What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

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

Is the following fact about major european language normal or strange?


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.

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/2019/06/not-bell-beaker-not-corded-ware-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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
ok so they were not in the zagros mountains precisly but the region in general.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Pip said:
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?
 
I correct my #399 post; Y haplo's have been considered in this thread. But I see the same mode od reasonning of Cyrus, inchanged. That said, I 've nothing against Cyrus as a person. He is very correct and it's not a crime to take tracks different from the offical ones, if not biased. Bit I stay surprised.
 

This thread has been viewed 160853 times.

Back
Top