Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 494

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

  1. #51
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    273
    Points
    7,994
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,994, Level: 26
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    The R-M417 individual in that FTDNA project is NOT only R-M417, he is https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z29137/, as you can see this branch is DOWNSTREAM of Z93, which again the oldest sample of which was found in Russia, NW of Kazakhstan. Z93 is considered the Central & South Asian branch. Specifically according to YFulls tree the individual from the FTDNA project is R-Z29137* which means he is so far negative for any known downstream SNPs of Z29137, others on this branch can be found with ancestry from Pakistan, Yemen, and India.
    That linked molgen post is from 2012 and specific downstream testing hadn't been ordered by the kit-holders at FTDNA. In 2012 my own haplogroup wasn't labelled what it is now.


    Just a heads up, we should be referring to haplogroups in their shorthand form for simplicity, so instead of the various letters and numbers we simply take the main part of the haplogroup like R and then attach the SNP in discussion or the terminal SNP. So instead of some giant term we get a simplistic term like R-Z29137, however you can modify this for clarity if need be to R1a-Z29137.

  2. #52
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    I think it is better that we focus on haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 which has the highest frequency in the west of Iran, if you prove that it couldn't be related to the Germanic people then it can be said that Germanic people didn't migrate directly from the west of Iran to the north Europe.

  3. #53
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    273
    Points
    7,994
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,994, Level: 26
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Haak et. al. (2015) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/013433v1.full

    Eupedia: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yam...ml#Y-DNA_mtDNA

    We already have an ancient sample of L23 in the Samara region within Yamnaya dominated cultural area. Modern distribution does not necessarily line up with ancient information, example being R1b was not the earliest haplogroup in Europe, yet it is the most dominant, yet the earliest haplogroups within Europe are the least dominant. On top of that the downstream clade, Z2103 is also found in the same area within the same era, Z2103 is fairly prominent in Asian populations, however ancient samples of it place it in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, again...

  4. #54
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    But about linguistics, you have actually nothing to say, you can't find even one word from a northern European language with Germanic sound shift in proto-Germanic, as I mentioned in another thread, linguists talk about thousands Germanic loanwords with Germanic sound shifts from Akkadian language, such as proto-Germanic *hanap- "hemp" from Akkadian kanabu "hemp", proto-Germanic ertho "earth" from Akkadian eretu "earth", proto-Germanic *silubra "silver" from Akkadian salapu "silver", ...
    Well, that can be easily explained considering that the only Northern European languages that might have been in close contact with Proto-Germanic and Pre-Proto-Germanic are perhaps Baltic languages (doubtful, because toponyms and genetics indicate that the present Balts might have come from further east in Belarus and Russia) and a few Finno-Ugric languages (and not for a very long time, because the Finno-Ugric languages seem to have spread to the Baltic/North Sea area only in the early Iron Age, replacing other arguably IE and non-IE languages; see the very recent paper on the spread of Siberian ancestry and N1c in Northeastern Europe). The other North European languages were simply superseded by Proto-Germanic and its Germanic descendants, so we will never know if and how much those languages had borrowed words from the Germanic group of languages. Celtic languages south of the North Sea also vanished without written attestation. It's actually pretty amazing that we still have so many clearly Proto-Germanic loanwords in Baltic Finno-Ugric languages and in Baltic IE languages.

    Most of the supposedly certain borrowings from and to Proto-Germanic that you mention are entirely based on sound similarity, which is basically the most amateur and primitive way of doing historical linguistics. Sound-alikes and semantic connections between similar-sounding words is just not enough if you can't derive regular sound rules from them which would apply to several other suppposed borrowings in the same positions in the word. For example, how exactly Proto-Germanic *saiwiz (not *saiwa) derives from *sewa, what explains the appearance of an original diphthong /aj/ instead of a simple /e/ that of course existed as a phoneme in PGM? Why the *-iz ending instead of *-a? Why are you comparing Semitic Gad with the Proto-Germanic word for God, which was clearly different, *gudhan from earlier *guthóm? Will you claim a borrowing based on such vague and weak similarities?

    Besides, you're being extremely anachronistic when you compare Bronze Age Akkadian with reconstructed Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic represents a stage of the language evolution of the Germanic language group that was spoken around 2500-2000 years ago. It was of course not the same language (a pre-PGM one) that was spoken 3500 or 4000 years ago. If attributing words of a language to another language based on sound similarity alone is already problematic, let alone if you compare languages that are many centuries apart from each other, so that obviously the sound similarity may be much more deceiving than you think. Some of your reconstructed forms are also based on wishful thinking to make the word more similar to, and you neglect the very plausible (and also attested in other IE subgroups) PIE roots of some woerds, like *Ansuz, which is clearly based on the same root as Proto-Indo-European *nsura- and can be directly derived from the PIE root *h2ens- "spirit, vital force, spiritual energy", with no need for an "exotic borrowing".

    Other implausible and even fanciful connections can be noticed. Who are those linguists you're basing yourself on? Why would Proto-Germanic *ertho come from Akkadian *eretu when the latter meant "underworld" and the former "earth, our world"? Would Germanic people think they live in the abode of the dead, that earth is the dreary underworld? Nonsense. It obviously makes much more sense that it comes from PIE *h1er- with a suffix attached, since *h1er- also meant "earth, ground, land"

    The Akkadian-Germanic "connection" you assume on what refers to cardinal numbers makes no sense when you consider that all Semitic languages have those same numbers, and they can be reconstructed as *shb-, shab- and clearly connected with Egyptian *sfhw-, which is millennia apart from Proto-Semitic in the Afro-Asiatic tree. So, it's clearly a native word, and even if it weren't it has only a vague similarity to Proto-Germanic (an how do you know how PGM sebun sounded like when Proto-Semitic was still spoken? It didn't even exist, probably Late PIE dialects were still spoken). Why on earth would Akkadian shesh come from IA Proto-Germanic if that same word already existed in Proto-Semitic and PIE had *swek's/sek's, which is just a similar to shesh and *sehs. You're perhaps too personally invested in this one hypothesis you're clinging to. If anything it's a borrowing from PIE, not from Proto-Germanic, which would be ridiculous considering Proto-Semitic was spoken much before reconstructed PGM existed with all its peculiar phonetic features.

    Honestly, if genetics don't make your case any stronger (and it definitely doesn't), your linguistic assertions are also very doubtful and in some cases fanciful.

  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Well, that can be easily explained considering that the only Northern European languages that might have been in close contact with Proto-Germanic and Pre-Proto-Germanic are perhaps Baltic languages (doubtful, because toponyms and genetics indicate that the present Balts might have come from further east in Belarus and Russia) and a few Finno-Ugric languages (and not for a very long time, because the Finno-Ugric languages seem to have spread to the Baltic/North Sea area only in the early Iron Age, replacing other arguably IE and non-IE languages; see the very recent paper on the spread of Siberian ancestry and N1c in Northeastern Europe). The other North European languages were simply superseded by Proto-Germanic and its Germanic descendants, so we will never know if and how much those languages had borrowed words from the Germanic group of languages. Celtic languages south of the North Sea also vanished without written attestation. It's actually pretty amazing that we still have so many clearly Proto-Germanic loanwords in Baltic Finno-Ugric languages and in Baltic IE languages.

    Most of the supposedly certain borrowings from and to Proto-Germanic that you mention are entirely based on sound similarity, which is basically the most amateur and primitive way of doing historical linguistics. Sound-alikes and semantic connections between similar-sounding words is just not enough if you can't derive regular sound rules from them which would apply to several other suppposed borrowings in the same positions in the word. For example, how exactly Proto-Germanic *saiwiz (not *saiwa) derives from *sewa, what explains the appearance of an original diphthong /aj/ instead of a simple /e/ that of course existed as a phoneme in PGM? Why the *-iz ending instead of *-a? Why are you comparing Semitic Gad with the Proto-Germanic word for God, which was clearly different, *gudhan from earlier *guthóm? Will you claim a borrowing based on such vague and weak similarities?

    Besides, you're being extremely anachronistic when you compare Bronze Age Akkadian with reconstructed Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic represents a stage of the language evolution of the Germanic language group that was spoken around 2500-2000 years ago. It was of course not the same language (a pre-PGM one) that was spoken 3500 or 4000 years ago. If attributing words of a language to another language based on sound similarity alone is already problematic, let alone if you compare languages that are many centuries apart from each other, so that obviously the sound similarity may be much more deceiving than you think. Some of your reconstructed forms are also based on wishful thinking to make the word more similar to, and you neglect the very plausible (and also attested in other IE subgroups) PIE roots of some woerds, like *Ansuz, which is clearly based on the same root as Proto-Indo-European *nsura- and can be directly derived from the PIE root *h2ens- "spirit, vital force, spiritual energy", with no need for an "exotic borrowing".

    Other implausible and even fanciful connections can be noticed. Who are those linguists you're basing yourself on? Why would Proto-Germanic *ertho come from Akkadian *eretu when the latter meant "underworld" and the former "earth, our world"? Would Germanic people think they live in the abode of the dead, that earth is the dreary underworld? Nonsense. It obviously makes much more sense that it comes from PIE *h1er- with a suffix attached, since *h1er- also meant "earth, ground, land"

    The Akkadian-Germanic "connection" you assume on what refers to cardinal numbers makes no sense when you consider that all Semitic languages have those same numbers, and they can be reconstructed as *shb-, shab- and clearly connected with Egyptian *sfhw-, which is millennia apart from Proto-Semitic in the Afro-Asiatic tree. So, it's clearly a native word, and even if it weren't it has only a vague similarity to Proto-Germanic (an how do you know how PGM sebun sounded like when Proto-Semitic was still spoken? It didn't even exist, probably Late PIE dialects were still spoken). Why on earth would Akkadian shesh come from IA Proto-Germanic if that same word already existed in Proto-Semitic and PIE had *swek's/sek's, which is just a similar to shesh and *sehs. You're perhaps too personally invested in this one hypothesis you're clinging to. If anything it's a borrowing from PIE, not from Proto-Germanic, which would be ridiculous considering Proto-Semitic was spoken much before reconstructed PGM existed with all its peculiar phonetic features.

    Honestly, if genetics don't make your case any stronger (and it definitely doesn't), your linguistic assertions are also very doubtful and in some cases fanciful.
    I don't really see any difference between you and those who claim Iranian language originated in Iran, Turkish language originated in Turkey, ... All of you use the same logic, there are many Turkish words in Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, Albanian, ... but we can't any word from those languages in Proto-Turkic, pan-Turks say it is clear because they didn't exist in this region when just proto-Turkic and Sumerian existed (as you probably know they believe Turkic and Sumerian have the same origin), and when I talk about several Iranian words in Turkic, they say this word has a different meaning, another one has a different vowel, so all of them are not from Iranian and just have Turkic origin, Turkish seems to have numerous prefixes and suffixes too, like what you said about the Germanic word for "earth", "er" means "ground" and we add a "th" then it means "earth", so it doesn't relate to Semitic words, like Hebrew erets or Arabic ardh with exact the same meaning of "earth".

  6. #56
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I don't really see any difference between you and those who claim Iranian language originated in Iran, Turkish language originated in Turkey, ... All of you use the same logic, there are many Turkish words in Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, Albanian, ... but we can't any word from those languages in Proto-Turkic, pan-Turks say it is clear because they didn't exist in this region when just proto-Turkic and Sumerian existed (as you probably know they believe Turkic and Sumerian have the same origin), and when I talk about several Iranian words in Turkic, they say this word has a different meaning, another one has a different vowel, so all of them are not from Iranian and just have Turkic origin, Turkish seems to have numerous prefixes and suffixes too, like what you said about the Germanic word for "earth", "er" means "ground" and we add a "th" then it means "earth", so it doesn't relate to Semitic words, like Hebrew erets or Arabic ardh with exact the same meaning of "earth".
    Nonsense again. If this situation were comparable to Turkic nationalists who claim Turkic has always been spoken in the Near East, we'd be claiming that Germanic's earlist language form (Proto-Indo-European) arose in Germanic countries, like some 19th century and early 20th century scholars from Germanic countries once asserted. We'd not be stating, based on loads of genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidences, that Germanic ultimately comes from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga rivers, which are not Germanic at all. By the way, many of the Finno-Ugric loanwords are clearly from reconstructed PROTO-Germanic, not from later Germanic languages. Why do you think I, a Brazilian of Portuguese, African and Native American descent, would favor "Germanic nationalism"? Come on. Conversely, I think we all have our reasons to find something suspicious about the fact that you neglect by definition any evidence against your Germanic = Iran hypothesis and cling to it fiercely when you are actually Iranian. But it's not my intention to make things that personal as you're trying to do.
    Last edited by Ygorcs; 17-05-19 at 01:03.

  7. #57
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    273
    Points
    7,994
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,994, Level: 26
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Cyrus, whenever you are proven wrong you resort to accusing people of nationalism, this is seen time and time again in various threads. The evidence for Germanic NOT originating in Iran is solid and stacked against your theory, what is so wrong with accepting the fact that modern genetic testing, archaeological evidence, professional work done by professional linguistics/comparative linguistics has consistently proven your theory wrong. It begins to look very suspect when you repeatedly ignore evidence presented to you that proves you are wrong. I don't understand this constant argument you have where you are trying to prove that Germanic is a subset of Indo-Iranian, it's fanciful...

  8. #58
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    02-02-19
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    167
    Points
    2,073
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,073, Level: 12
    Level completed: 75%, Points required for next Level: 77
    Overall activity: 9.0%


    Ethnic group
    Northern European
    Country: United States



    I don't get the motivation behind this I guess....

  9. #59
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Cyrus, whenever you are proven wrong you resort to accusing people of nationalism, this is seen time and time again in various threads. The evidence for Germanic NOT originating in Iran is solid and stacked against your theory, what is so wrong with accepting the fact that modern genetic testing, archaeological evidence, professional work done by professional linguistics/comparative linguistics has consistently proven your theory wrong. It begins to look very suspect when you repeatedly ignore evidence presented to you that proves you are wrong. I don't understand this constant argument you have where you are trying to prove that Germanic is a subset of Indo-Iranian, it's fanciful...
    You even don't know what my theory is, there is absolutely no relation between Germanic (R1a-R1b hybrid) and Indo-Iranian (Z95), there is also no relation between Iran and Indo-Iranian, I say people who live in the west of Iran (also R1a-R1b hybrid an no Z95) relate to the Germanic people.

  10. #60
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Nonsense again. If this situation were comparable to Turkic nationalists who claim Turkic has always been spoken in the Near East, we'd be claiming that Germanic's earlist language form (Proto-Indo-European) arose in Germanic countries, like some 19th century and early 20th century scholars from Germanic countries once asserted. We'd not be stating, based on loads of genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidences, that Germanic ultimately comes from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga rivers, which are not Germanic at all. By the way, many of the Finno-Ugric loanwords are clearly from reconstructed PROTO-Germanic, not from later Germanic languages. Why do you think I, a Brazilian of Portuguese, African and Native American descent, would favor "Germanic nationalism"? Come on. Conversely, I think we all have our reasons to find something suspicious about the fact that you neglect by definition any evidence against your Germanic = Iran hypothesis and cling to it fiercely when you are actually Iranian. But it's not my intention to make things that personal as you're trying to do.
    I also certainly believe that in 500 BC after Persian and Scythian conquests "Germanic came from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga", Germanic people didn't fly from Iran to Scandinavia, we see some sound changes in Germanic, like x>h, in Europe too, but the problem is that you believe these people who lived near Dniester (a Scythian name which dates back to 500 BC) were proto-Indo-European (or had a language almost the same as PIE) and Germanic sound shifts in 500 BC were from this language!

  11. #61
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    hrvclv's Avatar
    Join Date
    14-03-17
    Location
    Auvergne, France
    Posts
    400
    Points
    8,589
    Level
    27
    Points: 8,589, Level: 27
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 161
    Overall activity: 10.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    Arvern
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Poll :

    Is Cyrus... 1) a very stupid pseudo-historian... or... 2) a very clever t-roll ?

    My vote : #2
    It is therefore worth while to search out the bounds between opinion and knowledge; and examine by what measures, in things whereof we have no certain knowledge, we ought to regulate our assent and moderate our persuasion. (John Locke)

  12. #62
    Moderator Achievements:
    1 year registeredTagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Community Award

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,703
    Points
    25,513
    Level
    48
    Points: 25,513, Level: 48
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 37
    Overall activity: 11.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I also certainly believe that in 500 BC after Persian and Scythian conquests "Germanic came from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga", Germanic people didn't fly from Iran to Scandinavia, we see some sound changes in Germanic, like x>h, in Europe too, but the problem is that you believe these people who lived near Dniester (a Scythian name which dates back to 500 BC) were proto-Indo-European (or had a language almost the same as PIE) and Germanic sound shifts in 500 BC were from this language!
    Hahaha, it's almost unbelievable that you still don't seem to have understood what I wrote in a very detailed and patient way more than once in this thread. I give up now. You're either ********, or you lack so much basic knowledge about this subject that you're incapable of interpreting even the simplest texts about historical linguistics and ancient genetics (e.g. what does it matter if Dniester is a Scythian name? We're talking about a geographical location where people lived in the Copper Age, the place obviously predates the toponym! And do you really still believe that Proto-Germanic appeared fully formed right from PIE instead of evolving through many intermediary languages from PIE until Proto-Germanic? Didn't you get even the very simple Latin analogy I made? You must be kidding, dude! lol). I won't keep circling around your proud ignorance and evident interpretation issues.

  13. #63
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Hahaha, it's almost unbelievable that you still don't seem to have understood what I wrote in a very detailed and patient way more than once in this thread. I give up now. You're either ********, or you lack so much basic knowledge about this subject that you're incapable of interpreting even the simplest texts about historical linguistics and ancient genetics (e.g. what does it matter if Dniester is a Scythian name? We're talking about a geographical location where people lived in the Copper Age, the place obviously predates the toponym! And do you really still believe that Proto-Germanic appeared fully formed right from PIE instead of evolving through many intermediary languages from PIE until Proto-Germanic? Didn't you get even the very simple Latin analogy I made? You must be kidding, dude! lol). I won't keep circling around your proud ignorance and evident interpretation issues.
    I think you also believe almost the same thing that I believe, we have sound shifts directly from proto-IE to proto-Germanic, like k>x, which didn't happen in 500 BC in the north of Europe, but some other sound changes, like x>h, which happened there. There is actually a huge difference between what you say and German nationalists say.

  14. #64
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    273
    Points
    7,994
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,994, Level: 26
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by hrvclv View Post
    Poll :
    Is Cyrus... 1) a very stupid pseudo-historian... or... 2) a very clever t-roll ?
    My vote : #2
    I don't know, but he certainly has persistence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Hahaha, it's almost unbelievable that you still don't seem to have understood what I wrote in a very detailed and patient way more than once in this thread. I give up now. You're either ********, or you lack so much basic knowledge about this subject that you're incapable of interpreting even the simplest texts about historical linguistics and ancient genetics (e.g. what does it matter if Dniester is a Scythian name? We're talking about a geographical location where people lived in the Copper Age, the place obviously predates the toponym! And do you really still believe that Proto-Germanic appeared fully formed right from PIE instead of evolving through many intermediary languages from PIE until Proto-Germanic? Didn't you get even the very simple Latin analogy I made? You must be kidding, dude! lol). I won't keep circling around your proud ignorance and evident interpretation issues.
    Being provided genetic evidence, linguistic evidence, etc apparently isn't convincing enough. Oh well.

  15. #65
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    I wish instead of Germanic people, they were an African or east Asian people who lived in the west of Iran in the ancient times, it would be even possible that some of them help me in my research.

  16. #66
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    273
    Points
    7,994
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,994, Level: 26
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I wish instead of Germanic people, they were an African or east Asian people who lived in the west of Iran in the ancient times, it would be even possible that some of them help me in my research.
    What are you even saying? So because people on this forum are showing evidence that the theory you have been discussing in several threads is incorrect that you wish that instead of Germanic people they were other people who would help you in your research, because they would be less inclined to refute your theories with scientific evidence? What are you saying exactly?

    None of us in this thread seem to define ourselves as "Germanic", we are simply providing evidence that the ancestors of Germanic people did not originate in Western Iran and they originated in the western steppes of Eurasia and they eventually migrated to Northern Europe and fused with several peoples to develop what would become Germanic culture.

    I don't know how many more times it needs to be laid out in front of you be it through genetic, archaeological, linguistic or other evidence (not restricted to this thread), but the Germanic people or their language did not originate in Western Iran or among the various tribes you mention in this area.

    You've mentioned various areas in Iran (Kerman, etc) where you believe Germanic populations to have dwelled and you have even said that the Romans were talking about Iran when discussing Germanic tribes when in reality the Romans were very pointedly discussing an area east of Gaul across the river Rhine (can be seen in Latin terms such as Germani cisrhenani, Germani transrhenani). You accuse people who deny your claims of "nationalism" when the very Iran-centric theory you propose seems suspect of the very thing you are accusing others of. I don't mean to make this a personal thing, but all of these threads are devolving into the same circular discussion: theory presented, evidence supplied, evidence ignored or passed over, resurrect theory with the same incorrect argument, repeat

    I'm not sure what the motivation is exactly to try and propose an Indo-Iranian or Iranian origin for the Germanic people is, but the evidence just isn't there, isn't it far easier to come to the same conclusions as all the other researchers who've looked over the current evidence and come to the same conclusions? (see Ygorcs various posts!)

  17. #67
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

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

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    @Spruithean
    Thanks for very worthful links.

    Aside, is not your pseudo a gaelic one (spite the 'p')?

  18. #68
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    What are you even saying? So because people on this forum are showing evidence that the theory you have been discussing in several threads is incorrect that you wish that instead of Germanic people they were other people who would help you in your research, because they would be less inclined to refute your theories with scientific evidence? What are you saying exactly?

    None of us in this thread seem to define ourselves as "Germanic", we are simply providing evidence that the ancestors of Germanic people did not originate in Western Iran and they originated in the western steppes of Eurasia and they eventually migrated to Northern Europe and fused with several peoples to develop what would become Germanic culture.

    I don't know how many more times it needs to be laid out in front of you be it through genetic, archaeological, linguistic or other evidence (not restricted to this thread), but the Germanic people or their language did not originate in Western Iran or among the various tribes you mention in this area.

    You've mentioned various areas in Iran (Kerman, etc) where you believe Germanic populations to have dwelled and you have even said that the Romans were talking about Iran when discussing Germanic tribes when in reality the Romans were very pointedly discussing an area east of Gaul across the river Rhine (can be seen in Latin terms such as Germani cisrhenani, Germani transrhenani). You accuse people who deny your claims of "nationalism" when the very Iran-centric theory you propose seems suspect of the very thing you are accusing others of. I don't mean to make this a personal thing, but all of these threads are devolving into the same circular discussion: theory presented, evidence supplied, evidence ignored or passed over, resurrect theory with the same incorrect argument, repeat

    I'm not sure what the motivation is exactly to try and propose an Indo-Iranian or Iranian origin for the Germanic people is, but the evidence just isn't there, isn't it far easier to come to the same conclusions as all the other researchers who've looked over the current evidence and come to the same conclusions? (see Ygorcs various posts!)
    The problem is that, as Ygorcs has said several times, you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW anything about the Germanic culture before 500 BC, this is your only evidence, for example when I say Asgard in the Germanic sources (which according to the same Germanic sources, was in Asia) was the same land of Asagarta in Iran, you don't say that this land was in Sweden or Germany but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW where it was, or when I say what we read about Adon in ancient Babylonian sources is almost the same as Odin, you don't say we have these evidences that Odin was the chief god in Sweden or Denmark before 500 BC but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW ... In fact your only evidence about the existence of Germanic culture in the north of Europe before 500 BC is that you have no evidence!

  19. #69
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    273
    Points
    7,994
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,994, Level: 26
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    The problem is that, as Ygorcs has said several times, you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW anything about the Germanic culture before 500 BC, this is your only evidence, for example when I say Asgard in the Germanic sources (which according to the same Germanic sources, was in Asia) was the same land of Asagarta in Iran, you don't say that this land was in Sweden or Germany but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW where it was, or when I say what we read about Adon in ancient Babylonian sources is almost the same as Odin, you don't say we have these evidences that Odin was the chief god in Sweden or Denmark before 500 BC but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW ... In fact your only evidence about the existence of Germanic culture in the north of Europe before 500 BC is that you have no evidence!
    The "Germanic source" you reference is the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturlusson written in the 13th century. Much of what he wrote was euphemism, conjecture and mythology. Relying on such an unreliable literary work as evidence for Germanic people coming from Asia is pushing it a bit far don't you think? There are other scholars who have different opinions stating that Odin/Thor were imported along with runes via Southern Europe (Elder & Younger Futhark have their roots in Cumae variant Greek alphabet, which in turn has its roots in the Phoenician alphabet), however that is again, conjecture at best.

    There is no archaeological evidence for such a migration out of Persia, and no coincidental spellings and shady etymology does not cut it here. We need verifiable evidence with fact.

    I have seen your other threads where you have shared images of various sculptures or other works from Northern Europe which look similar to those in parts of Iran, however whose to say that these are not the results of cultural diffusion? Cultural diffusion and trade with Scandinavia/North Germany's southern neighbours makes more sense than some great trek. We already know that Mediterranean based civilizations acquired various items from the civilizations outside their borders.

    I should add that archaeological evidence for a Northern European origin of Germanic can be seen in the continuity of Nordic Bronze Age cultures in southern Scandinavia and Schleswig-Holstein, this is also supported by Ancient DNA evidence.

    Cyrus, would you be willing to lay out all evidence for your Germanic "Out of Persia" theory. I'm not against your theory or any new theory ever becoming a verified fact, in fact I encourage that these subjects be researched, however we can't base our theories off of things that just don't have enough weight behind them. That is why I and others challenge you on this.

  20. #70
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    The "Germanic source" you reference is the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturlusson written in the 13th century. Much of what he wrote was euphemism, conjecture and mythology. Relying on such an unreliable literary work as evidence for Germanic people coming from Asia is pushing it a bit far don't you think? There are other scholars who have different opinions stating that Odin/Thor were imported along with runes via Southern Europe (Elder & Younger Futhark have their roots in Cumae variant Greek alphabet, which in turn has its roots in the Phoenician alphabet), however that is again, conjecture at best.

    There is no archaeological evidence for such a migration out of Persia, and no coincidental spellings and shady etymology does not cut it here. We need verifiable evidence with fact.

    I have seen your other threads where you have shared images of various sculptures or other works from Northern Europe which look similar to those in parts of Iran, however whose to say that these are not the results of cultural diffusion? Cultural diffusion and trade with Scandinavia/North Germany's southern neighbours makes more sense than some great trek. We already know that Mediterranean based civilizations acquired various items from the civilizations outside their borders.

    I should add that archaeological evidence for a Northern European origin of Germanic can be seen in the continuity of Nordic Bronze Age cultures in southern Scandinavia and Schleswig-Holstein, this is also supported by Ancient DNA evidence.

    Cyrus, would you be willing to lay out all evidence for your Germanic "Out of Persia" theory. I'm not against your theory or any new theory ever becoming a verified fact, in fact I encourage that these subjects be researched, however we can't base our theories off of things that just don't have enough weight behind them. That is why I and others challenge you on this.
    Ok, in 500 BC some people from Gothland (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the north of Europe came to Gotvand (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the southwest of Iran, bought many objects and came back!

    It is not my fault that Europeans are not interested to research about the origin of Germanic people, of course we see some incomplete works, like "In Search of the Gods, Scandinavian Ancestry" by Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl:

    "We learn of the line of royal families in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. But we didn't take these stories about our beginnings seriously because they were so ancient. We thought it was just imagination, just mythology. The actual years for the lineage of historic kings began around the year 800 AD. So we learned all the kings in the 1,000 years that followed and did not interest ourselves in earlier names.

    But I remember from my childhood that the mythology started with the god named Odin. From Odin it took 31 generations to reach the first historic king. The record of Odin says that he came to Northern Europe from the land of Aser. I started reading these pages again and saw that this was not mythology at all, but actual history and geography.

    Snorre, who recorded these stories, started by describing Europe, Asia and Africa, all with their correct names, Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea with their old Norse names, the Black Sea with the names we use today again, and the river Don with its old Greek name, Tanais. So, I realized that this has nothing to do with the gods who lived with the Thunder god Thor among the clouds.

    Snorre said that the homeland of the Asers was east of the Black Sea. He said this was the land that chief Odin had, a big country. He gave the exact description: it was east of the Black Sea, south of a large mountain range on the border between Europe and Asia, and extended southward towards the land of the Turks. This had nothing to do with mythology, it was on this planet, on Earth.

    ..."


    Thor Heyerdahl in 1994 at the Gobustan caves in Azerbaijan. He believed these rock carvings of boats which date back to the 3rd millennium BC were created by the Germanic people.

  21. #71
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    I have a genetic question: Why we see a large number of blonde people in the west of Iran, especially around Gotvand/Dezful? One of the most famous people who was born in this region is Mohammad-Ali Ramin, Iran's former Vice Minister of Culture and a presidential advisor:


    You have probably read about the physical appearance of ancient Gutians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian...cal_appearance

    Some photos of rural people in Gotvand/Dezful area in the north of Khuzistan: http://www.khouznews.ir/fa/news/17227/%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1



    Last edited by Cyrus; 19-05-19 at 10:21.

  22. #72
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    I asked about this person in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...his-famous-man


    Halfalp replied: "It's Ragnar Lodbrok (Norse Viking hero and legendary king of Denmark and Sweden)! I mean't Hassan Khomeini (the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic Republic)". His mother Fatemeh Tabatabai is also a Lur from the west of Iran.

  23. #73
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    spruithean's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-08-12
    Posts
    273
    Points
    7,994
    Level
    26
    Points: 7,994, Level: 26
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 156
    Overall activity: 38.0%


    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    @Spruithean
    Thanks for very worthful links.

    Aside, is not your pseudo a gaelic one (spite the 'p')?
    My username is a combo of an obscure Gaelic word and a Dutch word.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Ok, in 500 BC some people from Gothland (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the north of Europe came to Gotvand (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the southwest of Iran, bought many objects and came back!

    It is not my fault that Europeans are not interested to research about the origin of Germanic people, of course we see some incomplete works, like "In Search of the Gods, Scandinavian Ancestry" by Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl:

    "We learn of the line of royal families in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. But we didn't take these stories about our beginnings seriously because they were so ancient. We thought it was just imagination, just mythology. The actual years for the lineage of historic kings began around the year 800 AD. So we learned all the kings in the 1,000 years that followed and did not interest ourselves in earlier names.

    But I remember from my childhood that the mythology started with the god named Odin. From Odin it took 31 generations to reach the first historic king. The record of Odin says that he came to Northern Europe from the land of Aser. I started reading these pages again and saw that this was not mythology at all, but actual history and geography.

    Snorre, who recorded these stories, started by describing Europe, Asia and Africa, all with their correct names, Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea with their old Norse names, the Black Sea with the names we use today again, and the river Don with its old Greek name, Tanais. So, I realized that this has nothing to do with the gods who lived with the Thunder god Thor among the clouds.

    Snorre said that the homeland of the Asers was east of the Black Sea. He said this was the land that chief Odin had, a big country. He gave the exact description: it was east of the Black Sea, south of a large mountain range on the border between Europe and Asia, and extended southward towards the land of the Turks. This had nothing to do with mythology, it was on this planet, on Earth.

    ..."


    Thor Heyerdahl in 1994 at the Gobustan caves in Azerbaijan. He believed these rock carvings of boats which date back to the 3rd millennium BC were created by the Germanic people.
    Heyerdahl's theory was met and is still met with fierce criticism. They cited that he relied on pseudo-archaeology, selective sourcing and improper and even blatant disregard for linguistic theory. I know he claimed that the Azeri peoples demonym was similar to Æsir, or that the city of Azov got its name from "as-hof" meaning Temple of the Æsir, however this is flawed as the name as perfectly reasonable explanations in Turkic languages. Instead of relying on old texts and coincidental linguistic similarities (between unrelated language families) we instead have turned to archaeological genetics (archaeogenetics) because it is now giving us a very good view of how each Bronze Age culture fit together. Heyerdahl also didn't seem to accept that individual cultures can stumble upon the same technological advancements, artwork, architecture, etc completely independently of anyone else, this is extremely flawed as we know many cultures FAR from Egypt built pyramids, many cultures built boats, etc.

    We need to be very careful when consulting old kings lists of nations that had Germanic kings, especially when the names of deities are in the list. Many kings claimed descent from a god to legitimize their claim on the throne, examples being Anglo-Saxon kings, Swedish kings, Danish kings, etc. To provide an example from Anglo-Saxon England in the kingdom of Bernicia the royal genealogy featured a female ancestor with the name Bearnoch, this queen was most likely fictional and simply used as a way to legitimize the royal families placement on the throne of a former Brythonic kingdom. These ancient genealogies need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

    Thank you for sharing, Cyrus.

    Now in regards to the images of the phenotypes you shared, these can be easily explained and they do not have to be the influence of a "Germanic" presence in Iran or related lands. We know Indo-European migrations took place and a light complexion was present in the Indo-European groups who migrated into what would become Iran and parts of India. I don't see why it needs to be a result of an extremely earlier migration of Germanic groups. It could even be better explained by the Kievan Rus' expeditions in the Caspian sea, especially in the Caspian sea port cities of Iran and neighbouring places.

  24. #74
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by spruithean View Post
    Heyerdahl's theory was met and is still met with fierce criticism. They cited that he relied on pseudo-archaeology, selective sourcing and improper and even blatant disregard for linguistic theory. I know he claimed that the Azeri peoples demonym was similar to Æsir, or that the city of Azov got its name from "as-hof" meaning Temple of the Æsir, however this is flawed as the name as perfectly reasonable explanations in Turkic languages. Instead of relying on old texts and coincidental linguistic similarities (between unrelated language families) we instead have turned to archaeological genetics (archaeogenetics) because it is now giving us a very good view of how each Bronze Age culture fit together. Heyerdahl also didn't seem to accept that individual cultures can stumble upon the same technological advancements, artwork, architecture, etc completely independently of anyone else, this is extremely flawed as we know many cultures FAR from Egypt built pyramids, many cultures built boats, etc.

    We need to be very careful when consulting old kings lists of nations that had Germanic kings, especially when the names of deities are in the list. Many kings claimed descent from a god to legitimize their claim on the throne, examples being Anglo-Saxon kings, Swedish kings, Danish kings, etc. To provide an example from Anglo-Saxon England in the kingdom of Bernicia the royal genealogy featured a female ancestor with the name Bearnoch, this queen was most likely fictional and simply used as a way to legitimize the royal families placement on the throne of a former Brythonic kingdom. These ancient genealogies need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

    Thank you for sharing, Cyrus.

    Now in regards to the images of the phenotypes you shared, these can be easily explained and they do not have to be the influence of a "Germanic" presence in Iran or related lands. We know Indo-European migrations took place and a light complexion was present in the Indo-European groups who migrated into what would become Iran and parts of India. I don't see why it needs to be a result of an extremely earlier migration of Germanic groups. It could even be better explained by the Kievan Rus' expeditions in the Caspian sea, especially in the Caspian sea port cities of Iran and neighbouring places.
    The only important thing about Thor Heyerdahl is that he tried to find some historical facts but he was not accurate in finding the original land and for this reason his work is incomplete and has many errors.
    About Egyptian and pyramids, if you find a far culture very similar to the Egyptian culture with the same name of Egyptian and with genetic similarities, who also built similar pyramids, I say they certainly relate to each other.
    I think you didn't get what I meant about those photos, I just wanted to compare them to ancient Gutians who lived in the same region with the same physical appearance from at least 3rd millennium BC, of course it is possible that they also migrated to this land in older times, but in all probability they were neither Germanic nor Iranian, but an original Indo-European people with haplogroup R1b.

  25. #75
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    422
    Points
    1,418
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,418, Level: 10
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 132
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Country: Iran



    However I see there are enough linguistic evidences but language is just one of elements of a culture, when I say Germanic culture originated in the small land of Luristan in the west of Iran, there should be certainly other cultural evidences too.

    It can be said that all those Luristan style objects (1300-650 BC) in Gotland and other parts of Scandinavia are the result of trade (when? how? we don't know), it is at least shows there were contacts between these two lands before 500 BC, but what about cultural similarities?

    For example about Horse Sacrifice at Eketorp Fort, Sweden (500 BC), we read:


Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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