| Directory | Forum | Gallery | Europe Guide | Facts & Trivia | Genetics | History | Linguistics |
| Austria | France | Germany | Ireland | Italy | Portugal | Spain | Switzerland |
 Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
|
Achievements:
In Genetics, as modern ethnicity as concerned, which country could best represent the earlist Germanic people? Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Holland?
Should I put Germany into the list undoubtly?
Achievements:
Sorry,no reply.Uhh,do you have any information, Maciamo?
Achievements:
just a bet - I should say the Danish people: I think (like others) Denmark has been the cradle of the melting that gave way to the germanic genesis after an acculturation by the South or South East (Corded Y-R1a and Bell Beakers, but with a core population of R1b-U102 and I1, concerning the Y-DNA... I'm not sure at all that Corded gave their language I see better as a kind of Satem one. Maybe Bell Beakers spite their small numbers there played a moreimportant role in the indo-europeanization of pre-germanic peoples -Originally Posted by kgnju
Achievements:
Awards:
The Corded Ware period, in my opinion, predates the Centum-Satem split, due to the fact that you have common Germanic/Balto-Slavic vocabulary that predates the split (eg. English 'gold' vs. Latvian 'zelts' vs. Russian 'zoloto').
In my opinion, the earliest that could be vaguely recognized as 'Germanic' would have emerged during the Nordic Bronze Age.
Achievements:
predate, OK - but what signifies this common vocabulary? - and what proves the corded language was not yet a 'satem' one? it's difficult to know where the flood of words was coming from in the loans and - if we don't have palatized 'satem' words in germanic, it don't prove the shift was not made yet - it could only prove that germanics did'nt loan a lot of words on proto-satem languages - for someones a 'satem' language was spoken in Lappland before the arrival of finnic speakers (substratums of 'satem' and of a kind of basque for this finnic land) -
nevertheless I recognize I'm not a specialist on the common proto-germanic-proto-slavic-baltic languages - I 'll go to fish some more items
good luke
Achievements:
Awards:
What signifies common vocabulary is that you have words that do apply to centum/satem sound laws respectively. In the case of the example I gave, the common Germanic-Balto-Slavic word for 'gold' derives from the common PIE root *g´hel- which is also for example found in Old Irish "gel" (white) and Greek "chlōros" (green). Additionally, the word was borrowed into the Finnic languages (Finnish "kulta"). It's actually easier than you think to find out in regard for loanwords because you cannot reversely centumize/satemize a word when you loan it. The oldest written evidence for the Centum/Satem split are Mycenean Greek (for Centum) and the "Mitanni" Indo-Iranic loanwords found in Hurrian (for Satem), both which date from the mid 2nd millennium BC. Since the Corded Ware period was about 1000-1500 years earlier, my opinion is that the Centum/Satem split only occured between the late 3rd millennium BC and the early 2nd millennium BC.
Achievements:
It is not sure there ever was a homogenous Germanic people. I think Germanics have been heterogeneous from the beginning. The hybrid genesis of Germanics supports this view.
Denmark is a good candidate, but in my view a bit too much western genetically.
I'd prefer Norway, because even today it is genetically diverse, in a local sense, despite it probably was not the epicentre of Germanic enthnogenesis. But its isolated location makes it even more a candidate.
Take Tröndelag for example (region around Tondheim), which has a strangely high R1a level, without any known slavic or recent eastern influx. Despite I'm rather sceptical about racial classifiactions of authors like Coon, it is remarkable that Coon identified the so-called Trönder type, found predominantly in Tröndelag. It is even more impressive that Coon proposed Trönder to be a mixture of Brünn (considered as "palaeolithic") with Corded type. And we know that Corded ware culture is believed to have been predominantly R1a! One mystery though is that those R1a clades in Norway have been found to have closest matches in Central Asia, not Eastern Europe. I have no clue why is that.
At the same time, Norway has regions with high R1b concentration, and others with mostly I1. There are almost no other Haplogroups, as opposed to neighboring Sweden (N) and Denmark (R1b, J2).
Conclusion: first candidate is Norway.
An alternative but less likely candidate could be the fertile plains of northern germany, because few authors believe it to have been tha cradle of Germanic ethnics and the local population has not been replaced or mixed significantly since the Saxons, except in Northeast Germany. To be more exact: Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein and parts of Mecklenburg-Pomerania are good candidates. Westphalia might be already too celtic.
Achievements:
Awards:
I do not know about the gennetic of Germanic people,
but from Linguistic if IE is a Caucasian language, then Germanic root must come from there
possibility that IE split around Pannoni Basin and around Romania
means that Germanic or pre-Germanic if you like first spoken at areas more and far east than Norway and modern Germany
maybe proto-Germanic where developed there you mention with a return backwards and finalize the forms and soynds of later called Germanic languages.
a possible case that Germanic are Anatolian Branches might connect them with lower Balkans Thracians and Dacians, I mean that if Anatolian IE might pass from Balkans as far pre-Germanic and transform to proto Germanic at another areas.
Achievements:
You mention a hypothetic linguistic root of pre-Germanic. But those hypothetic pre-Germanic speakers (R1b?) where only one of several contributors to the stock of final Germanics. Consequently, pre-Germanic language is likely to differ from final Germanic language, though I'm not familiar with linguistics. As I learnt here, the Germanic language matches well the tri-hybrid haplogroup composition (R1b,R1a,I1). Even if that is a coincidence, I don't believe those three haplogroups coexisted already among those hypothetic pre-Germanics.
Regarding your balkan hypothesis, I wonder why exactly those assumed Thracian/Dacian HGs (J2, E) are almost missing exactly in scandinavia then. The presence of I1 in balkans can be rather explained by later Germanic migrations towards the Balkans. Even the celts presumably carried some J2 and E. But I have yet to learn more about germanic R1b and why it did not carry more southern HGs to the north.
I agree that there are also native satem words in scandinavian languages, for instance 'gaate' (riddle) and 'paa' (at/on). But I believe this comes either from Corded Ware or Iranian Languages from the east.
Achievements:
Awards:
Maybe becausse Gothic starts from Crimaia and Romania Staring Point?
Maybe cause Strabo clarifies Visigotjs at Balck sea at early 1rst Millenium AD,
or you do not Consider Goths as Germanic family speaking,
maybe cause centum satem is not that old in IE?
and at least dacian seems to be a link among modern Germanic and modern Slavic,
Centum-satem split in North should be that old, as you believe,
we probably have movements of population much near today than we believe to modern languages, even at known Historical times,
besides the typical R1a = Slavic is tottaly wrong
since we have very low ratio in areas of South Balkans, although we have south slavic languages,
by reading Herodotus we find 2 groups in Thracian the Getae and the Thracians
that probably is the time of split to Centum-satem
and these languages especially Getae should be at the move of Germans to west (already had started but did not finish at Herodotus times)
Considering that Herodotus mentions them as the 2nd Biggest nation in the world and from the Geografy Herodotus knew, he means either the Slavs either the Germans (all branches)
Just think the wallachians the Bastarnae and the Crimea
Gothic were spoken until 1900 at Crimea,
except if you believe that all the above were remnants of Viking invasion at Volga river and their settling at Ucraine,
Achievements:
Awards:
there is still gothic spoken in the crimea today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Gothic
Achievements:
I'm not sure I understand. You are talking about Gothic settlement in SE-Europe, right? I did not deny this happened, quite the opposite. But what has it to do with Germanic language? You think Goths created Germanic language in SE-Europe and brought it back to North? It could be they introduced some satem words from their east journeys. I don't understand, sorry.
I also never mentioned Slavs. And right, there is not much R1a in balkans.
Regarding Thracians, there is even a Swedish legend saying that Vikings were originally Thracian refugees from Troy. Could be true, or not, I don't know. The R1a in Balkans is not frequent, but yet very diverse. Thracians/Dacians are believed to have been mostly HG E and J2. But if steppe-origin theory of Thracians is true, then they could have been R1a. But then I wonder why there is so few R1a today in Balkans if Thracians were most numerous people in the past.
My first post. Sorry for my username. I tapped the wrong key when registering. Anyway this name will do.
I have a general interest in what you all are discussing and some specific knowledge.
The word "på" (paa) does not constitute evidence for satem. På is a an abbreviation of uppå = upon. Where å = on. And upp is up. You can still write "å" instead of "på" in Sweden if you want to be a little literary. Anyway "å", or Old Norse "a", is a common Scandinavian word, directly derived from the same proto-Germanic word as "on" and German "an" are. (The ending ns were lost in the syncopation. For example all verbs lost their ns: haitan -> haita). This did not happen in West Germanic.
Achievements:
I think early Germanic's were I2b and R1a(more I2b) in Europe and I1 and R1a(more I1) in Scandinavia. They assimilated the R1b Celts. The elite were warriors and the citizens were R1b, so after a lot of war eventually R1b come to prevail
Achievements:
Awards:
First of all cool down, concentrate and read again what I wrote.
Achievements:
Awards:
I am calm, I find it annoying that you question me and not the link. Your question should have said something to that. By quering me, you try to gain some kind of points on me..........this is how it feels to me.
If you believe that link is wrong , written badly or that you have a more correct theory, then reply to that and not against me who provided a link just because I believe in ancient Gothic settlement in the crimea.
Achievements:
Awards:
I barely pointed the inconsistency of your statement with your link. You said:
You didn't say that it was spoken, that it used to be spoken. You said that it is spoken today. The link that you gave us clearly states that Gothic is not spoken today in Crimea. On contrary it says that it got extinct around 17 hundreds.there is still gothic spoken in the crimea today
My one sentence post was just about yours inconsistent statement with the link, and nothing more. If you claim that goth is still spoken than link us with material that confirms your hypothesis, but don't link us with contrary material. It is not helpful and as you can see, it created a little misunderstanding here.
Furthermore, from this mentioned sentence of mine, you has built up whole opinion of mine over goth in Crimea.
That's creative. Without me saying anything, even remotely like this, you can have a whole argument with me.or are you saying the Gothic raised its head in the 18th century and never existed before in the Crimea!
Did you ever read the article that you linked us with? You are not in agreement with the article, period.
Again, you know what I believe without me telling you what I believe?If this is what you believe then let me know where this 18th century Gothic derived from?
I have to state again that the link you gave us contradicts your opinion. The link says that Gothic was extinct by 18th century, not that it has just started. The link says that Gothic was gone, extinct, over, finito by 18th century, and it is not spoken today in Crimea.
Don't argue with me, I'm just a messenger, argue with your link.
And for your information, I do believe that there were leftover communities of goths since their main departure to the west. Some villages might have survived till recent times, even 19 century. I'm not sure if what survived at the end would have been recognized as gothic language though. After 1500 hundred years under tatars, slavs, plus small size of communities would create unrecognizable gothic dialect.
Achievements:
Awards:
Its because I read Michael Kazinski - Les Goths Iep-VIIe Apres written in 1991 which claims that the goths who remained became the Tatars. The name was given by Turkic people as Tat which means renegade. The crimean tatars still call themselves Goths and Circassians. He also said the dialect is not dead.
Besides, what I link and what I think are sometimes different, so you would realise that Wiki stuff is not entirely accurate ( sometimes written by nationalists) , yet the links to that article could resolve the questions one seeks.
Achievements:
Awards:
Yetos, there is no connection between the Getae and the Goths. The Getae probably spoke Dacian, which is distinct (Satem) language rather unrelated with Germanic. Dacian was closer with Albanian on the one hand (there are what appears to be Dacian loanwords in Albanian and Romanian) and Baltic on the other hand.
Also, Yetos, what you say makes not the slightest sense, and has no basis in evidence. It is very clear that the Germanic peoples originated from the area of the Nordic Bronze Age and the Jastorf Culture, and not from the area adjacent to the black sea.
Pytheas of Massilia (4th century BC) mentiones the Teutones and Gothones living along the shores in northern Europe.
Also, early Germanic peoples had extensive contact with the Celts, as there are multiple Celtic loanwords (notably the word "iron"!) commonly found in the Germanic languages.
Achievements:
Is it possible to date the first contact between Celts and Germanic people with the emergence of Iron in Northern Germany?
Achievements:
Awards:
Absolutely, yes. As I said in the previous post, the Germanic word for iron is in itself a Celtic loanword (this is most striking if you compare Gothic 'eisarn' and Gaulish 'isarnos'). This language contact also gives an upper end when the First Germanic sound shift might have happened (that is, later), since most Celtic loanwords are affected it.
Achievements:
Possible thread: is Y-I1 germanic?, origin of Germanic people etc...
Some observations about the general distribution of Y Hgs I1, R1b and R1a in Scandinavia:
based (helas!) on old enough surveys:
Y-R1b seams having crossed south-western Sweden from South and having been pushed back in Norway on the western fringes of the land: south-central and western more than northern, more than eastern, even more than north-central (Norway Ströndelag) as a whole – rarest in Eastern Swede than in Norway -
Y-R1a seams having crossed south-western Sweden too but appears as push northwards trough east-central Norway to the northern shores this country – seldom enough in Sweden: more than 15%: only in extreme South, in Värmland near Norway and surprisingly at first sight in Sweden Lappland!
Y-I1 is stronger enough in southern Scandinavia (Sweden & Norway) even if its distribution is more even than the others HG ones – as a whole it does not appear as only “autochtonous” in these northernmost lands of Europe, at first sight! Västerbotten close to ancient Lappish and finnish regions shows some tendencies to Finland... - the relative high % of Y-R1b (but only 14,6%) there is due to some internal immigration in Sweden not to far ago that brought southern Swedes until there.
I know it is dangerous postulating to precise theory about so rough material without looking to more SNPs an STRs but to have a look from above is not without some worth too...
- there are too much Y-R1bs in western Norway to be based on seafaring colonization only even if some of them could be came there with megalithic cultures or after and the less heavy but actual presence of them in eastern Sweden seams prove a lot of them came by Danmark – the denser spot is Aust-Agder where Y-R1b runs around 45% (!): it is a “blond dolicho-mesocephalic” region and we can expect here a danish imput from Jutland by sea -
- the lighter presence of Y-I1 in North could be due to the weight of Y-N because aside of that we find in Västerbotten and Saami lands that Y-I1 is by far more important than Y-R1b & Y-R1a – that is for Sweden, because in Norway, that do not evacuate the stronger weight of Y-R1b, surprising if the most of R1b arrived after the most of Y-I1 (the communications ways have to be studied here)...
- the very light weight of Y-R1a in Sweden, (not so astonishing for Västerbotten and N-W) Finland is surprising compared to its weight in east-central and north-central Norway – even the Norrland of Norway has very more important %s than everywhere in Sweden! Here also we can imagine more than a wave of tribes in Scandinavia but seamingly the bulk of the bearers of this HG reached Scandinavia by South. Western Norway is intermediary for Y-R1a, low enough in Aust-Agder (S-W): 13,2% only (Jutland people?) - in one or more waves Y-R1a came chiefly by South and early enough for the first wave to be pushed northwards by some newcomers that was I think germanic speakers and bore surely a stabilized mixture of the 3 Hgs in question, stabilization where Y-R1a lost weight and that took place around Danmark and the future Hansa place ??? -
- Norway Norrland seams a maritime colony from Tröndelag, with a light impact of Y-N (Finns or Saami) bearers – so it tells us nothing I believe -
- H.Hubert thought that Scandinavia was the place of a germanic acculturation of previous North people (we: Y-I1 as a majority???) by people arrived from north-central Europe of I-E culture (Y-R1b+Y-R1a as a majority???) -
- more complicated? Some traces of I-E 'satem' and 'bascoid' (sorry for the word!) substrates in finnish saami languages, for some specialists: for the 'satem' we can think to a first wave of Y-R1a among others? - for 'bascoid' or 'euskaroid' or 'aquitanoid' languages we maybe think to some Y-I1 ? I think to the mt-DNA V heavy presence among the Saami, we do not find among typical Finns of Finland... - all that seamed to put later the arrival of finnish speakers in the far North!!! (History says Lapps culture was not soo early in that country: about 3000 BC?- coming from S-E) -
As others the Y-I1 HG has surely enough more than a place of ancient development and I see as others a south Baltic old settlement before I-Es arrived, from Danmark to Finland: a so streched settlement was to produce separation and local evolutions – I believe the western part population was accultured by a first wave of something akin enough to the 'corded' people, maybe with a language in a state of proto-satemization and came up to Scandinavia a first time – after that the melting pot of the Nieder-Sachsen region put together some kinds of Y-R1b (I-E too but 'kentum') with Y-R1a and Y-I1 again (for the most, because there was yet some others minoritary Hgs) that came up too to Scandinavia with a germanic language: but there the mixture would have been very more R1b than R1a (Y-R1b-U152 for the most) the eastern parts of Sweden show 25 to 32% of Y-R1b (I have not the SNPs helas!) – that let us others (different?) Y-R1b that seams have colonized only the westernmost parts of Norway – the pouch of southern-Sweden with 'old' R1b is interesting: the fathers of U152? Not too much I think – “fathers” and brothers to R-L21??? this pouch could be related to the others R1bs of western Norway, separated by the late Germanics ? What culture, what language? Celts? Others? - central and northwestern shores of Norway show the higher percentages of dark and middle coloured hairs (and some red hairs locally) of Norway when we let the far North (not the case for the true South as Aus-Agder) -
All that is speculation but what is a blog or a forum? I think we have to take in account the degree of civilization when we trace the ancient demic movements: the hunters-gatherers and fishers of the old times in the far North of Europe should have “produced” less people than the first agricultors and less yet than the Bronze or iron Age tribes, I think -
Now we can look at STRs distributions for more details putting them together with global repartitions, not forgetting the common sense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote