, either based on the Proto-Germanic root *swē- meaning "one's own" people, or on the third-person reflexive pronoun
1.Peterson, Lena. "Swābaharjaz" (PDF). Lexikon över urnordiska personnamn. Institutet för språk och folkminnen, Sweden. p. page 16. Retrieved 2007-10-11. (Text in Swedish); for an alternative meaning, as "free, independent" see Room, Adrian (2006). "Placenames of the World: Origins and Meanings of the Names for 6,600 Countries, Cities, Territories, Natural Features and Historic Sites: Second Edition". Jefferson, North Carolina, and London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. pp. 363, 364. ISBN 0786422483.

About a location - they inhabited an eastern part of Germania called Suevia. On the fringes of Suevia, Tacitus found a tribe called Aestii(probably some kind of Baltic-speaking tribe). So you can imagine where Suevia(Swebia) was



We don't have any anthropological and genetic (aDNA) studies from the Elbe-Oder region, so I wouldn't use "very unlikely" term.
Even if they would find R1a in Jastorf culture, that's not an R1a that is ancestral to Polabian Slavic one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Pre-roman_iron_age_%28map%29.PNG/640px-Pre-roman_iron_age_%28map%29.PNG

[Wyszemir]

The name of the Suebi — which designated a larger group of tribes and was used by Caesar somewhat indiscriminantly when describing Germanic tribes east of the Rhine — was possibly a Germanic word which was used to describe a broad classification of Germanic speakers (*swē-ba- "authentic").

So it is possible that either Germanic-speaking tribes lived east of the Rhine or there were tribes named by Germanic speakers "Suebi".


Even if they would find R1a in Jastorf culture, that's not an R1a that is ancestral to Polabian Slavic one.


Are there any anthropological and genetic studies supporting your claims?

Is Jastorf the only culture that was present in East Germany during Iron Age?

[Artek]

So it is possible that Germanic-speaking tribes lived east of the Rhine.

It's certain. And it's written that they bordered Aestii (Baltic tribe similar to Prussians?)


Are there any anthropological and genetic studies supporting your claims?
I can easily revert this question and ask the same. Because on my side there is a modern population genetics. As I previously said, there is no relevant aDNA material currently available.


Is Jastorf the only culture that was present in East Germany during Iron Age?
It's the only culture that was present in East Germany in relevant period(maybe aside from some celtic cultures on the southern fringes - terrains of modern Czech Republic)

[Wyszemir]

I can easily revert this question and ask the same. Because on my side there is a modern population genetics. As I previously said, there is no relevant aDNA material currently available.

Well, it's not me claiming...


We can be almost certain that Polabian slavs aren't an autochtonous population since Iron Age


I find very unlikely that a population rich in R1a-M458 is autochtonic to Polabia

Are there any evidences of mixed culturally, Pomeranian(post-Lustian)-Jastorf territories in East Germany? Was the area of East Germany deserted before the expansion of Jastorf culture or "Germanic people" moved into territories inhabited by previous populations? "Germanic people" migrated to East Germany in ca. 6th century BC, and fled in 4th-5th century AD, so it's less than 900 years of their presence in the region. Maybe Germanic people lived together with let's call them "Venetharum natio populosa" during Iron Age.

Without doubt, 900 years (or less) could be enough for autochthonous population to preserve language.


It's the only culture that was present in East Germany in relevant period(maybe aside from some celtic cultures on the southern fringes - terrains of modern Czech Republic)

[Artek]

Well, it's not me claiming...
I claim nothing, that's why I use such levelling expressions as "almost", "very". I can't be 100% sure of what was happening in the past but... basing on the data I have (not only genetic but also linguistic and archeologic) I think that scenario I wrote about few posts ago is very likely(though far from being perfect).


Are there any evidences of mixed culturally, Pomeranian-Jastorf territories in East Germany?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Europa_Germanen_50_n_Chr.svg


Was the area of East Germany deserted before the expansion of Jastorf culture or "Germanic people" moved into territories inhabited by previous populations?
Rather not in every case. For example - there are some similar tribal names existing despite slavic expansion like Rugiowie/Ranowie ( Rugii) and Warnowie/Varnes (Varini). Also from my own research, amount of people with Germanised Polabian surnames show germanic signatures - that's gives a hint about possible assimilation of previous inhabitants (I wouldn't believe in so many cases of NPE ;) )

[Rugevit]

You're absolutely right.You should add that this view is accepted only by some scholars, who support allochthonous origins of the Slavs.

Not just by some. Many known historians that I've read are stating the earliest known Slavic archaeological culture was the Prague-Korchak horizon. Other proposals were hypotheses.


There is at least one DNA study that support the hypothesis of westward Slavic expansion.


Y-STR variation among Slavs: evidence for the Slavic homeland in the middle Dnieper basin (2007)

A set of 18 Y-chromosomal microsatellite loci was analysed in 568 males from Poland, Slovakia and three regions of Belarus. The results were compared to data available for 2,937 Y chromosome samples from 20 other Slavic populations.

The central position of the population of Ukraine in the network of insignificant AMOVA comparisons, and the lack of traces of significant contribution of ancient tribes inhabiting present-day Poland to the gene pool of Eastern and Southern Slavs, support hypothesis placing the earliest known homeland of Slavs in the middle Dnieper
basin.

Results of the interpopulation Y-STR haplotype analysis exclude a significant contribution of ancient tribes inhabiting present-day Poland to the gene pool of Eastern and Southern Slavs, and suggest that the Slavic expansion started from present-day Ukraine, thus supporting the hypothesis that places the earliest known homeland of Slavs in the basin of the middle Dnieper. To our knowledge, this is the first report on the use of genetic markers in solving the question of the localisation of the Slavic homeland.

http://www.freewebs.com/rus_anthro/Rebala_2007.pdf

[Peterski]

Regarding the alleged presence of Goths in Poland and their alleged migration out of Poland:

First of all we don't know to what extent are the stories about the "Migration Period" true, except for some of them - like for example the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain or the Slavic expansion to South-Eastern Europe (ie. the Balkans) and to what is now East Germany, for which we have actual evidence - and the language of inhabitants changed in those regions. But for most of other cases not so much evidence exists.

Several excerpts from Michael Kulikowski's book “Rome’s Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric” (Cambridge University Press), 2006:

Page 51:

"Jordanes, of course, tells us all sorts of stories about the Goths, placing their origins some 2,030 years before the time of his writing, and linking them to Biblical, Greek, Roman, and Near Eastern history in a bizarre melange of material from different sources. Most of these stories have held little interest for scholars since the Renaissance – no one has tried to prove the historicity of Philip of Macedon’s marriage to Medopa, the supposed daughter of a supposed Gothic king named Gudila. On the contrary, there is just one story in Jordanes that scholars have clung to for centuries – the narrative of Gothic migration out of Scandinavia, ‘as if out of a womb of nations’."

Pages 54 - 55:

"Why should Jordanes’ migration story be more credible than his story that the Egyptian king Vesosis made war upon the Gothic king Tanausis, who defeated him and chased him all the way back to the Nile? Along with many other changes in our understanding of ancient historical texts, the past two decades have witnessed a realization that we need to take each of them as a whole, reading it in context and in its entirety. We cannot simply pick and choose among the evidence offered by a text on the grounds of its seeming plausible or ‘historical’. We must, on the contrary, demonstrate why, in the whole context in which it appears, a particular piece of evidence is authentic. (...) Because of all this, we are not justified in taking Jordanes’ Getica as the narrative foundation for our own Gothic histories."

Page 64 - regarding previous attempts to link various archaeological cultures with the Gothic migration:

"For one thing, the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture is extremely diverse. As we shall see in the next chapter, the artefacts, construction techniques, and burial practices found within the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zone have parallels with earlier cultural traditions within the zone itself, with Roman provincial culture, with the Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures to the north and west, and with the steppe cultures of the east. The Wielbark elements in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture are no more numerous than other elements, so there is no archaeological reason to privilege them over others. Even if Wielbark artefacts were dominant in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zone, they would not necessarily signify the same thing in both places: artefacts that are emblematic of one thing in one place may change meaning radically if transposed to another. More importantly still, the closeness of the artefactual connections between the two cultures is not as great as is usually asserted. Indeed, their chief point of intersection is not particular artefacts, but the fact that weapon burials are absent from the Wielbark and rare in the S ˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov zones. In purely logical terms, a negative characteristic is less convincing proof of similarity than a positive one, and the fact that weapon burials are commonest where archaeological investigation has been most intensive suggests that our evidentiary base is anything but representative. Given this, why should the Wielbark–Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov connection seem so self-evident to so many scholars? One answer is an old methodology that seeks to explain changes in material culture by reference to migration. The other is Jordanes."

Page 66 - Scandinavian origin theory of the Goths has been disproved in 1970, but is the Polish origin theory true, or also false?:

"In 1970 ,Rolf Hachmann disproved the Scandinavian connection on archaeological grounds, thereby making necessary new theories of ethnogenesis such as we have looked at earlier. But the question has remained the same for the Baltic–Black Sea sequence: can one prove or disprove Jordanes? If we did not have Jordanes, that connection would not seem self-evident. Taken on purely archaeological grounds, without reference to our one piece of textual evidence, there is no reason to interpret the Wielbark and the Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov cultures as close cousins."

Kulikowski refers to the book by Rolf Hachmann, “Die Goten und Skandinavien” (Berlin, 1970).

There is no archeological evidence that Wielbark and Przeworsk archaeological cultures ever migrated from Poland somewhere else. They collapsed in the late 5th century but there is no evidence of distant migrations of those cultures.

Page 67:

"What, then, are we to make of all this? How are we to interpret the origins of the Sˆantana-de-Mures¸/Cernjachov culture and the Gothic hegemony with which it coincides chronologically? Is there such a thing as Gothic history before the third century? The answer, at least in my view, is that there is no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time. That is clearly demonstrated by contemporary literary evidence, and indeed all the evidence of the fourth and fifth centuries – everything except the sixth-century Jordanes."

According to English wikipedia article about Wielbark culture:


In the first half of the 3rd century AD, the Wielbark culture left settlements by the Baltic Sea, at that time called Mare Suevicum or Mare Germanicum, except for the areas adjacent to the Vistula, and expanded into the area which later (by 1000 AD) became Masovia and Lesser Poland on the eastern side of the Vistula reaching into Ukraine, where they formed the Chernyakhov culture.

In the first half of the 3rd century AD, the Wielbark culture started to expand from the Baltic Sea to Masovia and Lesser Poland. But the first securely attested Gothic raid into the Roman Empire took place in 238 AD, when the Goths attacked Histria on the Black Sea coast and sacked it. So the Goths must have arrived at the Black Sea coast much earlier than to Masovia and Lesser Poland.

Who was then expanding in Poland from Baltic Sea to Masovia and Lesser Poland, if Goths were already at the Roman border?

In 410 Alaric and Goths sacked Rome after several centuries of living in Italy as Roman Empire's inhabitants and fighting for Rome as its soldiers. But in 410 Wielbark culture still existed in Poland. It started to disappear after 450. Who was living in Poland when Alaric and Goths sacked Rome? Could the Goths be in two different places separated by thousands of kilometers at the same time?

And if they were in two different places at the same time then what is the reason to think that they ever left one of those places?

[Peterski]

the Baltic Sea, at that time called Mare Suevicum or Mare Germanicum

Oceanus Sarmaticus could as well be found in Ancient sources as a name for the Baltic Sea.

Plus several other names, so I don't know why does English wikipedia promote some names over others!

[Peterski]

As for discussion about Celts from pages 11 and before:


The Northern Belgae tribes were probably only Celtized.

What is the difference between "Celts" and "Celticized" or "Germanics" and "Germanized" ??? No difference.

They were Celticized but not Celticized Germanics, i.e. they had not been Germanic before becoming Celtic.

[Peterski]

Here in America traditionally the only real Americans were Germanic peoples. Now everyone is an American according to Jewish intellectuals from the 1920s.

And this is written by a person who openly admitted that his surname is Non-Germanic but originating from Celtic Bretons from Britanny in North-Western France. Ethnic groups in the USA in year 1790 according to calculations / estimations by Abraham D. Lavender:

English - 48%
Black African - 19%
Scottish & Scotch-Irish - 12,8%
German - 7,2%
Irish - 4,7%
Welsh - 3,5%
Dutch - 2,5%
French - 1,7%
Jewish - 0,25%
Swedish - 0,2%
others - rest

This is from "United States Ethnic Groups in 1790..." by Abraham D. Lavender, published in 1989.

By the way - the only "real Americans" were Native Americans.

[Peterski]

More on Goths:

From Guy Halsall's book "Barbarian Migration and the Roman West", Cambridge University Press 2007:

Page 132:

"The Cernjachov culture is a mixture of all sorts of influences but most come from the existing cultures in the region. It has been argued that it evolves directly from the Wielbark culture of the lower Vistula and that the spread from Wielbark to Cernjachov is archaeological proof of the Goths’ migration from the shores of the Baltic. This notion should not be entirely rejected but it needs considerable modification. The source for the Gothic migration from Scandinavia is Jordanes’ Getica, which is deeply problematic and certainly cannot be used as evidence for migration. The Wielbark culture begins earlier than the Cernjachov but its later phases cover the same period as the latter. There is thus no chronological development from one to the other. Furthermore, although the Wielbark culture does spread up the Vistula during its history, its geographical overlap with the Cernjachov culture is minimal. These facts make it improbable that the Cernjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark. Although it is often claimed that Cernjachov metalwork derives from Wielbark types, close examination reveals no more than a few types with general similarities to Wielbark analogues. Migration from the Wielbark territories is also proposed from the supposedly distinctive mix of cremation and inhumation. However, burial customs are rarely static and more than one area of barbaricum employed, at various times, a mixture of rites. The fourth century, in particular, saw widespread change in such practices. This evidence will not support the idea of a substantial migration."

Guy Halsall essentially confirms what Michael Kulikowski wrote in his "Rome’s Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric" (Cambridge University Press), 2006. There is no archeologicall evidence of any substantial migration of Wielbark culture south and it is very improbable that the Cernjachov culture was descended from the Wielbark culture. We know that Wielbark culture was still thriving in Poland in 410 A.D. when Goths sacked Rome and there is no evidence that it migrated anywhere.

Guy Halsall writes on page 134:

"There were two principal Gothic groups before 376 AD, although Peter Heather argues convincingly that this oversimplifies the situation. We know most about the western confederacy, the Tervingi, inhabiting the lands north of the lower Danube. Beyond them, on the steppes, lay the Greuthungi, although whether the Greuthungi comprised all the non-Tervingian Goths is debatable."

In the beginning of the 3rd century Goths were present along the Black Sea shore and raided the Roman Empire from that area:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg/780px-Gothic_raids_in_the_3rd_century.jpg

According to some linguists - like prof. Frederik Kortland, "The Origin of the Goths" - Goths arrived to the Black Sea shore from Southern Germany:

http://www.kortlandt.nl/publications/art198e.pdf

"Witold Mańczak has argued that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia (1982, 1984, 1987a, 1987b, 1992). I think that his argument is correct and that it is time to abandon Iordanes’ classic view that the Goths came from Scandinavia. We must therefore reconsider the grounds for adopting the latter position and the reasons why it always has remained popular."

The "southernmost part of the Germanic territories" was near the Roman frontier indeed.

It is possible that they were groups of mercenaries hired by Greek cities for protection. When they saw how weak Greek cities were they sacked them exactly as they did in 410 with Rome. Then they extended their influence into the steppe and north of the lower Danube.

[Peterski]

It is possible that they were groups of mercenaries hired by Greek cities for protection.

When they saw how weak Greek cities were they sacked them exactly as they did in 410 with Rome.

The same happened in Britain - according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle it was a Romano-Briton leader, Vortigern, who first hired Anglo-Saxon mercenaries, and they later betrayed him:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/medieval.asp


A.D. 443. This year sent the Britons over sea to Rome, and begged assistance against the Picts; but they had none, for the Romans were at war with Atila, king of the Huns. Then sent they to the Angles, and requested the same from the nobles of that nation.

A.D. 449. This year Marcian and Valentinian assumed the empire, and reigned seven winters. In their days Hengest and Horsa, invited by Wurtgern, king of the Britons to his assistance, landed in Britain in a place that is called Ipwinesfleet; first of all to support the Britons, but they afterwards fought against them.