What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

Poll :

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

My vote : #2
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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!)
 
@Spruithean
Thanks for very worthful links.

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

..."

82_594_heyerdahl_colored.jpg

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.
 
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:
2jl9_aramin.jpg


You have probably read about the physical appearance of ancient Gutians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#Physical_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

n3667258-6831327.jpg


z2y_bakhtiari.jpg
 
Last edited:
@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.

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.

..."

82_594_heyerdahl_colored.jpg

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.
 
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.
 
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:

horse.jpg
 
Because we know that Gothic language (language is not necessarily tied to DNA) survivedjust in an isolated mountainous corner of Crimea (it was really a remote remnant, not a thriving language there), and we also know from countless ancient documents as well as archaeological evidence that Goths had a massive emigration from their Eastern European homeland into the Balkans and later to Western Europe (an in their Eastern European homeland they were almost certainly already heavily mixed with local non-Germanic people - you know, people's language is not dependant on people's genetics, people can keep their language even if they mix with and absorb others). Besides, it's always a mistake to assume that present-day Y-DNA haplogroups in any area are representative of the Y-DNA makeup ~1,700 years ago. It's not just that people move, mix or are displaced or replaced genetically. It's also that due to many random factors some lineages are successful here, but not there, some boom and some bust (or boom and then bust), and we all know how incredibly tumultuous the history of the former homeland of Goths has been in the last 1500 years. Even in the absence of any major genetic change (autosomally), the Y-DNA distribution may change completely just due to genetic drift. Modern Y-DNA distributions can and often are very deceiving, especially when we know for a fact that large-scale emigrations and immigrations happened.

EDIT: Also, of course, one needs to be reminded that the Goths were not "Proto-Germanic" nor some sort of "archaic Germanic" museum pieces. They were highly mobile people that together with other Eastern Germanic peoples formed a later branch descended from Proto-Germanic speakers. When we first know about them, they are contemporary to West Germanic people in Germany and North Germanic people in Scandinavia, they aren't some sort of "older people". It's useless to use them as some sort of proxies for what the earliest ancestors of those who would much later become Germanic speakers were like.
 
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:
2jl9_aramin.jpg


You have probably read about the physical appearance of ancient Gutians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people#Physical_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

n3667258-6831327.jpg


z2y_bakhtiari.jpg

Oh my God, are you - you, the one complaining about Germanic racism and nationalism a few messages earlier - getting into this ludicrous blonde = Germanic = Indo-European thing? Now this is just too much, because you previously had baseless claims, but at least they were purported to sound minimally scientific. Blonde hair and light eyes are not "Germanic", far less "Indo-European", and they certainly predate any PIE-speaking people's migration. Come on... Besides, these blonde-haired people of Iran and other parts of the Middle East (and we all know they're a minority even in the hotspots of blondeness in that region, let's be honest, ok?) do not look "Germanic", their features are different. There are more things about one's phenotype than the hair or eye color. And, of course, none of those visual traits say anything about the actual ancestry of the populatioin. Is that just a desperate "curiosity" because of the obvious fact that there is virtually no connection between Germanic-speaking populations and (ancient or modern) Iranian populationsin the last 4,000 years when you consider actual genetic ancestry? (and even parental markers, it's just disingenuous from you to portray Germanic and Iranian people as R1b+R1a hybrids, because first Iranian people are NOT just R1b+R1a, secondly there is no such a thing as 'R1b' or 'R1a' people at all, those are just paternal markers and not reliable indicators of a people's full genetic structure, and thirdly because obviously the main subclades of R1b and R1a found in higher frequency in Iran are NOT the same found in higher frequency in Germanic nations)
 
Because we know that Gothic language (language is not necessarily tied to DNA) survivedjust in an isolated mountainous corner of Crimea (it was really a remote remnant, not a thriving language there), and we also know from countless ancient documents as well as archaeological evidence that Goths had a massive emigration from their Eastern European homeland into the Balkans and later to Western Europe (an in their Eastern European homeland they were almost certainly already heavily mixed with local non-Germanic people - you know, people's language is not dependant on people's genetics, people can keep their language even if they mix with and absorb others). Besides, it's always a mistake to assume that present-day Y-DNA haplogroups in any area are representative of the Y-DNA makeup ~1,700 years ago. It's not just that people move, mix or are displaced or replaced genetically. It's also that due to many random factors some lineages are successful here, but not there, some boom and some bust (or boom and then bust), and we all know how incredibly tumultuous the history of the former homeland of Goths has been in the last 1500 years. Even in the absence of any major genetic change (autosomally), the Y-DNA distribution may change completely just due to genetic drift. Modern Y-DNA distributions can and often are very deceiving, especially when we know for a fact that large-scale emigrations and immigrations happened.
EDIT: Also, of course, one needs to be reminded that the Goths were not "Proto-Germanic" nor some sort of "archaic Germanic" museum pieces. They were highly mobile people that together with other Eastern Germanic peoples formed a later branch descended from Proto-Germanic speakers. When we first know about them, they are contemporary to West Germanic people in Germany and North Germanic people in Scandinavia, they aren't some sort of "older people". It's useless to use them as some sort of proxies for what the earliest ancestors of those who would much later become Germanic speakers were like.
I hope you don't say again that I didn't understand what you meant, do you mean the mass migration of Goths from Scandinavia to the southeast of Europe is a myth, yes? I think if there were genetic evidences from the ancient skeletons, you would certainly mention them.
And is it possible that we consider a real migration from the west of Iran (land of Gutians) to the southeast of Europe (land of Goths) and finally Scandinavia (Gotland)?

Haplogroup I:
Haplogroup-I.jpg


Haplogroup R1b:
03.png


New migration map of R1a:
R1a+spread.jpeg
 
Oh my God, are you - you, the one complaining about Germanic racism and nationalism a few messages earlier - getting into this ludicrous blonde = Germanic = Indo-European thing? Now this is just too much, because you previously had baseless claims, but at least they were purported to sound minimally scientific. Blonde hair and light eyes are not "Germanic", far less "Indo-European", and they certainly predate any PIE-speaking people's migration. Come on... Besides, these blonde-haired people of Iran and other parts of the Middle East (and we all know they're a minority even in the hotspots of blondeness in that region, let's be honest, ok?) do not look "Germanic", their features are different. There are more things about one's phenotype than the hair or eye color. And, of course, none of those visual traits say anything about the actual ancestry of the populatioin. Is that just a desperate "curiosity" because of the obvious fact that there is virtually no connection between Germanic-speaking populations and (ancient or modern) Iranian populationsin the last 4,000 years when you consider actual genetic ancestry? (and even parental markers, it's just disingenuous from you to portray Germanic and Iranian people as R1b+R1a hybrids, because first Iranian people are NOT just R1b+R1a, secondly there is no such a thing as 'R1b' or 'R1a' people at all, those are just paternal markers and not reliable indicators of a people's full genetic structure, and thirdly because obviously the main subclades of R1b and R1a found in higher frequency in Iran are NOT the same found in higher frequency in Germanic nations)

The fact is that the first thing that I read about Gutians in the ancient Akkadian sources and for this reason I researched about the possibility of their Germanic origin, was this historical fact that they were blonde. As you mentioned blonde people are a small minority in Iran, so it seems to be obvious that in the ancient times they left Iran and migrated to another land.
Of course blond hair dates back to at least 11,000 years ago, so it couldn't be related to neither Germanic, nor even Proto-Indo-European people but it can't be denied in the last thousand years it has been most common in the north of Europe where Germanic people live.
 

This thread has been viewed 161385 times.

Back
Top