Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 488

Thread: What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

  1. #376
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,702
    Points
    25,472
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,472, Level: 48
    Level completed: 93%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    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!

  2. #377
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    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.

  3. #378
    Regular Member Achievements:
    7 days registered

    Join Date
    24-06-19
    Posts
    14
    Points
    78
    Level
    1
    Points: 78, Level: 1
    Level completed: 28%, Points required for next Level: 72
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: Argentina



    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.

  4. #379
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    270
    Points
    7,978
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,978, Level: 26
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    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/cont...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/...b-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/0B9o...paS09aWEk/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/2015/0...mong-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).


    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky12 View Post
    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!)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky12 View Post
    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.

  5. #380
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    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.

  6. #381
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean
    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.


  7. #382
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    270
    Points
    7,978
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,978, Level: 26
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    So now your theory changes.

    Yet, my points still stand. Why do Iranian-speaking populations not plot closely to Northern Europeans on PCAs? Refer to the PCAs (and video) I provided they very much show your theory is still false no matter which way you spin it.

    Narasimhan's paper (and several others) argue for no such Indo-Iranian origin in Northern Europe and instead they remain consistent with relevant scholars.

  8. #383
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Spruithean, you're a very kind fellow, as Ygorcs. I admire your patience.

  9. #384
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    270
    Points
    7,978
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,978, Level: 26
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    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.

    Look at these calls, 3 positive calls for R2a for I1947 and 1 negative call, the mathematics lean toward a positive call. Secondly, S8998 has a negative call for upstream positions of the downstream call, and finally I1949 has 1 negative call and 1 positive call for R1, those calls negate each other. Look at the Ycall excel file, they show even more data than these charts you've posted and it is quite clear why the calls make no sense.

    He posted that information you've quoted on his Twitter page and many people have pointed out that the software they used was very new and it did not take upstream consistency into consideration, which is why there are several errors. We will see how things pan out when the final paper is published, however the pre-print itself does not support either of your theories.

  10. #385
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Look at these calls, 3 positive calls for R2a for I1947 and 1 negative call, the mathematics lean toward a positive call. Secondly, S8998 has a negative call for upstream positions of the downstream call, and finally I1949 has 1 negative call and 1 positive call for R1, those calls negate each other. Look at the Ycall excel file, they show even more data than these charts you've posted and it is quite clear why the calls make no sense.

    He posted that information you've quoted on his Twitter page and many people have pointed out that the software they used was very new and it did not take upstream consistency into consideration, which is why there are several errors. We will see how things pan out when the final paper is published, however the pre-print itself does not support either of your theories.
    About Ganj Dareh, Narasimhan replies to me "that sample is 100% R2a. It is ancestral for 13 R1 SNPs." but the sample from Loebanr is ancestral for 12 R1 SNPs too. I see double standard, of course it is possible that they have some other info that we don't have.
    Anyway there is another R1b haplogroup in Iran (Hajji Firuz Tepe) which can indicate Germanic presence in Iran in the early Bronze Age. Indo-Iranian migration from Europe to the South Asia should be discussed in another thread.

  11. #386
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    270
    Points
    7,978
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,978, Level: 26
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    R1b Hajji Firuz does not at all confirm your Germanic theory, it also does not confirm any "Germanic" presence in Iran.

    Furthermore, nowhere on Narasimhan's twitter page does he say anything about still believing the Ycalls for the suspicious samples, he says the paper will hopefully be published with more samples + new analysis of samples reported in the pre-print. He seems to encourage people take a look at the Ycalls file themselves.
    Last edited by spruithean; 26-06-19 at 23:44.

  12. #387
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    R1b Hajji Firuz does not at all confirm your Germanic theory, it also does not confirm any "Germanic" presence in Iran.

    Furthermore, nowhere on Narasimhan's twitter page does he say anything about still believing the Ycalls for the suspicious samples, he says the paper will hopefully be published with more samples + new analysis of samples reported in the pre-print. He seems to encourage people take a look at the Ycalls file themselves.
    In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, please prove it.
    In the excel file that Narasimhan gave its link to me a few days ago, we still see the same results, it means he believes they are not wrong, otherwise he would correct them.

  13. #388
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    270
    Points
    7,978
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,978, Level: 26
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    No it does not, he's providing the data for people to look at for themselves to help improve the process, they even deliberately asked for help from other people.

    When the paper is finalized and all new data is published we will have a better view of things, until that time we can't really make any bold claims.

  14. #389
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-12-15
    Posts
    417
    Points
    5,551
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,551, Level: 22
    Level completed: 1%, Points required for next Level: 499
    Overall activity: 23.0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    off-topic
    Is the following fact about major european language normal or strange?


    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    What looks like something strange for me about linguistics is that major branches of European languages do not form a clade inside Indo-European. If most modern European languages came from SGBR cultures of LN/EBA then Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Italic and Celtic would form a separate definite clade inside IE languages, like Indian and Iranian IE languages do, but most linguists do not see such a big European language group.
    Quote Originally Posted by artemv View Post
    We assume that people of Yamnaya culture spoke the same language - IE common, maybe IE after split with Anatolian languages, and there are many linguistic reasons why. Let's say our questions is will or will not a group of people keep their common language and how much time will it take for dialiects and then languages to emerge. This depends on connection between the subroups - what is the distanse between the subroups, are there some geographic or cultural barriers between the subgroups, but not on a number of people.


    Most of those migrating West established single archeological culture - CWC (and single grave Bell Beakers). And we have 4 huge language groups for this culture, that do not form a clade (that's if we put aside Balkanic, Greek and Anatolian branches and all the IE migrating to Balkans, Anatolia and Middle East). While those migrating to the East had settled on larger territory, and still their languages form a single clade.

    RE: SGBR
    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...re-butthe.html

    "in addition, many early bronze age ‘cultures’ directly following corded ware and bell beakers, such as the Únětice, mierzanowice, or nitra in central europe, the nordic ‘late neolithic’ and early bronze age in southern scandinavia, or wessex have also very similar burial rituals. all the burials connected to these different ‘archaeological cultures’ are basically variations over a common theme: highlighting the gendered individual; the association of weapons with males; the burial in a flexed position on their side; in or under kurgan-like burial mounds; and distinct rules of orientation and body placement."

  15. #390
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    No it does not, he's providing the data for people to look at for themselves to help improve the process, they even deliberately asked for help from other people.

    When the paper is finalized and all new data is published we will have a better view of things, until that time we can't really make any bold claims.
    I don't know why Narasimhan doesn't want to reply my main question, I said for the same reason that he said about Ganj Dareh, the Pakistani sample is certainly R2, not R1b but he doesn't reply.

  16. #391
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-19
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    50
    Points
    363
    Level
    4
    Points: 363, Level: 4
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Eurasian
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Eurasian

    Ethnic group
    Caucasian
    Country: Afghanistan



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, please prove it.
    In the excel file that Narasimhan gave its link to me a few days ago, we still see the same results, it means he believes they are not wrong, otherwise he would correct them.
    How about Mittani in 1700 BC or group of them.

  17. #392
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by nornosh View Post
    How about Mittani in 1700 BC or group of them.
    Mitanni was in the north of Syria, not Iran, we just see Indo-Aryan influence on the Hurrian culture of Mittani, the original Indo-Aryan culture existed in the east of Iran, much closer than Mitanni.

  18. #393
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered250 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-19
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    50
    Points
    363
    Level
    4
    Points: 363, Level: 4
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Eurasian
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Eurasian

    Ethnic group
    Caucasian
    Country: Afghanistan



    ok so they were not in the zagros mountains precisly but the region in general.

  19. #394
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    270
    Points
    7,978
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,978, Level: 26
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 172
    Overall activity: 34.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, please prove it.
    They most certainly were not Germanic. You keep arguing this despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a thing. If a population ancestral to that of Germanic peoples migrated from the Zagros region we would expect to see remnants of this in the autosomal admixture, and we do not. The archaeology doesn't even support your position either, it instead is consistent with a more northerly European origin for Germanic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I don't know why Narasimhan doesn't want to reply my main question, I said for the same reason that he said about Ganj Dareh, the Pakistani sample is certainly R2, not R1b but he doesn't reply.
    What makes you think he does not want to reply? He may be busy, he may not necessarily be at liberty to discuss the results of the new analysis in a setting such as Twitter, and we likely have to wait until the paper is finalized to see the final and fixed haplogroup calls.

  20. #395
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    400
    Points
    8,589
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,589, Level: 27
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 10.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U152-DF103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1bm

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, please prove it.
    It's a bit easy to produce nonsense, provide no, or if any, absurd "evidence", and then ask other people to disprove it.
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  21. #396
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    566
    Points
    2,546
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,546, Level: 14
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 204
    Overall activity: 37.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.

    Much of the problem is the thread title, which causes disagreement based mostly on semantics:
    1. There is no such thing as "the" origin of Germanic people. Like all peoples, Germanics have multiple origins - they are a composite people. People disagreeing about this are probably all right in one way or another, but are just focussing on the question from a different perspective.
    2. What are "Germanic people"? Does this mean German-speaking people, people who have adopted Germanic cultures or people who are typically German genetically? (The thread comes under y-DNA, so perhaps the question is intended to refer specifically to Germanic paternal genetics.) As such, there are many possible different interpretations of the question, all with different answers.

  22. #397
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,614
    Points
    70,245
    Level
    82
    Points: 70,245, Level: 82
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 1,205
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    You keep arguing this despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a thing.
    Unfortunately, this seems to happen a lot in this hobby. People can say what ever nonsense comes to mind, and defend it as a "theory". It really is unfortunate, because it turns off sensible people from the conversation in general.

    I personally think that garbage posts should be deleted.

  23. #398
    Moderator Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger First Class1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,614
    Points
    70,245
    Level
    82
    Points: 70,245, Level: 82
    Level completed: 30%, Points required for next Level: 1,205
    Overall activity: 99.3%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1a2b1 (R-F1794)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.
    You can stop right there. This isn't some dumb conspiracy theory t-roll forum. We do in fact support academic peer-reviewed theories over nonsense that is peddled by laymen t-rolls.

  24. #399
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.



    Much of the problem is the thread title, which causes disagreement based mostly on semantics:
    1. There is no such thing as "the" origin of Germanic people. Like all peoples, Germanics have multiple origins - they are a composite people. People disagreeing about this are probably all right in one way or another, but are just focussing on the question from a different perspective.
    2. What are "Germanic people"? Does this mean German-speaking people, people who have adopted Germanic cultures or people who are typically German genetically? (The thread comes under y-DNA, so perhaps the question is intended to refer specifically to Germanic paternal genetics.) As such, there are many possible different interpretations of the question, all with different answers.
    I'm not a defender nor a destroyer of academic mainstream. But here you seem put every forumer in the same bag. Let's go further on.
    I supposed, when I red the title, this thread was focusing on the genetic origin of the Germanics (so future Germanics) as a pop defined by the birth of their first separated and recognizable form of language clearly differentiated of other neighbouring and cognate languages, even if other cultural aspects was to be taken in account to identfy this pop. I've not red all the posts but it appears the genetic aspect has soon been put aside if ever considered; it seems a try to discuss again questions already discussed in other threads created by the same forumer.
    And i think there as been a rather homogenous Germanic people at the beginning (not a "pure race" of course), before later expansions, whatever the shortness of this pre-expansions period. This pop, as always, is not by force exactly the picture given to us by elites DNA.

  25. #400
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    410
    Points
    1,684
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,684, Level: 11
    Level completed: 45%, Points required for next Level: 166
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip
    Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.

    Much of the problem is the thread title, which causes disagreement based mostly on semantics:
    1. There is no such thing as "the" origin of Germanic people. Like all peoples, Germanics have multiple origins - they are a composite people. People disagreeing about this are probably all right in one way or another, but are just focussing on the question from a different perspective.
    2. What are "Germanic people"? Does this mean German-speaking people, people who have adopted Germanic cultures or people who are typically German genetically? (The thread comes under y-DNA, so perhaps the question is intended to refer specifically to Germanic paternal genetics.) As such, there are many possible different interpretations of the question, all with different answers.
    The fact is that I just wanted to know what genetics says about the origin of modern Germanic people. What I know is that a Germanic culture existed in the west of Iran from at least 3rd millinium bc to the first half of the 1st millennium BC, but geneticists should say what happened latter, it is possible that some people from this part of Iran migrated directly to the North Europe or they migrated to another part of Europe, like Tuscany, and from this land the Germanic culture spread to the north of Europe, ...

    If you believe that the Germanic culture didn't exist in Iran, you should either prove that Indo-Europeans never migrated to Iran before the 1st millennium BC or those who migrated couldn't be proto-Germanic people. For example you can say for these reasons an Indo-European language couldn't be changed to proto-Germanic in Iran. Why for example the German city of Munich/München is pronounced as Munix/Munxen in Iran, and probably Tuscany?

Page 16 of 20 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •