Migration Whilst acknowledging the mixed origins of the Chernyakhov culture,
Peter Heather suggests that the culture is ultimately a reflection of the Goths' domination of the Pontic area. He cites literary sources that attest that the Goths were the centre of political attention at this time. In particular, the culture's development corresponds well with
Jordanes' tale of Gothic migration from
Gothiscandza to
Oium, under the leadership of
Filimer. Moreover, he highlights that crucial external influences that catalysed Chernyakhov cultural development derived from the
Wielbark culture. Originating in the mid-1st century, it spread from south of the Baltic Sea (from territory around later
Pomerania) down the
Vistula in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Wielbark elements are prominent in the Chernyakhov zone, such as typical 'Germanic' pottery, brooch types and female costume, and, in particular, weaponless bi-ritual burials. Although cultures may spread without substantial population movements, Heather draws attention to a decrease in the number of settlements in the original Pomeranian Wielbark heartland as evidence of a significant population movement. Combined with Jordanes' account, Heather concludes that a movement of
Goths (and other east Germanic groups such as
Heruli and
Gepids) "played a major role in the creation of the Cernjachove culture". He clarifies that this movement was not a single, royal-led, migration, but was rather accomplished by a series of small, sometimes mutually antagonistic groups.
Diffusion However,
Guy Halsall challenges some of Heather's conclusions. He sees no chronological development from the Wielbark to Chernyakhov culture, given that the latter stage of the Wielbark culture is synchronous with Chernyakhov, and the two regions have minimal territorial overlap. "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 types". Michael Kulikowski also challenges the Wielbark connection, highlighting that the greatest reason for Wielbark-Chernyakhov connection derives from a "negative characteristic" (i.e., the absence of weapons in burials), which is less convincing proof than a positive one. He argues that the Chernyakhov culture could just as likely have been an indigenous development of local Pontic, Carpic or Dacian cultures, or a blended culture resulting from
Przeworsk and steppe interactions. Furthermore, he altogether denies the existence of Goths prior to the 3rd century. Kulikowski states that no Gothic people, nor even a noble
kernel, migrated from Scandinavia or the Baltic. Rather, he suggests that the "Goths" formed
in situ. Like the Alemanni or the Franks, the Goths were a "product of the Roman frontier". Other influences, such as a minority of burials containing weapons, are seen from the
Przeworsk and
Zarubinec cultures. The latter has been connected with
early Slavs. ==Genetics==