Germanic ethnogenesis: latest insights

[Northener]

trundholm-zonnewagen.jpg.w300h238 (1).jpg
In the old theories about the Germanic ethnogenesis there were two basic assumptions:
1. The cradle of the Germans laid in the North (Southern Scandinavia/Northern Germany) during the Iron Age Jastorf Culture
2. There was a kind of Germanic unity.

Based on recent studies about archeology, philogy and genetics we can correct this:
* Based on name giving of places and rivers and so fort the cradle of the Germanic language/culture lays in central (middle) German area:west of the Elbe river, North of the Aller river and the Ore mountains; (add is nowadays: East Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Saxon)
* The push for developing the Germanic culture came from the Bronze Age Unetice culture (2300-1600 BC), this culture had a severe impact on the development of the Nordic Bronze Age (1750-500 BC), during this period the West Indo European language developed into Germanic, Celtic, Italic;
* Bronze age warriors and traders moved (roll over?) from central Germany to Northwest Europe genetically this ment a blend between Y-DNA R1b-21, I1 (probably paleothic) and R1a (Corded Ware) into a Germanic genetic mixture;
* The Bronze age "big men" culture meant long distance trade, marriages and a kind of aristocratic attitude (marked graves), 'well groomed' by copying "razor blades" Mycean style, there where close relations between for example "big men" from Jutland and the North German plain;
* Within this broad umbrella the were some differentiation in tribes and genetics (for example: the founder effect of R1b S21 was in the Western Germanic tribes bigger) and in language/dialect take for example the rune development in the North.

In short: the Germanic ethnogenesis was earlier (Bronze Age in stead of Iron Age) and more central Germanic than hitherto (19th/20th century) thought.

Literature
Wolfram Euler, Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (Hamburg/London 2009)

Maciamo Hay, http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...shtml#S21-U106

Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson, The rise of the Bronze Age society (Cambridge 2005)

[LeBrok]

It makes sense. I'm expecting soon a big genome supply from every era from Germany. It will be interesting if it confirms all from above post or will bring few surprises.

[Ukko]

It makes sense. I'm expecting soon a big genome supply from every era from Germany. It will be interesting if it confirms all from above post or will bring few surprises.

It does not make sense.

I have posted the papers several times where you can find out that the earliest contact of proto-Germanic was to Baltic Finns and Saami speakers.
Celtic, Baltic and Slavic contacts happen only later.

Problem is that you dont read these papers and neither do those writing their own papers, all of you have a mental block that you are unable to get around.

[Huitzilopochtli]

Kristiansen and Larrson doesn't directly discuss German ethnogenesis. Is there some summary of Euler's arguments in English? 'North of the Aller, West of the Elbe' is Northern Germany. Think Bremen, Hanover, and Hamburg. If this is the Germanic Urheimat could they have moved North to Scandinavia then back-migrated in the Iron Age?

[Fire Haired14]

Interesting discussion topic. Mainland Germanic speakers and Scandinavians share two important Y DNA haplogroups; R1b-U106 and I1. The haplogroups they don't share in large numbers are R1b-P312(in Germany) and R1a-Z284(In Scandinavia). An explination for this that might be true is: Proto-Germans belonged to R1b-U106 and I1. Non-Germanic Corded Ware descended Scandinavians belonged to R1a-Z284. Non-Germanic Bell Beaker descended Germans; Celts?, belonged to R1b-P312.

[Ukko]

Kristiansen and Larrson doesn't directly discuss German ethnogenesis. Is there some summary of Euler's arguments in English? 'North of the Aller, West of the Elbe' is Northern Germany. Think Bremen, Hanover, and Hamburg. If this is the Germanic Urheimat could they have moved North to Scandinavia then back-migrated in the Iron Age?

Baltic Sea side is more likely, much shorter distance to Finnic contacts.
Even this model is pretty optimistic, even with maritime connections and trade colonies the Finnic spakers are still a long way from the Danish straits.

[MarkoZ]

It does not make sense.

I have posted the papers several times where you can find out that the earliest contact of proto-Germanic was to Baltic Finns and Saami speakers.
Celtic, Baltic and Slavic contacts happen only later.

Problem is that you dont read these papers and neither do those writing their own papers, all of you have a mental block that you are unable to get around.

If I remember correctly, Ante Aikio puts the arrival of Sami very close to the turn of the common era, so there's no problem with early loanwords in either Sami or Finnish originating with a migration from Central Germany.

The stratal effects in Germanic suggests that the proto-Germanics had extensive contacts with at least one non-Indo-European language. Neither Balto-Slavic nor Celtic would have been in the north-central European plain at the time according to the most common models.

[Ukko]

If I remember correctly, Ante Aikio puts the arrival of Sami very close to the turn of the common era, so there's no problem with early loanwords in either Sami or Finnish originating with a migration from Central Germany.

The stratal effects in Germanic suggests that the proto-Germanics had extensive contacts with at least one non-Indo-European language. Neither Balto-Slavic nor Celtic would have been in the north-central European plain at the time according to the most common models.

The Finnic speakers arrive during the Late Bronze Age in to the Baltic Sea region coming in direct contact with the Nordic Bronze Age people at least in present day Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
These areas are much more logical when trying to find the urheimat, logical would also be a formation of a pidgin and later creole from these contacts where long distance trade seems to have played a major role.

[zanipolo]

trundholm-zonnewagen.jpg.w300h238 (1).jpg
In the old theories about the Germanic ethnogenesis there were two basic assumptions:
1. The cradle of the Germans laid in the North (Southern Scandinavia/Northern Germany) during the Iron Age Jastorf Culture
2. There was a kind of Germanic unity.

Based on recent theories, based on recent studies about archeology, philogy and genetics we can correct this:
* Based on name giving of places and rivers and so fort the cradle of the Germanic language/culture lays in central (middle) German area:west of the Elbe river, North of the Aller river and the Ore mountains;
* The push for developing the Germanic culture came from the Bronze Age Unetice culture (2300-1600 BC), this culture had a severe impact on the development of the Nordic Bronze Age (1750-500 BC), during this period the West Indo European language developed into Germanic, Celtic, Italic;
* Bronze age warriors and traders moved (roll over?) from central Germany to Northwest Europe genetically this ment a blend between Y-DNA R1b-21, I1 (probably paleothic) and R1a (Corded Ware) into a Germanic genetic mixture;
* The Bronze age "big men" culture meant long distance trade, marriages and a kind of aristocratic attitude (marked graves), 'well groomed' by copying "razor blades" Mycean style, there where close relations between for example "big men" from Jutland and the North German plain;
* Within this broad umbrella the were some differentiation in tribes and genetics (for example: the founder effect of R1b S21 was in the Western Germanic tribes bigger) and in language/dialect take for example the rune development in the North.

In short: the Germanic ethnogenesis was earlier (Bronze Age in stead of Iron Age) and more central Germanic than hitherto (19th/20th century) thought.

Literature
Wolfram Euler, Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen (Hamburg/London 2009)

Maciamo Hay, http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplog...shtml#S21-U106

Kristian Kristiansen and Thomas B. Larsson, The rise of the Bronze Age society (Cambridge 2005)

Archaeology states that central Germany was celtic until at least 300BC as per the Glauberg regal site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg

The Germans must have populated central Germany between this time ( 300BC ) and the Roman occupation of ( south side of the Danube river) southern Germany.

Southern Germany did not become German until after the fall of the Roman empire

[Northener]

Kristiansen and Larrson doesn't directly discuss German ethnogenesis. Is there some summary of Euler's arguments in English? 'North of the Aller, West of the Elbe' is Northern Germany. Think Bremen, Hanover, and Hamburg. If this is the Germanic Urheimat could they have moved North to Scandinavia then back-migrated in the Iron Age?

That's the East part of todays Niedersachsen (Luneburger Heide, Hannover) and Sachsen Anhalt. More Southeastern than the old "Urheimat". And it's possible that in the Jastorf periode there was a certain expansion.

PS I could PM you the English summary.....

[Northener]

If I remember correctly, Ante Aikio puts the arrival of Sami very close to the turn of the common era, so there's no problem with early loanwords in either Sami or Finnish originating with a migration from Central Germany.

The stratal effects in Germanic suggests that the proto-Germanics had extensive contacts with at least one non-Indo-European language. Neither Balto-Slavic nor Celtic would have been in the north-central European plain at the time according to the most common models.

That's right I guess! @Ukko some influence from Finland could always be the case, in my aDNA there is according to DNA Land 5% Finnish ancestry, but there is a difference between influence vice versa or being the essential factor. A Germanic cradle in Finland would cause some archeological, linguistic and genetic inconsistenties I guess....

[Northener]

Archaeology states that central Germany was celtic until at least 300BC as per the Glauberg regal site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg

The Germans must have populated central Germany between this time ( 300BC ) and the Roman occupation of ( south side of the Danube river) southern Germany.

Southern Germany did not become German until after the fall of the Roman empire

The area they are talking about is East Niedersachsen and Sachsen Anhalt, not explicit (pre) Celtic area, according to Euler the explicit influence form Celtic into Germanic was about 1000 BC.

[Ukko]

That's right I guess! @Ukko some influence from Finland could always be the case, in my aDNA there is according to DNA Land 5% Finnish ancestry, but there is a difference between influence vice versa or being the essential factor. A Germanic cradle in Finland would cause some archeological, linguistic and genetic inconsistenties I guess....

Like what inconsistencies? It is more logical than most proposed places, Nordic Bronze Age settlements where in Finland and Estonia before Finnic arrival.
Germanic formed in some subregion of that culture and then spread to cover it as a whole, why does it have to be spoken first in the south? The contact points to totally different linguistic groups are in the north.

[Sile]

During the Celtic late Hallstatt/early La Tène period, the Glauberg became a centre of supra-regional importance. At this time, it was the seat of an early Celtic prince.

Basically the capital of celtic central germany

[Northener]

Like what inconsistencies? It is more logical than most proposed places, Nordic Bronze Age settlements where in Finland and Estonia before Finnic arrival.
Germanic formed in some subregion of that culture and then spread to cover it as a whole, why does it have to be spoken first in the south? The contact points to totally different linguistic groups are in the north.

1. Germanic language isn't derived from Finnish or the Baltic language, analyses of toponyms of places and rivers and so forts places the development not in the Balticum but in East Lower Saxon and Saxony Anhalt.
2. Typically Germanic R1b S21 and Finnish/Balticum? No show....
3. Archeological evidence like graves and how people where buried in the Bronze Age and so fort are more related to the Unetice culture than to the Balticum.
Euler recognizes some similarities between early Gemanic and the language of the Balticum but he states that the separation has been taken place since about 2000 BC.
So influence Finnish/Baltic yes, but the cradle of Germans I don't think so, what are in short the evidences Ukko!?

[Northener]

During the Celtic late Hallstatt/early La Tène period, the Glauberg became a centre of supra-regional importance. At this time, it was the seat of an early Celtic prince.

Basically the capital of celtic central germany

Yes, Hessen, Southwest Germany.....the theory of Euler doen't rule out influences of the Celtic people, but he states that Germanic development is differentiated from it.....

[Ukko]

1. Germanic language isn't derived from Finnish or the Baltic language, analyses of toponyms of places and rivers and so forts places the development not in the Balticum but in East Lower Saxon and Saxony Anhalt.
2. Typically Germanic R1b S21 and Finnish/Balticum? No show....
3. Archeological evidence like graves and how people where buried in the Bronze Age and so fort are more related to the Unetice culture than to the Balticum.
Euler recognizes some similarities between early Gemanic and the language of the Balticum but he states that the separation has been taken place since about 2000 BC.
So influence Finnish/Baltic yes, but the cradle of Germans I don't think so, what are in short the evidences Ukko!?

There are no claims that Germanic derives from Finnic!
There is scientific proof that Baltic Finnic was spoken next to proto-Germanic, there is no such proof for Celtic or Baltic.


https://www.academia.edu/13615139/Th...ords_in_Finnic



Kallio offers the Danish straits region as the urheimat, based on purely linguistic evidence he should logically name Sweden, Finland, Estonia as the most likely region.
The reason he does not do it is most likely the amount of opposition to this theory from the germanicsts camp.

R1b S21 in not evidence, it could be a later addition to the germanic mix.

[Northener]

There are no claims that Germanic derives from Finnic!
There is scientific proof that Baltic Finnic was spoken next to proto-Germanic, there is no such proof for Celtic or Baltic.


https://www.academia.edu/13615139/Th...ords_in_Finnic



Kallio offers the Danish straits region as the urheimat, based on purely linguistic evidence he should logically name Sweden, Finland, Estonia as the most likely region.
The reason he does not do it is most likely the amount of opposition to this theory from the germanicsts camp.

R1b S21 in not evidence, it could be a later addition to the germanic mix.

Don't see the thing of course Baltic and Germanic have had similarities. But they differentiated during the Bronze Age, place of happening, "Saxon" territory. Clearly during the Unetice period. Look at the timing. Unetice influenced the Nordic Bronze Age not the other way around. Not possible. The artifacts of the Unetice culture where found into Northern Germany, Northern Netherlands, Southern Scandinavia. I can't imagine a story build the other way around in time and place the Bronze Age culture went from southeast to northwest and not from Northwest to Southeast. And a Germanic expansion from the Balticum to Northwest Europe goes against all streams of archeology, language, genetics....would be hocus pocus.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

[MarkoZ]

The Finnic speakers arrive during the Late Bronze Age in to the Baltic Sea region coming in direct contact with the Nordic Bronze Age people at least in present day Estonia, Finland and Sweden.
These areas are much more logical when trying to find the urheimat, logical would also be a formation of a pidgin and later creole from these contacts where long distance trade seems to have played a major role.

The problem with an Urheimat situated near the Baltic is the lack of archaeological precedent. There's also the fact that the interaction between early Germanic and Finnish seems to have been decidedly unidirectional, suggesting that Finnish was unlikely to have been spoken in the vicinity of the Germanic core. A more likely scenario would be an early contact between Finnish- and Sami speakers and a pioneering Germanic population far from its ultimate origin.

The German Jastorf archaeological culture in Lower Saxony satisfies the requirements set forth by linguists quite perfectly. It would appear that the Jastorf people expanded as far as Gotland already in the earliest phase of their development. The influence of the advanced Hallstatt culture enabled the people of Jastorf to expand swiftly into several directions as it seems. Even some of the alleged Germanic loans that predate Grimm's law in Sami could be explained this way.

[MOESAN]

Iron Age could have been of ahuge importance in launching the future or aready Germanic world.
Sncerely I have hard work to imagine Y-R1b-U106 did not play a central role in the Germanics formation.
The question is we lack anDNA with this haplo but it's supposed to be a recent enough one so?...
Where were they staying, the U106 or their ancestors ? My impression is that Y-I1 was well present along the Western Baltic shores and the North Sea since a long enough time, and was involved in the concretion and the subsequent moves. I don't think the CWC descendants would have developped a proto-Germanic language and in Scandinavia, the Y-R1a people seems having been pushed northwards and not come with proto-Germanics.
tow possible craddles: Austria, close to Hungary, (a swords type found for the must in Denmark was present too in Hungary at those times, and Coon thought a pop from Denmark Iron Age presented some parallels with the Celtic elites) - But I don't like too much this hypothesis and think that this intrusion was possibly a Belgae raid into future Germanics lands, which played a role of catalysor, but did not give birth to the Germanic language. It could check the 1000 BC given for Celtic influence upon Germanics; these "southerners" in North rather send some Y-R1b U152 in North lands I think and again it could checks Hallstatt times and moves of Celticlike or Italiclike pops between Hungary, Moravia, Bohemia, Lusacia and Baviera. If not from Austria, where was the U106 ancestors sleeping and dreaming at those times? Somewhere South the Baltic shores, already beginning to mix with Y-I1 people and some rare R1a? Germanics could have had more durable contacts with Italics and Baltics than with Celts; some peculiar lexical links with Slavic could confirm early contact zones in S-E Baltic or E-Poland? But I lack dates to tell if it's a proto-L contact or later contacts when Germanics were already well formed.
I recall my old Loch Ness monster: a non I-E non Uralic substrata in Finnic and Lappish + a weakly satemized IE substrata in Lappish (without proofs I think in CWC); but where were taken these words in Lappish: around Finland or in North Scandinavia?
I know Grigoryev has other views concerning the story for Celts, Germans and Balto-Slavs.

[A. Papadimitriou]

* Based on name giving of places and rivers and so fort the cradle of the Germanic language/culture lays in central (middle) German area:west of the Elbe river, North of the Aller river and the Ore mountains; (add is nowadays: East Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Saxon)

What are those names and what are the primary source?

Without having thought much about I believed the original homeland was Danemark / S. Sweden and proto-germanic could have been called 'dansk'. That's a more appropriate name because the original Germani were probably Celts. (in Greek sources 'Germani' was thought to have been an exonym applied by Romans which meant genuine/pure Celts).

Besides most Elder Futhark inscriptions are found in that region. (Although that obviously doesn't mean anything about the original homeland because 'proto-Germanic' was spoken much earlier but it can indicate something.)

[Tomenable]

The question is we lack anDNA with this haplo

We don't. RISE98 dated to 2275-2032 BC from Lilla Beddinge in Southern Sweden (Scania) was R1b-U106.

There is also an unpublished Wielbark culture R1b-U106 from Drozdowo (ca. 80 km north-west of Warsaw):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drozdowo,_Płońsk_County

There are of course a lot more of upcoming Wielbark culture Y-DNA samples. They should be published soon. AFAIK, autosomal profile of that Goth from Drozdowo is similar in terms of % of WHG admixture to Lithuanians and Swedes. But AFAIK Wielbark samples exhibit also some level of autosomal similarity to the Hungarian Bronze Age sample BR2 (Kyjatice culture).

[Tomenable]

NGS (Next-Generation-Sequencing) will be applied to Wielbark samples by the Poznan Center for Archeogenomics.

So we will learn not just general info about their Y-DNA haplogroups, but also very specific info about subclades.

There will be also some Przeworsk culture samples. But the problem with Przeworsk (and to a lesser extent with Wielbark) is that most of their burials were cremations, and with present-day technology it is impossible to extract DNA from ashes. It is possible that cremations and inhumations were used by distinct ethnic groups, with distinct burial rites, within those cultural zones.

Also Bronze Age Trzciniec culture DNA from Eastern Poland (and probably also from neighbouring countries) will be published soon, but it will be part of another paper. AFAIK, there is a lot of R1a (typically Balto-Slavic subclades) from Trzciniec culture, as well as one sample of R1b-U152. I think that the R1b-U152 singleton was there due to mixing between Trzciniec and Unetice.

[Tomenable]

There will be also DNA from Early Medieval Poland, including the Piast dynasty, the elites, and the commoners (it is part of the same paper as Wielbark DNA). So far I know about two samples from the elites, but relatively low-ranking elites. Both were R1a. One was R1a-L260 "Polish Type" (name invented by Peter Gwozdz who discovered it), as for the other one I don't know what was his subclade. This study will also test for genetic continuity or lack of such between Przeworsk/Wielbark and Early Middle Ages. There are rumours that relatively more of such continuity has been observed among the commoners, than among the elites.

AFAIK this study was supposed to be published in December 2016 so there is some delay.

[LeBrok]

There will be also DNA from Early Medieval Poland, including the Piast dynasty, the elites, and the commoners (it is part of the same paper as Wielbark DNA). So far I know about two samples from the elites, but relatively low-ranking elites. Both were R1a. One was R1a-L260 "Polish Type" (name invented by Peter Gwozdz who discovered it), as for the other one I don't know what was his subclade. This study will also test for genetic continuity or lack of such between Przeworsk/Wielbark and Early Middle Ages. There are rumours that relatively more of such continuity has been observed among the commoners, than among the elites.

AFAIK this study was supposed to be published in December 2016 so there is some delay.

Can't wait. There has been a dry period in publishing ancient DNA for long months now.