Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 376 to 387 of 387

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
    1,698
    Points
    25,380
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,380, Level: 48
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 170
    Overall activity: 18.0%


    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
    343
    Points
    1,288
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,288, Level: 9
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 62
    Overall activity: 87.0%


    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
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    24-06-19
    Posts
    11
    Points
    56
    Level
    1
    Points: 56, Level: 1
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 94
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    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
    243
    Points
    7,595
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,595, Level: 26
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    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
    343
    Points
    1,288
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,288, Level: 9
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 62
    Overall activity: 87.0%


    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
    343
    Points
    1,288
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,288, Level: 9
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 62
    Overall activity: 87.0%


    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
    243
    Points
    7,595
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,595, Level: 26
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    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
    4,305
    Points
    34,401
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,401, Level: 57
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 1,049
    Overall activity: 33.0%

    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
    243
    Points
    7,595
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,595, Level: 26
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    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
    343
    Points
    1,288
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,288, Level: 9
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 62
    Overall activity: 87.0%


    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
    243
    Points
    7,595
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,595, Level: 26
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 555
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    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; Yesterday at 23:44.

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

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    343
    Points
    1,288
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,288, Level: 9
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 62
    Overall activity: 87.0%


    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.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Posting Permissions

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