Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920
Results 476 to 496 of 496

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

  1. #476
    Banned Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545
    Points
    1,481
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,481, Level: 10
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 69
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip
    I'm sorry if my comments have contributed to frustrating you. I'm quite prepared to accept that there might have been linguistic and cultural associations between Western Iran and Northern Europe during this period. There are also indications of significant genetic links, but with the flow of DNA in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, it appears there is little interest from anyone in giving this observation any consideration.
    I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (namru "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.

  2. #477
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630
    Points
    2,608
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,608, Level: 14
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 70.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (namru "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.
    Gutians also look like newcomers, being represented as ignorant of the gods and culture.

    They first appear at pretty much exactly the time that both SNP and STR analysis estimate that a branch of R1a-M417 (Z94) started developing rapidly South of the Caspian.

    Autosomal analysis also suggests that Iran received a substantial amount of Northern autosomal DNA post-Chalcolithic (fitting with Armenian, Georgian, Southern Steppe Yamnayan and Baltic) - a result which is replicated in similar Indo-Aryan descendant populations like Punjabis. I see good fits for minor contribution from several kinds of early Baltic people, including Latvian Corded Ware, Lithuanian Corded Ware, Latvian Neolithic and Swedish Battle Axe. It is not too difficult or unlikely for Northern people to have made this journey - the Vikings followed exactly the same trail down the Volga to Iran.

    It is reasonable to hypothesise that some indigenous Iranian DNA might have returned to the Baltic with these people, although I can see no substantial trace of that in the DNA.

  3. #478
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    324
    Points
    8,714
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,714, Level: 27
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 36
    Overall activity: 33.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (namru "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.
    That's a strong cop out. If this is your counter, it's not very good. Are you literally saying that these so-called "proto-Germanic" people in the Zagros just stuck to themselves in an endogenous fashion? That would be even more pronounced genetically, why don't we see that exactly? I don't see any convincing evidence for Germanic (or Celtic) origins in the parts of Iran or in the contexts of which you propose.

    As to the "fairness" of the Gutians, it is debated. Their alleged "light-skinned" appearance cannot be equated with being blond. Realize that different cultures have different definitions of "fair" or "light-skinned".

  4. #479
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630
    Points
    2,608
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,608, Level: 14
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 70.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Are you literally saying that these so-called "proto-Germanic" people in the Zagros just stuck to themselves in an endogenous fashion? That would be even more pronounced genetically, why don't we see that exactly? I don't see any convincing evidence for Germanic (or Celtic) origins in the parts of Iran or in the contexts of which you propose.
    It is possible that groups can be endogamous, particularly if they only stay for a short period. Don't we know the Celts were in Asia Minor for a time? But we see little evidence of this in either European or Anatolian DNA.
    The Guti appear to be of Northern provenance, of which we do see signs in DNA. We also see Gauti in the Baltic and Geti halfway between the two. We see Caspians in Iran, and Kasabians in the Baltic. I wouldn't rule out connections.

  5. #480
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    655
    Points
    10,493
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,493, Level: 30
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?
    The solution is simple. There is only one unique Germanic language/ culture and that is situated in NW Europe. This Germanic language/culture is (partly) rooted in a wider Indo-European language/ culture.

    The acceptance of that solves endless discussion ;)

  6. #481
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    324
    Points
    8,714
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,714, Level: 27
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 36
    Overall activity: 33.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    It is possible that groups can be endogamous, particularly if they only stay for a short period. Don't we know the Celts were in Asia Minor for a time? But we see little evidence of this in either European or Anatolian DNA.
    The Guti appear to be of Northern provenance, of which we do see signs in DNA. We also see Gauti in the Baltic and Geti halfway between the two. We see Caspians in Iran, and Kasabians in the Baltic. I wouldn't rule out connections.
    I doubt the Celtic population in Asia Minor was ever large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Asia Minor populations whether they were endogenous or not. Is there any specific evidence that states the Guti were of "northern provenance"? I would be very wary of drawing connections between people based on demonyms (be they exonyms or endonyms). We know for some time it was believed that the Getae were related to the Goths, however the Getae are a Thracian people more closely related to the Dacians, while the Goths are a Germanic people with an attested Germanic language. In regards to the Caspians and Kashubians, from what I've seen the Caspian people are often regarded as a pre-Indo-European people linked to the Kassites. Kashubians are a Slavic people in the Baltic region, living in Pomerania (literally, by the sea). Now if the Gutians were indeed Indo-European, from what I've read, they were probably more like Tocharians than Germanic people, secondly I think we'll be hard-pressed to find anything that definitively proves whether they were IE people, we lack a corpus of their language and a kings list does not tell us much about their language.

    If we cannot rule out connections, we also shouldn't assume there are connections either, especially when the evidence is weak, or based off of the seeming similarity of names. We also should be very careful of interpreting medieval "historical" (more like pseudo-historical) works as having any semblance of truth.

    I'm all for finding new connections throughout history, however they need be backed by solid evidence.

  7. #482
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630
    Points
    2,608
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,608, Level: 14
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 70.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    I doubt the Celtic population in Asia Minor was ever large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Asia Minor populations whether they were endogenous or not.
    So, in just the same way, there could have been a small Germanic population in Iran that was not large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Iran populations.

    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Is there any specific evidence that states the Guti were of "northern provenance"?
    That they were "pale" suggests they were likely to be of Northern provenance, compared to the people who described them as such. That they were ignorant of local practices suggest they were most likely newcomers. Combined with genetic estimates that Northern autosomal DNA arrived in the region at about that time, and a branch of the Northern haplogroup R1-M417 began developing there also at that time. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting the contrary, so on the balance of probabilities, I would suggest a Northern provenance is most likely.

    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    I would be very wary of drawing connections between people based on demonyms (be they exonyms or endonyms). We know for some time it was believed that the Getae were related to the Goths, however the Getae are a Thracian people more closely related to the Dacians, while the Goths are a Germanic people with an attested Germanic language. In regards to the Caspians and Kashubians, from what I've seen the Caspian people are often regarded as a pre-Indo-European people linked to the Kassites. Kashubians are a Slavic people in the Baltic region, living in Pomerania (literally, by the sea). Now if the Gutians were indeed Indo-European, from what I've read, they were probably more like Tocharians than Germanic people, secondly I think we'll be hard-pressed to find anything that definitively proves whether they were IE people, we lack a corpus of their language and a kings list does not tell us much about their language.
    I don't believe in conflating language with genetics - language can be adopted. Most views about these various tribes are speculative, and I am as wary of these as I am of conclusions drawn on the basis of demonyms. However, we know from more recent populations that denonyms can be significant, even when they are separated by up to 2,000 years - Danish Anglians and English East Anglians, Dutch Franks and French, German Goths and Spanish Zaragoths, Italian Romans and Romanians. Why not the Guti, Getae and/or Gauti likewise? They don't have to have the same language, culture or genetics to be related.

    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    If we cannot rule out connections, we also shouldn't assume there are connections either, especially when the evidence is weak, or based off of the seeming similarity of names.
    Agreed. We should neither assume, nor rule out.

    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    We also should be very careful of interpreting medieval "historical" (more like pseudo-historical) works as having any semblance of truth.
    I am sure there is some semblance of truth in some medieval works. To work on the basis that there isn't any is denying yourself access to data that helps build a picture.

    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    I'm all for finding new connections throughout history, however they need be backed by solid evidence.
    Solid evidence is hard to come by. If we only relied upon what was definitely proven and ignored all circumstantial evidence and balance of probabilities, we would have very little indeed.

    It might not be that Iranian Guti, Ukrainian Getae and Eastern Baltic Gauti descend directly from each other, but the question is could they have a root in common (possibly reflected in their names), which could be a genetic, a cultural or a linguistic one? Genetically, I suspect they have a relatively recent common root in R1a-Z645, which (according to yfull estimates) only arose in the early third millennium BC. And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they had a common ancestor significantly later than this (on the collapse of Corded Ware circa 2,400 BC), which by the way probably also spawned the Kashubian Slavs, the Thracians and the Caspian Indo-Aryans (in admixture with various other people).

  8. #483
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-07-19
    Posts
    11
    Points
    130
    Level
    1
    Points: 130, Level: 1
    Level completed: 80%, Points required for next Level: 20
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Afghanistan



    When you want to look at the Indo-European component in the Germanic culture initially brought in by Corded Ware (Single Grave Culture) people than Davidski has made this connection....not exactly Iran but still.

  9. #484
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    655
    Points
    10,493
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,493, Level: 30
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by klikodis View Post
    When you want to look at the Indo-European component in the Germanic culture initially brought in by Corded Ware (Single Grave Culture) people than Davidski has made this connection....not exactly Iran but still.
    Totally agree!

  10. #485
    Junior Member Achievements:
    7 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    11-07-19
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    4
    Points
    142
    Level
    1
    Points: 142, Level: 1
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 8
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    N-Z1936-Y19110

    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Around 3000 BC, L51 and its subclades were pastoralist tribes roaming the steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas.

    At some point in time between 2800 and 2500 BC, they started moving en masse into Europe. They were organized in patrilineal tribes.

    Even if it were proved that Gutians were L51, it would simply mean that one of the tribes who were on the steppes chose to cross southwards over the Caucasus and into Zagros instead of expanding westwards.

    Only genetic analysis of those ancient Gutians, and their autosomic results, will tell whether they were in any way related to the tribes (ancestral to Goths ?) that moved west.

    Language won't help at this stage, because almost nothing is known of the Gutian Language, and most of what is alleged is highly conjectural. And also because it is blatantly obvious to any linguist that Germanic languages developed in situ, through Grimm's Law and Verner's Law, gradually evolving over time in their own specific way, as all languages do. The velars in Indo-Iranian did not yet exist in PIE. They developed on their own, through gradual change. The same happened in Germanic, independently. The probability that it happened otherwise is zero.

    Germanic languages developed in the north of the area where the so-called Corded Ware culture developed and thrived, from 2900 to roughly 2300 BC. The CWC were essentially R1a people from the western Eurasian steppe, and (my personal guess is that) they already spoke a Satem form of PIE. When R1b L51 arrived from the east, there were apparently severe conflicts, and the two populations, originally from the same areas and cultures on the steppes, didn't mix much at first. The Corded Ware people were chased away from what is now Poland. Some fled east, and mixed with more Forest Steppe R1a of the Middle Dniepr Culture to gradually form the Sintashta Culture northof the Caspian Sea. Then the Sintashta Culture expanded further east between the Caspian Sea and the Tarim Basin, forming the Andronovo Culture. Andronovo people spoke a language ancestral to Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, all of them Satem. A first wave of those Indo-Iranian speaking people moved south, then west, and mixed with Hurrians in eastern Anatolia to form the Mitanni. Later, other Indo-Iranian tribes arrived in Iran : the Parthians, Medes, Persians...

    Meanwhile, in Poland the newly-arrived R1b-L51 gradually mixed with the R1a Corded Ware people who had not chosen to flee. R1b-L51 spoke Centum PIE. If the R1a Corded Ware they subdued indeed spoke a Satem form of PIE (conjectural so far), and if Proto-Germanic developed as Centum PIE influenced by a Satem substrate, you could have an embryo of an explanation for the similarities identified between Germanic and Balto-Slavic, and also,beyond that, between Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages.

    At the end of the day, Corded Ware is where Germanic and Indo-Iranian might overlap. That would date back to 2500 BC.

    Those considerations excepted, nothing in what you propose is either supported, let alone attested, by either genetics or linguistics.

    You should read the literature, abundantly and patiently, instead of picking on isolated exceptions to turn them into general rules. The fact that one R-L51 (or a bunch of them for that matter), through a series of unknown adventures, ended up in south Asia doesn't mean that Germans originated in Afghanistan. Your Afghan R1b may simply have belonged to an early group of adventurers. You need exceptions to confirm general rules. You can't build theories on exceptions.
    I totally agree. A very convincing theory.

  11. #486
    Junior Member Achievements:
    7 days registered100 Experience Points

    Join Date
    11-07-19
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    4
    Points
    142
    Level
    1
    Points: 142, Level: 1
    Level completed: 92%, Points required for next Level: 8
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    N-Z1936-Y19110

    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    What is the relation between the western branch of the Corded Ware culture and Pakistan?

    Map is wrong. Z283 is an ancestral branch to Z284, Z280, M458, which could well exist in the place of contact with Z93

  12. #487
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630
    Points
    2,608
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,608, Level: 14
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 70.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by VladimirTaraskin View Post
    I totally agree. A very convincing theory.
    Yes, as with Cyrus' posts, there are grains of truth in it, but there is little basis for its confident conclusions, which in my view are essentially misleading.

    For example, L51:
    We cannot possibly know that all (or indeed any) L51 people around 3,000 BC were pastoralists, nor that they roamed the Steppe, as there are no samples of it at or before this date.
    There is no evidence that they moved into Europe at that point from anywhere else, nor that they moved en masse. There is no evidence that they were organised into patrilineal tribes. There is no evidence that they chased away Corded Ware people from the East, with Corded Ware people fleeing straight into their path. There is no evidence that their admixture with Corded Ware people was gradual. There is no evidence to show what language they spoke.

    The limited data that we do have supports different conclusions about what is most likely:
    Ancient Pontic Steppe people have far too much WHG with their EHG, and ancient Caspian Steppe people far too much CHG with their EHG, for either to have been ancestors of the earliest L51 samples. These earliest samples clearly fit better with prior samples from the Balkan Chalcolithic. I have asked on several threads for people to present any data that demonstrates anything different, but have never received any response.
    Phylogenic analysis supports an early (pre-3,000 BC) most likely coalescence point for L51 in France. Z2103 (almost certainly accompanied by brother L51) was already in Croatia circa 2,850 BC. M269 (associated autosomally with L51) was already present in Northern Spain circa 3,400 BC (and this population is strongly associated autosomally with a Basque-speaking non-IE modern population). A sample very similar autosomally to Yamnayan brother Z2103 was already at the Latvian Baltic circa 2,885 BC. L51 is associated with G-PF3345, with E-V13, and autosomally with I2a and I2c in Unetice. Any hypothesis that L51 was only organised in patrilineal tribes, only moved into Europe 2,500 BC and only spoke centum IE seems unsupported by the actual data.

    Unfortunately, most orthodox opinions regarding historical genetics are like this - little more than unevidenced mantras that have only become widely ingrained through constant repetition and hostile reaction to anyone who dares to question them.

  13. #488
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    655
    Points
    10,493
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,493, Level: 30
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    Yes, as with Cyrus' posts, there are grains of truth in it, but there is little basis for its confident conclusions, which in my view are essentially misleading.

    For example, L51:
    We cannot possibly know that all (or indeed any) L51 people around 3,000 BC were pastoralists, nor that they roamed the Steppe, as there are no samples of it at or before this date.
    There is no evidence that they moved into Europe at that point from anywhere else, nor that they moved en masse. There is no evidence that they were organised into patrilineal tribes. There is no evidence that they chased away Corded Ware people from the East, with Corded Ware people fleeing straight into their path. There is no evidence that their admixture with Corded Ware people was gradual. There is no evidence to show what language they spoke.

    The limited data that we do have supports different conclusions about what is most likely:
    Ancient Pontic Steppe people have far too much WHG with their EHG, and ancient Caspian Steppe people far too much CHG with their EHG, for either to have been ancestors of the earliest L51 samples. These earliest samples clearly fit better with prior samples from the Balkan Chalcolithic. I have asked on several threads for people to present any data that demonstrates anything different, but have never received any response.
    Phylogenic analysis supports an early (pre-3,000 BC) most likely coalescence point for L51 in France. Z2103 (almost certainly accompanied by brother L51) was already in Croatia circa 2,850 BC. M269 (associated autosomally with L51) was already present in Northern Spain circa 3,400 BC (and this population is strongly associated autosomally with a Basque-speaking non-IE modern population). A sample very similar autosomally to Yamnayan brother Z2103 was already at the Latvian Baltic circa 2,885 BC. L51 is associated with G-PF3345, with E-V13, and autosomally with I2a and I2c in Unetice. Any hypothesis that L51 was only organised in patrilineal tribes, only moved into Europe 2,500 BC and only spoke centum IE seems unsupported by the actual data.

    Unfortunately, most orthodox opinions regarding historical genetics are like this - little more than unevidenced mantras that have only become widely ingrained through constant repetition and hostile reaction to anyone who dares to question them.
    The point is also point that some see "germanic' (could also be celt or slave) as a coherent folk or people (genetics, culture, language all 1:1). IMO that's not the point it are all regional specific bricolages. The reality is more messy than coherent.

    Germanic is the description of the people/ tribes roughly right of the Rhine in the Roman period.It's a large area but they shared some basic Germanic language and a kind of Nordic LNBA genetic profile.

    But that wasn't ts due to a (mass) migration from Iran to NW Europe. It was a result of a mix between HG (Ertebølle), Neolithic Farmer (TRB) and Indo-European/Steppe (SGC/BB). All had their share so not "en bloc" so to say.
    Last edited by Northener; 17-07-19 at 11:52.

  14. #489
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630
    Points
    2,608
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,608, Level: 14
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 70.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    The point is also point that some see "germanic' (could also be celt or slave) as a coherent folk or people (genetics, culture, language all 1:1). IMO that's not the point it are all regional specific bricolages. The reality is more messy than coherent.
    Germanic is the description of the people/ tribes roughly right of the Rhine in the Roman period.It's a large area but they shared some basic Germanic language and a kind of Nordic LNBA genetic profile.
    But that wasn't ts due to a (mass) migration from Iran to NW Europe. It was a result of a mix between HG (Ertebølle), Neolithic Farmer (TRB) and Indo-European/Steppe (SGC/BB). All had their share so not "en bloc" so to say.
    I broadly agree with this measured post with two provisos -
    1. The most substantial contributors of Germanic DNA as a whole look most likely Corded Ware (mainly steppic autosomally) and Bell Beaker (mainly Balkanic autosomally), with Balkanic EEF probably contributing more than TRB.
    2. There is insufficient evidence to identify any particular contributor as Indo-European.
    But while there seems no significant trace in genetics of a first millennium BC Iran-to-Scandinavia migration, whether there was a linguistic or cultural migration is another matter. It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there. There are many people across the world speaking English and adopting aspects of western culture who have no West European DNA in them whatsoever.
    When you ask an ambiguous question, you can get a variety of potentially valid answers.

  15. #490
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    655
    Points
    10,493
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,493, Level: 30
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    I broadly agree with this measured post with two provisos -
    1. The most substantial contributors of Germanic DNA as a whole look most likely Corded Ware (mainly steppic autosomally) and Bell Beaker (mainly Balkanic autosomally), with Balkanic EEF probably contributing more than TRB.
    2. There is insufficient evidence to identify any particular contributor as Indo-European.
    But while there seems no significant trace in genetics of a first millennium BC Iran-to-Scandinavia migration, whether there was a linguistic or cultural migration is another matter. It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there. There are many people across the world speaking English and adopting aspects of western culture who have no West European DNA in them whatsoever.
    When you ask an ambiguous question, you can get a variety of potentially valid answers.
    1. TRB is a mixture of EEF and HG. And indeed CW c.q. Bell Beaker (overlapping in Yamna ancestry) are the major contributors.
    2. I can uphold different stories, but 'It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there.' is IMO a real star trek story.....beam me up scotty, really I want to accept out of the box theories but this sounds a little bit too wild amigo!

  16. #491
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630
    Points
    2,608
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,608, Level: 14
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 70.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    1. TRB is a mixture of EEF and HG. And indeed CW c.q. Bell Beaker (overlapping in Yamna ancestry) are the major contributors.
    2. I can uphold different stories, but 'It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there.' is IMO a real star trek story.....beam me up scotty, really I want to accept out of the box theories but this sounds a little bit too wild amigo!
    It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
    We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
    You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.

  17. #492
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    23-02-15
    Location
    Groningen
    Posts
    655
    Points
    10,493
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,493, Level: 30
    Level completed: 91%, Points required for next Level: 57
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E1b1b/ E-V22

    Ethnic group
    North Sea Germanic
    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
    We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
    You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.
    Pip to me science and common sense requires some prove, some evidence. Not the other way around, I state something, no clear evidence, but ok until there is any or no prove it’s a possibility. Than every option is a possibility, makes no sense.....


    Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

  18. #493
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    15-07-18
    Posts
    630
    Points
    2,608
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,608, Level: 14
    Level completed: 53%, Points required for next Level: 142
    Overall activity: 70.0%


    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by Northener View Post
    Pip to me science and common sense requires some prove, some evidence. Not the other way around, I state something, no clear evidence, but ok until there is any or no prove it’s a possibility. Than every option is a possibility, makes no sense.....
    Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
    It makes perfect sense. There is no proof of which languages everyone spoke in every location thousands of years ago. There is no record of Yamnayans speaking IE, but it doesn't stop you asserting it. Where there is clear evidence (e.g. that Bell Beaker is closer autosomally to Balkan Chalcolithics than to Yamnayans or TRB), it doesn't stop you or anyone else asserting the contrary.
    Ancient history is a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing. There is no absolute scientific proof.
    But there is plenty of evidence of Germanic people venturing widely, often leaving little or no genetic trace. Examples - Vandals to Andalusia, Goths to Aragon, English to India, Danes to Greenland, Varangians to the Caspian, Normans to Sicily, crusaders to Jerusalem. Why write off the possibility that there was some sort of link with Iran? And even if there wasn't, why the hostility and ridicule?

  19. #494
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    324
    Points
    8,714
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,714, Level: 27
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 36
    Overall activity: 33.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Hostility and ridicule? Not so IMO, just criticism of a theory that despite everything is continuously pushed in this thread and others with no citations, cherry-picked quotes, quotations with contradictory aspects removed, etc. I can see that getting some people a little past disagreement to hostility.

  20. #495
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,350
    Points
    36,287
    Level
    58
    Points: 36,287, Level: 58
    Level completed: 70%, Points required for next Level: 363
    Overall activity: 17.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by nornosh View Post
    oh if R1b-U106 too is originally from Europe then which(Germanic) ydna hgs migrated in 500 BC from Zagros then, I am very confused?

    This Satem, Centum thing is much less important than people give them, if one IE language diverge to hundreds of languages then how come CW satem cannot change to Germanic Centum with some Celtic influence" their new neighbours in West Europe"? Has Thor, Zeus guaranteed Centum remain centum, satem remain satem lol
    I agree with your first statement concerning U106. That said, the switching from satem to centum is not an easy thing, not so easy as the contrary I think.
    And more generally, the adoption of new languages are not so easy themselves as some forumers seem thinking: it implies certain conditions and takes some generations, and almost always it comports modifications of the adopted languages;

  21. #496
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-06-18
    Posts
    332
    Points
    5,028
    Level
    20
    Points: 5,028, Level: 20
    Level completed: 95%, Points required for next Level: 22
    Overall activity: 53.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-M269 (LDNA)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5a1b

    Ethnic group
    Thracian
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Pip View Post
    It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
    We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
    You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.
    Some Celts actually stayed in Anatolia in the province called Galatia.

Page 20 of 20 FirstFirst ... 10181920

Posting Permissions

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