What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

Look where\when pre-Akkadians lived? if we find this then it could solve the "semitic words in germanic vocabulary" case. Look Maykop culture located in N.Caucasia and pre-Semits too were living in S.Caucasia at the same time so they were neighbouring cultures, IMHO its in this time and location where Semitic vocabulary entered language of R-L51 or R-L151 tribes, after this encounter they(L51) moved to Europe, J1 tribes moved south to Levant then in 2200 BC conquered Sumerians to form the Akkadian empire.
 
I almost think it would be a public service to delete this whole thread, as it is so full of complete misinformation.

I warned you, Cyrus. I told you I thought perhaps I should inform Maciamo you're back under a sock account.
 
As you said U7 is absent in Europe, not just nowadays but also 3,000 or even 6,000 years ago too, we just know 8,000 years ago a rare subclade of this haplogroup existed in the Mediterranean area, we are talking about people who live in the north of Europe, if you believe U7 existed in this region before 500 BC, you should show me your evidences (not what some people guess), otherwise the most possible thing is that this haplogroup came to this region from a land where it existed.
I'm interested to know that in your theory of Germanic origin what the role of Hallstatt culture was, especially if you believe it is a Celtic culture, do you believe Germanic is a mixture of Nordic and Celtic cultures? I think you believe Nordic is actually almost the same as proto-IE, does it mean Germanic sound shifts relate to Celtic language?!

So you're just going to ignore what that study I cited says about two dispersal events that predate the Bronze Age movements of Indo-Europeans? Why because it doesn't suit you? My evidences? So you will disregard a genetic paper written by professionals (who are using real science and real mathematics) in the field when it doesn’t suit you? When did I ever say that Germanic sound changes came from Celtic? You’ve made that assumption without any indication otherwise.

LOL, with no doubt most of what we know about the Germanic culture are from modern Germanic lands, of course this culture is actually a mixture of Nordic and proto-Germanic cultures, Nordic culture had certainly a longer history in Europe but proto-Germanic one came from Iran. Anyway we know an IE culture came to Scandinavia from the southeast, whether in 500 BC or 1500 BC.

Proto-Germanic did not come from Iran, we’ve been over this. Where is the archaeological evidence? Where is the genetic admixture (autosomal) evidence? There is no sign of such admixture in Neolithic or Bronze Age Scandinavians and again there are no signals of this in Migration Period Germanic aDNA samples that we have accumulated. Migration Period Germanic samples all show a strong affinity for North/Central Europe and Northern Europe, the women in several studies show higher mobility and more diverse origins but this is product of what we would expect with the migration period which brought various steppe people into Europe like the Huns, Alans, etc, we know several Germanic tribes took Hunnic wives, such as the Thuringii to name a specific tribe. The Goth from Crimea ancient DNA sample as stated by many was more likely a Pontic Greek as opposed to an ethnic Goth. We have a Gepid sample from Serbia which shows what we would expect for the Gepids, a mixture of Northern European, Steppe and Balkan ancestry. The Gepids were one of Attila's favoured tribes and we know the Gepids and Huns mixed, we know the Gepids likely mixed further with the Pannonian Avars as well, judging by their armour in certain burials. Even two of the chiefs of the Gepids were likely descended from Attila judging by their names (Giesmus and Mundus).

Of course with an intervening time of 2,700 years! In Istanbul Turks and Greeks don't call each other cousin, whereas they had the same culture 500 years ago.
I think Germanic people should be really proud of their culture, they have migrated several times from a land to another land but generally they have never been under domination of others, for about 1,500 years they lived in the west of Iran, all of ancient known empires, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Elamite, Urartian, ... could never conquer their land, with invasion of Iranian tribes from different directions they had to migrate to Armenia and then Getae (west of Balck sea), about 513 BC Darius the Great attacked to subdue them, as Herodotes says all Thracian tribes in this region gave themselves up to Darius without a struggle but the Getae obstinately defending themselves, Herodotes call them the noblest people in this region, anyway Scythians also invaded from the east and they had to migrate to south Germany and finally as we know they intermarried with Nordic people and created a new kingdom in the north of Europe, a few centuries later ancient Romans also wanted to conquer their land but they also couldn't. After the Hunnic invasion, we also see that Germanic tribes again migrated from a land to another land.

Beating a dead horse here, proto-Germanic did not come from Iran. The Getae were not a Germanic tribe, the Getae were a Thracian people more closely related to Dacians and other neighbouring people in the Balkan region. We now have genetic evidence from Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultural complexes that the Goths most likely came from Southern Scandinavia before migrating to the Vistula and further toward the Steppe. They found a strong similarity between Jutland Iron Age people and those of the Wielbark culture in Poland, which is the likely home of Goths, Rugii and Gepids prior to their later migrations.

Germanic culture should first exist in the north of Europe and then it is gradually developed, there is actually no evidence of its existence in the north of Europe before 500 BC, the same Germanic culture which already exists traces its origin in Asia, in fact according to Germanic sources, all major cultural developments happened in Asgard which was in Asia.

Using Snorri Sturluson as evidence is a poor choice, especially when modern scholars worth their salt do not take his works as evidence for much of anything. The etymology of Asgard from Old Norse is more akin to "Garden of the Gods" than anything else. Second, Snorri usually refers to Trojans as the ancestors of Scandinavians, however here is where the problem is, so do several other medieval people, many medieval people attach their history to that of a famous classical civilization as a means to fill in the blanks in a period of history that they do not know in regard to their own people. Snorri Sturluson is not a viable source for the ethnogenesis of Germanic cultures.

I don't know why they don't test for downclades of Persian R1b-L23* so we could discus its relation to European R1b, without this I think we can only speculate! Different theories demand evidences. If R1b-s28 tribes lived in W.Persia so recently then howcome theres none found in the region?

They should have tested for the downstream SNPs of L23, however they didn’t but judging by YFull and private DNA projects at FTDNA the expected subclades of L23 are seen. R-U152 is very limited to a specific range in Europe.

R1b-s28 is an Italo-Celtic haplogroup, of course it is better to say it is an Etruscan haplogroup:

C:\Users\gotadmin\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif


The fact is that mtDNA haplogroup U7 has been also found in Italy, it is just funny but it is interesting to read what this article says: Mitochondrial DNA Variation of Modern Tuscans Supports the Near Eastern Origin of Etruscans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852723/

C:\Users\gotadmin\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg


All aboriginal people in Europe are from Iran but Indo-European people who migrated there are not!!!

Again, haplogroups do not speak language, and why is U152 better said to be an "Etruscan haplogroup"?

Non-IE Europeans, those predating Indo-Europeans have their origins in hunter-gatherer populations of Europe combined with Early European Farmers who came from the Near East IIRC. This pre-dates Indo-Europeans. In the case of Etruscans this is an entirely separate issue and not related to proto-Germanic. What do Etruscans have to do with Germanic cultures? We already know where the futhark runes come from and that is not the only alphabet to have its roots in Old Italic Script or Cumae Greek both coming from Phoenician (a people who very adept at sea travel and trade and had many colonies throughout the Mediterranean).

There is a different story, it is certainly possible that subclades of R1b-U106 exist in the east of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, ... but it relates to Satem language of Carded Ware culture, especially Indo-Iranian, like subclades of R1a-Z282 which have been found both in Scandinavia and Pakistan, as I said in another thread we know Finnish people called people of Scandinavia as Aryan (Orya) and their land Vaejah (Vuoja). What we read in Avesta about Vaejah (original land of Aryans) can be certainly modern Scandinavia.

Again U106 is not found in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or India. The South/Central Asia pre-print was full of many errors and they’ve made corrections and we will see these corrections in the future when they release it sometime this year. Do we need to go over the calls again as to why Loebanr_IA is NOT U106? Furthermore the oldest samples of U106 in Europe like I have stated many times PRE-DATE the incorrect sample at Loebanr by quite a large margin.The oldest sample of U106 is in Lille Beddinge Sweden and dated to 2275-2032 BCE. The R-Z282 individuals you mention are on differing branches under R-Y17491 which formed 4600 years ago (Yamnaya and related time-frame).

It is interesting to know that the earliest known Germanic inscription is Negau helmet which dates back to 450 BC � 350 BC, it is in a North Etruscan alphabet and has been found in Slovenia. Elder Futhark runes, the oldest form of the runic alphabets, are also commonly believed to originate in the North Etruscan alphabets.

So it should be said that Aesir-worshippers migrated from Asagarta (Asgard/Zagros) to Tuscany in the north of Italia and from this land their culture spread to the north of Europe.

Negau Helmet inscription is actually possibly dated to the 2nd Century BCE, which would make it younger than the helmet which is dated anywhere from 450 to 350 BCE. In response to the bolded part, why should this be said? Why is this your go to conclusion about a study of Tuscany and how it relates to Etruscans? What does Germanic mythology or ethnogenesis have to do with Etruscans and Tuscany? We've been over this, there is no evidence for a migration of Indo-European from the Zagros to Northern Europe. Why do we not see this admixture that we would expect from such a migration in Neolithic Scandinavia, Bronze Age Scandinavia or Migration Period Germanic samples from Europe if it really happened? Snorri Sturluson is not a viable source.

A newer study: Mitogenomes from The 1000 Genome Project Reveal New Near Eastern Features in Present-Day Tuscans: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365045/

"The present study adds further support to previously reported findings suggesting the presence of a significant Near East component in Tuscan mitogenomes, and points to Iran as the region in the Near East providing the main genetic signal to present day Tuscans."

There is a new paper on Italy coming out soon and it will be very interesting. I do not see why you are making a connection of Etruscans with Germanic ethnogenesis.

Look where\when pre-Akkadians lived? if we find this then it could solve the "semitic words in germanic vocabulary" case. Look Maykop culture located in N.Caucasia and pre-Semits too were living in S.Caucasia at the same time so they were neighbouring cultures, IMHO its in this time and location where Semitic vocabulary entered language of R-L51 or R-L151 tribes, after this encounter they(L51) moved to Europe, J1 tribes moved south to Levant then in 2200 BC conquered Sumerians to form the Akkadian empire.

I would be very wary of Vennemen’s theory, as it is not accepted by majority of linguists or relevant scholars and his Atlantic (Semitic) theory suffers from sparse misinterpreted data. Again, haplogroups do not speak languages, people do. Attributing certain haplogroups solely to a language is an error.
 
I almost think it would be a public service to delete this whole thread, as it is so full of complete misinformation.

I warned you, Cyrus. I told you I thought perhaps I should inform Maciamo you're back under a sock account.

I am not opposed to this at all.
 
I almost think it would be a public service to delete this whole thread, as it is so full of complete misinformation.

I warned you, Cyrus. I told you I thought perhaps I should inform Maciamo you're back under a sock account.

I agree, the fact is that I knew nothing about Tuscans, they are the main people in Europe who relate to Gutians and other ancient people in the west of Iran, so I should focus on them.
 
I agree, the fact is that I knew nothing about Tuscans, they are the main people in Europe who relate to Gutians and other ancient people in the west of Iran, so I should focus on them.

Typical !!! A pseudo-answer, completely off the mark, aimed once again at deflecting off the real purport of the post quoted. With the same unchanging obvious purpose: to keep the bl**dy thread alive, at all costs.

This is bare-faced t-rolling. I know the position backstage is to let all kinds of weirdos (including me!) express themselves on this forum, as long as they remain harmless. But isn't it about time you moderators took effective action here?
 
Typical !!! A pseudo-answer, completely off the mark, aimed once again at deflecting off the real purport of the post quoted. With the same unchanging obvious purpose: to keep the bl**dy thread alive, at all costs.

This is bare-faced t-rolling. I know the position backstage is to let all kinds of weirdos (including me!) express themselves on this forum, as long as they remain harmless. But isn't it about time you moderators took effective action here?

I also know what your obvious purpose is, it really doesn't matter for me that this thread is deleted, I already know what I wanted to know, now you should wait for my work which will be published soon.
 
In response to the bolded part, why should this be said? Why is this your go to conclusion about a study of Tuscany and how it relates to Etruscans? What does Germanic mythology or ethnogenesis have to do with Etruscans and Tuscany?

You yourself should research about it, Etruscans became Aesir-worshippers too.
 
now you should wait for my work which will be published soon.

Keep me posted. I can't wait to read the hodgepodge of absurdities it's bound to be!
 
Could the rest of the people who posted on this thread let me know if they object to my deleting the thread? Many of you published important information, which is the only thing keeping me back.

Or, I could just delete all of Cyrus' posts, but then your posts might not make sense.
 
Negau helmet information means zero in reference to populace

As an example . The illyrian helmet was made in the Peloponnese and sold to Macedonians tribes firstly............it was made in an area very close where where the Corinthian helmet was made ................finding helmets, shields, weapons etc in one area means zero, not every people made armour and weapons, there was not many places on manufacturers of armour in europe until after the dark ages
 
Could the rest of the people who posted on this thread let me know if they object to my deleting the thread? Many of you published important information, which is the only thing keeping me back.

Or, I could just delete all of Cyrus' posts, but then your posts might not make sense.

You must have guessed how I feel about it by now. :)
 
Keep me posted. I can't wait to read the hodgepodge of absurdities it's bound to be!

I have deciphered some parts of ancient Jiroft inscriptions of Kerman, you will learn many new things about the history of Indo-Europeans, you just don't know who I am.
 
Look friends please don't get overly angry when people post different theories in the forum just disagree with them by posting your own point of view with evidence which point to the contrary. Forums are where people of different theories, views want to discuss their subjects.
 
Look friends please don't get overly angry when people post different theories in the forum just disagree with them by posting your own point of view with evidence which point to the contrary. Forums are where people of different theories, views want to discuss their subjects.

Right agree. But when fantasy replaces facts.....theory must have a fundament nornosh.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
 
I also know what your obvious purpose is, it really doesn't matter for me that this thread is deleted, I already know what I wanted to know, now you should wait for my work which will be published soon.

Okay. Let us know about it when it's peer-reviewed and published in some reputable scientific publication. Good luck!
 
Vagheesh Narasimhan finally replied, don't mistake, he still believes in the same R1b and I2a2 haplogroups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan and in all probability we will see them in final paper. But I just hope they review the sample ID I1954 (Ganj_Dareh_N), I believe that is R1b1a1a2a (R-L23), not R2a.
 
Vagheesh Narasimhan finally replied, don't mistake, he still believes in the same R1b and I2a2 haplogroups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan and in all probability wewill see them in final paper. But I just hope they review the sample ID I1954 (Ganj_Dareh_N), I believe that is R1b1a1a2a (R-L23), not R2a.

Forgive me for being skeptical, but may I ask that you paste the entirety of Narasimhan's quote here? If you do post his quote, post it in its entirety; don't remove anything from his message.

Secondly, even if these haplogroups are to be seen in the final paper and they are deemed legitimate, there is a problem with your theory. Some of the oldest samples of R1b-U106 (Lille Beddinge, Sweden 2275-2032 BCE), I2a2a2a (3350-2750 BCE Alava, Spain Lipson et al 2017) and I2a1a1a (3600-3000 BCE Balatonlelle, Hungary Lipson et al 2017) are from Europe and pre-date the Swat, Sintashta and Geoksyur samples from Narasimhan et al, and actually their upstream SNPs (that define I2, I2a, I2a2, I2a1) are found in Europe before Indo-Europeans. Also it is worth mentioning the samples of I2a subclades listed within the excel sheet for the South & Central Asia paper from Narasimhan et al, specifically for I2a2a2a we have I4915 & I5401 given date ranges of 6340-5990 BCE & 7076-6699 BCE respectively from Iron Gates HG in Serbia. There is also I4878 from the same cultural sphere in Serbia dated to 5995-5710 BCE. There is also a Latvia HG sample of I2a2a2a dated to 5775-5666 BCE. There is also I3715 from Neolithic Ukraine who is I2a2a2a dated to 5636-5521 BCE. These all predate the Geoksyur sample. The I2a1a1a sample from Sintashta (I1003) is dated to 2050-1650 BCE, in Narasimhan et al that sample is predated by other samples like a sample from Iron Gates HG Serbia I5236 which is labeled I2a1a1a and dated to 8290-7825 BCE. Another I5773 from Iron Gates Serbia again, also I2a1a1a is dated to 8240-7940 BCE. All of these dates pre-date the ones I listed previously (Alava & Balatonlelle) for I2a, they also predate the samples you believe to be your evidence. They can all be found the excel sheet that is provided in the supplementary data (not Ycall file), so again the presence of these I2a subclades in Europe is far older than the suspicious samples from the Ycalls file.

I don't see how this supports your theory, since the oldest samples of these haplogroups exist in Europe how does it make sense for it to be proof of "proto-Germanic" migration from Asia? Especially when there is no supporting autosomal signal (autosomal DNA - auDNA), if there is "Iranian-like" admixture we should expect to see it from this proto-Germanic migration from Asia, yet why is it absent in Bronze Age Scandinavians and Iron Age Northern Europeans (in the vicinity of Scandinavia & Germany)? Why is it absent in Migration Period aDNA that we have from Alemanni, Longobards, Anglo-Saxons and other samples from this period? Not to mention the fact these I2a clades you tout as evidence of your theory are far older in Europe, and it really doesn’t make much logical sense for the European modern I2a groups to be derived from the younger ones from Narasimhan et al when there was clearly a far older presence of these I2a clades in Europe. It also doesn’t make sense for R1b-U106 (which has its oldest sample in Lille Beddinge) in Europe to be derived from the younger one in Narasimhan et al, it’s clear that there was an older presence of R1b-U106 in Europe, it again doesn’t seem very logical for modern U106 to be derived from far younger alleged sample in Asia.

In terms of autosomal admixture, why do Iranian populations from these time periods consistently plot away from Northern European populations on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) charts? Y-DNA is useful in tracking the movements of people under certain parameters, but we need to keep in mind that autosomal DNA (auDNA) provides an even clearer picture when paired with other data, and right now the data clearly shows that there isn't any Iranian-like admixture from the time period you are specifying in era specific Northern Europe from the Neolithic to the arrival of Bronze Age populations.

Let’s actually look at some Migration Period PCAs from their respective papers, please note that PC2 axis are for smaller differences and PC1 axis are for larger differences between populations, this means that from top to bottom on the Y-axis the differences are smaller and differences on the X-axis from left to right are larger.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/con.../F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1
Please note that Graves 3b and 3c are already determined by the authors to have been of a Southern European origin and not of Northern European origin, hence why they plot with Southern Europeans.

In the Bavarian DNA study we see:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/13/3494/tab-figures-data
In this paper males in the Bavarian samples show Northwest European admixture for Bavarian males and females, Balkan admixture for elongated skull samples and finally, KER_1 was from Crimea and judging by various other peoples G25 nMonte data; this individual was likely of Pontic Greek and Steppic origins. VIM_2 is a sample of a Gepid from Serbia, who shows East Asian admixture, which makes sense given the Gepid tribe’s position as a vassal of Attila the Hun, and also it reflects what we already know about the Gepids in that they were likely a mixture of Hunnic-Turkic and Germanic after a certain point as evidenced by grave finds but also by names such as Giesmus (*gesm <*gésəm, from Turko-Mongolic kes/käs) and Mundus (from Mundzuk, from Turkic *munʒu).The Gepid from various calculations reflects a mixture of Northern/Central European + Balkan + Steppe. Rulers of the Gepids prior to Giesmus and his son Mundus had Germanic names, as well as other Gepids recorded by Byzantines (Asbadus & Usdibad)

Also, the population that brought farming into Scandinavia, referred to as Central European Agriculturalists were of Anatolian Neolithic Farmer origin. Anatolian Farmers entered Europe 8,200 years ago. Neolithic Farmer ancestry is shared by a lot of populations and so far does not coincide with Indo-Europeans (Steppe ancestry is what appears to be associated with IEans.) So again, I will repeat, if these proto-Germanic people migrated out of a region we would expect to see an autosomal signal of this migration and their presence in the Zagros region, but we do not see this autosomal admixture in the respective time periods for populations that gave rise to Germanic people. Are you implying that these proto-Germanic Zagros people were entirely endogenous? Are you saying they maintained a "Northern European-like" autosomal signature that didn't change? They just blended in when they arrived in Northern Europe? Explain yourself. How is it logical for the source of European clades of I2a and R-U106 to be derived from suspicious samples from Asia that are far younger than the ancient samples of those haplogroups found in Europe?


Here are some samples from Eurogenes K8 PCA (which is a few years ago) that plotted the data from Allentoft 2015, as it dealt with Battle Axe samples and the like: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQcmpYMVpaS09aWEk/view - note that the axes in this PCA are flipped from other examples I have linked here, component 1 is on the Y and component 2 is on the X. Component 1 in this case would show great differences from top to bottom, and component 2 shows lesser differences from left to right.

Here is another post from Eurogenes that shows some more PCAs which pertain to the Battle-Axe Culture from Sweden: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html, same applies here PC1 is on the Y-axis for greater differences and PC2 is for smaller differences on the X-axis

Here is a video about the Genetic Distance of European populations and others: http://armchairprehistory.com/2017/10/01/european-ancient-dna-the-movie/
(small differences in this PCA are shown through top to bottom, greatest differences from left to right for this PCA in this video which is based off of Mathieson et al 2017)

Also, I know you like to claim that the Gutians are the ancestors of the Goths, but why then do we find that the cultures associated with Gothic presence (Wielbark, etc) show affinity with Iron Age Jutland (Southern Scandinavia)? See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43183-w. This mtDNA study on Goths is very specific in that they state that the data supports a Southern Scandinavian origin for Wielbark males (and Neolithic local origin for the females). If the Gutians were a proto-Germanic people from the Zagros who migrated to Northern Europe we would expect see this Iranian-like affinity in the context you propose, and we do not see it. What is your explanation for this?

I took a look at the Y-calls for Ganj_Dareh_N and he is most likely R2a-L226 (3 positive calls, 1 negative, no positive calls for upstream SNPs of the lone probable false positive at the L23 position).


Considering I1 is rarely found outside of Europe it is safe to say it is strictly European in origin. Haplogroup I-M170, the upstream parent haplogroup, is extremely old with estimates placing its time of origin anywhere from 31,000 to 35,000 years old. Where it originated is unclear it could be anywhere from the Caucasus, Europe or SW Asia. I2, the sibling clade of I1 has its time of origin anywhere from 28,000-33,000 years ago (obviously it can't originate before I-M170!)
I1 in Europe is likely part of a very early hunter-gatherer people who didn't have very large numbers who eventually made their way into Scandinavia where eventually the population rapidly expanded and diversified into the various subclades we see today with I1-DF29 being the most common. I1 is most likely not an Indo-European haplogroup. The origin of Germanic people is probably due to the fusion of Indo-European groups with these non-Indo-European groups in Northern Europe. We cannot say that if we are to figure out the origin of the Germanic people that we only need to solely look at I1. Germanic speaking Europe contains far more haplogroups and ancient Y-DNA samples show R-U106 as well as other haplogroups were present among Germanic peoples.


Indeed, it’s why Y-DNA isn’t the sole determinant of a population’s history, it is informative but it does not give the full picture, which is provided by the inclusion of autosomal DNA data (among other things), which so far shows that Germanic populations have an affinity to Northern Europe, NW Europe, Western Europe and Central Europe. OP in this thread is implying the ancestors of Germanic speakers in a proto-Germanic context came from Iran, and specifically from the Zagros region, despite the complete lack of corresponding ancient DNA (Y, mt and autosomal) evidence for this position, let alone the complete lack of archaeological evidence (again Arne, Nermen and Gowling works do not state a migration, they discuss trade). The genetic and archaeological data are quite clear on where Germanic populations likely originated, and it shouldn’t even be a debate. An interesting read on the linguistics of Germanic and the non-IE substrate https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf, which rejects Vennemann and ties the non-IE substrate to the Neolithic Farmer population that pre-date Indo-Europeans.
 
spruithean, you know what my theory is, I believe north of Europe was the original land of Indo-Iranians, not Germanic people. In fact satem-speaking Indo-Europeans lived in the north of Eurasia and centum-speaking people in the southern part.
Existence of R1b-U106 and I2a2 in the South Asia shows Indo-Iranian migration to this region, proto-Germanic language in Europe dates back to 500 BC.
 
spruithean said:
I took a look at the Y-calls for Ganj_Dareh_N and he is most likely R2a-L226 (3 positive calls, 1 negative, no positive calls for upstream SNPs of the lone probable false positive at the L23 position).

Mr. Narasimhan says "Our Y haplogroup assignments were done using yHaplo by @dpoznik, modified to deal with damage, contamination & missing data in ancient DNA." If they believe the sample from Loebanr is a subclade of R1b-U106, for the same reason that sample from Ganj Dareh should be R1b-L23, especially because another sample from this region is R1.

r1.jpg
 

This thread has been viewed 161385 times.

Back
Top