What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.
 
That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.

As you read it says: "All the R1a Y chromosomes belong to the M198* paragroup with frequencies ranging from 0% to 25%. Indeed neither the “European” M458 nor the “Pakistani” M434 have been observed in our samples."
 
It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.
You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.
 
That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.

This. It isn't one of the tested SNPs, which could imply it wasn't even tested at all.

As you read it says: "All the R1a Y chromosomes belong to the M198* paragroup with frequencies ranging from 0% to 25%. Indeed neither the “European” M458 nor the “Pakistani” M434 have been observed in our samples."

So you're just going to ignore this little piece right here... "have been observed in our samples" That's their samples, that doesn't represent the entire population and we need to consider the rates at which Y-lines die off (which is actually quite high).

What does that have to do with Z93?

Not much.

It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.

It doesn't say "does not exist in Iran" it says "not observed" that's like saying I don't see Canadian lynx in Canada therefore they don't exist, when in reality I'm just too far south of their territory.

You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.

Precisely. If the SNP is not in the list of those that were tested it was not part of the testing process and assumptions should not be made about its presence or lack thereof.
 
You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.

Let's suppose that R1a-Z93 was not really tested and the remaining two percent of haplogroups is just Z93, what does it prove?!
 
Proto-Germanic as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, certainly existed in the 6th millennium BC and even eralier, a haplogroup in the north of Europe which dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, couldn't be certainly the original Germanic one, especially because we can't find it in high frequency in the lands where Eastern Germanic people, like Goths and Vandals, lived.

Let's begin from the basic, please answer this question: What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?

That's nothing but wishful thinking. "Certainly"? No way. Haploroups do not carry languages, males who have a certain haplogroup speak a language and may spread it. All languages of the entire world "exist since ever" because they all derive from earlier stages of the linguistic evolution of a given language branch, so that invalidates any claim that a haplogroup cannot be associated with a certain language's expansion because it's "too recent". You're not drawing scientifically plausible conclusions about linguistics from the genetic evidence, they're all based on false premises. Besides, most linguists estimate Proto-Indo-European, even Early PIE, at 5,000-6,000 years ago. Its descendants branches date, with almost absolute certainty, to the Bronze Age, because each of them has descendants sharing words that only make sense if they came from a language spoken in the technological and economical stage of a post-BA society. Besides, PIE languages are just not diverged enough to date from the early Neolithic. Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years, even the first inscriptions in early Proto-Norse are still very close to Proto-Germanic, indicating a recent split. Even Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Germanic wouldn't have been much older than 4000 years.

I won't answer a question that is based on a false premise that has absolutely no scientific support. Even PIE in the 6th millennium BC is a very controversial claim, let alone Proto-Germanic, which is so unlikely as to be impossible. You're basically setting what you wish to be true and then going after evidences that back it up while neglecting anything that people say (and people have said many things to you in this and other threads) that might contradict or maybe even negate some of your ad hoc hypothesis (for instance, you just decided that Germanic-speaking people should exist as early as the 6th millennium BC). You're hell bent on proving you're right, but the problem is that you want us to present evidences that negate your conclusions, but the fact is that even where you're coming from to draw conclusions is extremely fringe and very probably incorrect.
 
Haplogroups don't relate to languages, Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, it is impossible that the Germanic sound shifts from the Proto-Indo-European language happened after the 6th millennium BC because proto-IE became extinct before this date.

Sorry, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. You're missing some basic knowledge about what PIE is. PIE didn't become "extinct". It evolved into its several daughter languages. There's no such a thing as an "older IE language" or a "more recent one", though some may have been attested earlier than others. If all of them came from the same common ancestor, they have by definition the same age, and some may have just been more innovative than others.

The Germanic sound shifts obviously did happen, by definition, after PIE split into several distinct dialect groups or distinct language subgroups. They couldn't have happened before, because then that language wouldn't be PIE, but already distinct languages derived from PIE. It's exactly the contrary: the sound shifts of Proto-Germanic can only have happened AFTER PIE diverged into several distinct proto-languages. When we say "PIE was spoken in this and that period", it refers to a common stage of that language before the start of the particular lexical, grammatical and sound shifts that characterize each of its descendant branches.

Besides, you're incorrectly assuming that Proto-Germanic appeared from scratch suddenly, with all its characteristic sound shifts and other particularities in place, but what happened was clearly a continuous evolution that saw successive sound shifts changing the language more and more from its former Common PIE stage (as it happens with all languages of the world, or do you think Modern English's or Portuguese's sound laws happened all at once in just a few centuries, and they remained static, totally unchanged after that?). Proto-Germanic is an Iron Age language, and it's absolutely certain that it kept evolving, with a succession of changes, from the moment it branched off from an earlier PIE (remembe, PIE means last common stage of unified dialect continuum that gave birth to all IE subgroups) to the moment it was spoken. That meant millennia of sound shifts and lexical and grammatical changes.

Germanic is no "direct descendant of PIE". At all. You're unquestionably wrong about that. It's not because we don't have any attestation of earlier stages of the linguistic evolution that gave birth to Proto-Germanic that it means that it arose directly from PIE in fully evolved form many millennia before the Common Era (and you push the PIE dating even further back than most linguists do nowadays. Do you still believe in the Renfrew hypothesis that he himself had to "refine" because the evidences were mounting against his cherished theory?).
 
Let's suppose that R1a-Z93 was not really tested and the remaining two percent of haplogroups is just Z93, what does it prove?!
I have no idea what you were trying to prove in the first place, but next time read the paper instead of jumping to conclusions. If they had tested Z93 they would have said so. This is a scientific paper, not Grandma's cookie recipe.

Underhill et al 2014 did test for Z93 and subclades, and in their sample of Iranians 77% of R1a (n=259) was Z93, and 15% of total (n=1765) was R1a.

In Myres et al sample of Iranians (n=150) they had 5% R1b-L23(xM412), which is bound to be R1b-Z2103, and 0% R1b-U106.

I1 reaches a grand total of 0.2% in Grugni et al's sample (n=938).
 
Ygorcs said:
That's nothing but wishful thinking. "Certainly"? No way. Haploroups do not carry languages, males who have a certain haplogroup speak a language and may spread it. All languages of the entire world "exist since ever" because they all derive from earlier stages of the linguistic evolution of a given language branch, so that invalidates any claim that a haplogroup cannot be associated with a certain language's expansion because it's "too recent". You're not drawing scientifically plausible conclusions about linguistics from the genetic evidence, they're all based on false premises. Besides, most linguists estimate Proto-Indo-European, even Early PIE, at 5,000-6,000 years ago. Its descendants branches date, with almost absolute certainty, to the Bronze Age, because each of them has descendants sharing words that only make sense if they came from a language spoken in the technological and economical stage of a post-BA society. Besides, PIE languages are just not diverged enough to date from the early Neolithic. Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years, even the first inscriptions in early Proto-Norse are still very close to Proto-Germanic, indicating a recent split. Even Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Germanic wouldn't have been much older than 4000 years.
I won't answer a question that is based on a false premise that has absolutely no scientific support. Even PIE in the 6th millennium BC is a very controversial claim, let alone Proto-Germanic, which is so unlikely as to be impossible. You're basically setting what you wish to be true and then going after evidences that back it up while neglecting anything that people say (and people have said many things to you in this and other threads) that might contradict or maybe even negate some of your ad hoc hypothesis (for instance, you just decided that Germanic-speaking people should exist as early as the 6th millennium BC). You're hell bent on proving you're right, but the problem is that you want us to present evidences that negate your conclusions, but the fact is that even where you're coming from to draw conclusions is extremely fringe and very probably incorrect.
Ygorcs said:
Sorry, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. You're missing some basic knowledge about what PIE is. PIE didn't become "extinct". It evolved into its several daughter languages. There's no such a thing as an "older IE language" or a "more recent one", though some may have been attested earlier than others. If all of them came from the same common ancestor, they have by definition the same age, and some may have just been more innovative than others.
The Germanic sound shifts obviously did happen, by definition, after PIE split into several distinct dialect groups or distinct language subgroups. They couldn't have happened before, because then that language wouldn't be PIE, but already distinct languages derived from PIE. It's exactly the contrary: the sound shifts of Proto-Germanic can only have happened AFTER PIE diverged into several distinct proto-languages. When we say "PIE was spoken in this and that period", it refers to a common stage of that language before the start of the particular lexical, grammatical and sound shifts that characterize each of its descendant branches.
Besides, you're incorrectly assuming that Proto-Germanic appeared from scratch suddenly, with all its characteristic sound shifts and other particularities in place, but what happened was clearly a continuous evolution that saw successive sound shifts changing the language more and more from its former Common PIE stage (as it happens with all languages of the world, or do you think Modern English's or Portuguese's sound laws happened all at once in just a few centuries, and they remained static, totally unchanged after that?). Proto-Germanic is an Iron Age language, and it's absolutely certain that it kept evolving, with a succession of changes, from the moment it branched off from an earlier PIE (remembe, PIE means last common stage of unified dialect continuum that gave birth to all IE subgroups) to the moment it was spoken. That meant millennia of sound shifts and lexical and grammatical changes.
Germanic is no "direct descendant of PIE". At all. You're unquestionably wrong about that. It's not because we don't have any attestation of earlier stages of the linguistic evolution that gave birth to Proto-Germanic that it means that it arose directly from PIE in fully evolved form many millennia before the Common Era (and you push the PIE dating even further back than most linguists do nowadays. Do you still believe in the Renfrew hypothesis that he himself had to "refine" because the evidences were mounting against his cherished theory?).
I really can't understand this sentence: "Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
bʰ > b > p > ɸ
dʰ > d > t > θ
gʰ > g > k > x
gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally , but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
As you probably know ancient Greek basis is cognate with English come, both of them are from proto-IE *gʷem-, the English word is from proto-Germanic kʷem (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek basis.
Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek boûs, Latin bōs and Celtic bāus were from the same origin, how English cow could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian kow or Tocharian kewa!
 
I have no idea what you were trying to prove in the first place, but next time read the paper instead of jumping to conclusions. If they had tested Z93 they would have said so. This is a scientific paper, not Grandma's cookie recipe.
Underhill et al 2014 did test for Z93 and subclades, and in their sample of Iranians 77% of R1a (n=259) was Z93, and 15% of total (n=1765) was R1a.
In Myres et al sample of Iranians (n=150) they had 5% R1b-L23(xM412), which is bound to be R1b-Z2103, and 0% R1b-U106.
I1 reaches a grand total of 0.2% in Grugni et al's sample (n=938).
Please mention your sources, who were these Iranians (more than 3 million Afghans live in Iran), where they lived?
 
I really can't understand this sentence: "Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
bʰ > b > p > ɸ
dʰ > d > t > θ
gʰ > g > k > x
gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally , but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
As you probably know ancient Greek basis is cognate with English come, both of them are from proto-IE *gʷem-, the English word is from proto-Germanic kʷem (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek basis.
Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek boûs, Latin bōs and Celtic bāus were from the same origin, how English cow could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian kow or Tocharian kewa!


You keep piling nonsense over nonsense !! Never seen such a compilation of absurdities.

Read a few basic things about linguistics and genetics before you post here. Your theories are conceptual quagmires.

You'd better give it up, buddy. You are ridiculing yourself.

(By the way: Good luck, Ygorcs!! )
 
I found Underhill's work about Haplogroup R1a: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/#sup1

He says nothing about the high frequency of haplogroup R1a-Z93 in Iran, in fact he says the same things that Grugni says, it also supports Anatolian hypothesis of Proto-Indo-European origin: "Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ∼5800 years ago."

Both Indo-European haplogroups of R1b1a2a and R1a1a1 have been found just in Iran and Eastern Turkey.
 
Please mention your sources, who were these Iranians (more than 3 million Afghans live in Iran), where they lived?
Myres et al (2011), "A major Y chromosome haplogroup R1b founder effect in Central and Western Europe". The Iranian samples are from Regueiro et al (2006), "Iran: tricontinental nexus for Y-chromosome driven migration".
 
I just said it was found in the Steppes, I'm not debating the possibility that it is Indo-Iranian (which is an offshoot of PIE anyway). R-M417 IS the ancestor of Z93, oldest sample of M417 is found in the Pontic Steppe, again supporting an origin in territory where Indo-European people originated.
 
I just said it was found in the Steppes, I'm not debating the possibility that it is Indo-Iranian (which is an offshoot of PIE anyway). R-M417 IS the ancestor of Z93, oldest sample of M417 is found in the Pontic Steppe, again supporting an origin in territory where Indo-European people originated.

Please mention your source about M417, Underhill says M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/
 
Mathieson et. al. (2017)
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-genomic-history-of-southeastern.html?m=1

Author of Eurogenes blog provides data table of ALL samples of this study, if a study focuses primarily on autosomal DNA raw data files of the DNA can be analysed to acquire information on uniparental haplogroups.

Here is the sample in question:
Analysis: Ukraine_Eneolithic
Culture: Ukraine_Eneolithic
ID: I6561
Y-DNA: R1a1a1 (M417)
mtDNA: H2a1a
Avg date: 6200 BCE
Date: 5000-3500 BCE
Location: Alexandria
Country: Ukraine
Gender: M
Coverage: 1.422
SNPs: 738661

By the way, Underhill et. al. (2014/2015) had highlighted two branches of R-M417, an Eastern European group and a Central South Asian group (Z93) this is congruent with the ancient sample of Z93 being more to the east of the Steppes, which fits with a migration to central Asia and beyond.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 160868 times.

Back
Top