What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

[nornosh]

We see some migrations of Scythians who were settling as east from Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan to west in Romania, W.Europe(Some groups) so Germanic tribes could too could have lived in S.Caucasia then migrating to W.Europe, but its theory right now.

 

[Cyrus]

If you're referring to the R1b-L23 > Z2103 sample that was found by western scientists and widely believed to have been an initial carbon dating mistake. That Hajji Firuz R1b-Z2103 was later estimated to date from the Early-Mid Bronze Age (when IE migrations were already happening into West Asia, they actually might've started in the Late Chalcolithic, so this Z2103 sample alone would hardly be a game-changer). As of now the oldest confirmed R1b-L23 (several samples, not just a sole outlier) are found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. In any case, R1b-L23 is certainly older than the bulk of the LPIE language dispersion, so its spread and reach was probably not limited to just speakers of one language in one area. Very few haplogroups are totally restricted , especially when the population in which it is found is not isolated geographically and genetically (and the early IEs were most definitely not isolated, either genetically, economically or geographically).

You really need to stop thinking that everyone who had the same haplogroup spoke the same language and belonged to the same ethnic group, and that entire populations had only one haplogroup in the past. Haplogroups are not people, haplogroups are not languages. There may be a correlation between those things, but they aren't the same. That is not how Y-DNA haplogroups work, and the aDNA records have proven that.

In any case, if you think that EBA R1b-Z2103 in Hajji Firuz proves anything in your "Iranian Germanic hypothesis", then I'm afraid you're again blinded by wishful thinking. R1b-Z2103 is not closely associated with the Germanic languages at all. Instead, the expansion of Germanic languages is mainly correlated with that of R1b-U106 (derived from L51), I1 and R1a-Z284, none of which have been demonstrated to exist in ancient Iran, let alone before the Bronze Age. Also, the Hajji Firuz sample lacked any steppe-like admixture which is found in very high proportion (as much as 40-60%) in the modern DNA and ancient DNA of Northern Europeans. It was actually full of Chalcolithic Iranian ancestry, which is not found in non-negligible proportions in most of Northern Europe. Autosomal DNA matters a lot, don't forget that.

I think you just want to fool me about the relations between these haplogroups, the same site which says Gutians were Tocharian, says a sample of R1b-U106 subclade has been found in Loebanr_IA, 950 BC, in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region. I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then R1b-U106 can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same R1b-U106 can't be related to Iran!!

 

[Cyrus]

It is interesting to mention that in the same region in the north of Pakistan, Kalash people live:

Isn't it strange that like anicent Gutians, they are also blonde?

 

[spruithean]

You yourself say that we don't see any real large population shift in Scandinavia from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age, so it is clear that proto-Indo-Europeans didn't migrate to Scandinavia but it was in the Late Bronze Age (about 500 BC) that the Germanic people migrated there.
As I have said several times I believe Gutians from Iran migrated to the western land of black sea, land of Getae/Goths, and then from this land they migrated to Scandinavia, there many genetic evidences about this migration.

Au contraire, do you know what is meant by population shift? A noticeable AUTOSOMAL shift. We don't see this. All we see is influx of haplogroups and haplogroup bottlenecks. Did you read the whole chapter on Northern European EEBA? I recommend you do as it gives context to the eventual Germanic peoples.

According to your source: "There is continuity in southern Scandinavia during the Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1100 BC), with three samples from Skåne showing hg. I-M170 (probably all I1-M253), and one from Denmark showing hg. R1b1a1b-M269 (xR1b1a1b1a1a2-P312), i.e. likely R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 (Allentoft et al. 2015). An LBA sample from Trundholm also shows hg. R1b1a1b1a1a-L151, clustering closer to central European BA compared to the previous samples from Scandinavia, which clustered between central European Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples (Mittnik, Wang, et al. 2018)."

Again with the omissions of context. You have done this with Dr. Horvath's paper.
Here it is with full context:

The best candidate for an original homeland of the Pre-Germanic dialect of North-West Indo-European migrating into Scandinavia is the Beaker culture of the Low Countries and the western part of the Northern European Plain (Kristiansen 2009). Samples of Bell Beakers and Barbed Wire Beakers from Oostwoud in the Netherlands (ca. 2500–1900 BC) show elevated Steppe ancestry (ca. 58%) and R1b1a1b1a1a2-P312 lineages, compatible with the admixture of Yamna lineages with local Corded Ware peoples.

Dutch–German lowland areas share cultural roots with the southern Scandinavian area (Butler, Arnoldussen, and Steegstra 2011/2012), which predate technological and economic exchanges between Urnfield and Northern Bronze Age Scandinavia (Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke 2015). Samples of the Bronze Age Elp culture from Oostwoud (ca. 1900–1600 BC) show Steppe ancestry (ca. 51%), and hg. R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106, which is consistent with the apparent Y-chromosome bottleneck of Scandinavian Bell Beakers, and thus with the development of a Pre-Germanic community first around Jutland.

Nordic Middle Neolithic samples include an individual from Kyndelöse (ca. 2900–2500 BC), of hg. R1a1a1b1a3a-Z284, subclade R1a1a1b1a3a2a1-Z281/CTS2243[51] (Allentoft et al. 2015), and a Late Neolithic sample from Ölsund, central-east Sweden (ca. 2600–2150 BC) shows hg R1a1a1b-Z645 (Mittnik, Wang, et al. 2018), both lineages related to Corded Ware settlers. A replacement of male lines is observed already during the Dagger Period, with two samples reported from Skåne, one from Lilla Bedinge (ca. 2150 BC) of hg. R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106[52], typical of incoming Bell Beakers, and another from Abbekås (ca. 1900 BC) of hg. I1-M253, proper of Neolithic Scandinavia. Dubious is the subclade of a sample from Marbjerg, Denmark (ca. 2080 BC), of hg. R1-M173 (Allentoft et al. 2015), although—based on later samples—probably also R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106.

There is continuity in southern Scandinavia during the Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1100 BC), with three samples from Skåne showing hg. I-M170 (probably all I1-M253), and one from Denmark showing hg. R1b1a1b-M269 (xR1b1a1b1a1a2-P312), i.e. likely R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 (Allentoft et al. 2015). An LBA sample from Trundholm also shows hg. R1b1a1b1a1a-L151, clustering closer to central European BA compared to the previous samples from Scandinavia, which clustered between central European Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples (Mittnik, Wang, et al. 2018).

These scarce samples probably reflect thus the expansion of Pre-Germanic-speaking R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 lineages from the Northern European Lowlands into southern Scandinavia, replacing previous Corded Ware/Battle Axe R1a1a1b1a3a-Z284 lineages in Jutland and the northern Scandinavian coastal areas around the Skagerrak strait, or displacing them to the inland. The close interaction of the newcomers with the Battle Axe culture in Scandinavia (characterised by the Y-chromosome bottleneck of R1a1a1b1a3a-Z284 lineages), connected with the eastern Baltic (see §viii.16. Finno-Saami), is evidenced by the evolution of a North-West Indo-European-like Pre-Germanic phonology to a Proto-Germanic stage with strong phonetic Uralisms, which is compatible with long-term Finno-Samic–Germanic bilingualism and with Finno-Samic bilingual speakers eventually becoming monolingual speakers of Germanic (Kallio 2001; Schrijver 2014).

Haplogroup I1-M253 (more accurately pre-I1) was reported previously only in a hunter-gatherer (ca. 7000 BC) from Gotland (Günther et al. 2017), and it is not clear the extent of its expansion when migrants occupied Scandinavia, first with the Corded Ware culture, and later with the Bell Beaker culture. TRB and Pitted Ware cultures coexisted ca. 3300–2800 BC in Gotland (Fraser, Sanchez-Quinto, et al. 2018), and a replacement of ca. 50% mtDNA haplogroups by steppe lineages during the EBA (ca. 1700–1100 BC) has been reported (Fraser, Sjödin, et al. 2018). Both facts suggest that I1-M253 lineages had a strong presence in southern Sweden at least before the arrival of Bell Beakers, and thrived once integrated into the new emerging Scandinavian Late Neolithic social structure, probably spreading to Jutland through the Kattegat sea area already mixed in different tribes with R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 lineages, before the migration period.

- Pre-I1 is my addition.

Naturally of course we know this isn't gospel, and things are subject to change overtime as things become more clear, but it is really quite clear that we have fairly strong evidence for an origin in Northern Europe for proto-Germanic. https://indo-european.eu/2019/04/pr...red-vocabulary-from-pitted-ware-seal-hunters/

These things don't prove that proto-Germanic people lived in Scandinavia in the Bronze age, they could be Celtic or another IE people, your source also talks about certain Celtic haplogroups in the Germanic lands, I don't think that you believe Germanic was a subbranch of Celtic?!

The most important point is that you also believe that the proto-Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, it is possible that there was another IE or non-IE language in this region but it couldn't be called proto-Germamic, for example in Britain we know a Celtic language existed but English is not a Celtic language and it can't be said without any migration, a Celtic language was changed to English!

I can never believe that a language exists in a land for a long time and without any important event, like migration, it is changed to another language. If there were just a few differences between the language which was spoken in the Nordic bronze age and proto-Germanic (like x>h that I mentioned) then the language of Nordic bronze age should be called Old Germanic, so it can't be said that Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC.

Whoever said that anyone said Germanic was a Celtic subbranch? Why do you constantly jump to conclusions? Northern Europe is the likely candidate of proto-Germanic, and again read more than just the entry "Germanic" from the link I provided to "A Game of Clans - A Clash of Chiefs" which has entries preceding it on the same URL for Pre-Roman IA, BA and Neolithic periods in Northern Europe (Jutland area included) it is again stated to be Northern Europe (this is a broad term and the Northern European Plain - which includes Jutland is implicated a lot) as a likely candidate for a Pre-Proto-Germanic dialect locale. Also you've ignored a good chunk of the context with your quote of the page I linked. Above in this response I quoted more for context.


I strongly believe that roots of Proto-Germanic did their developing in Northern Europe, in fact it more than likely did originate in Northern Europe. You continue to disagree with the common sense of this because it disagrees with your pet theory. Do you really think a language with Uralisms (Finno-Samic influence), Celtic influences, archaic words loaned out to Finnish and loanwords to Balto-Slavic was in or around the Zagros? Seriously? Is that parsimonious?

I strongly recommend you read the WHOLE chapter about Northern EEBA. Also, what "Celtic haplogroups"? No such thing. Only "haplogroups found more commonly among Celtic-speaking populations" this applies to all haplogroups and respective ethnolinguistic populations. No one says these cut and dry statements. Again, I will refer you to Post 132.

Oh, God... This thread deserves an AWARD of its own kind!!

I know. It's mind blowing how circular this thread is. But it is entertaining.

That is certainly IE and proto-Germanic was an IE language but it doesn't mean all Germanic words are from proto-IE, for example we know proto-Germanic *xanap- "hemp" by considering Germanic sound changes is from *kanab-, it is a loanword from Akkadian kanabu "hemp" and in Akkadian xanapin means "Gutian hempen cloth", this word still exists in Arabic as Arabic خنیف (xanif) with the same meaning of "hempen" (p>f is an Arabic sound change).

It is interesting to mention that this p>f sound change in Arabic (we see the same sound change in proto-Germanic) has caused many Arabic words seem to be the same as proto-Germanic words such as خف (xuf) "hoof", فرح (frah) "frolic", فرق (fragh) "fright", ...

Let's look at some of these words and others,

• hemp - Middle English hemp, hempe, henpe, henepe, henep, hanep from Old English henep, hænep from Proto-Germanic *hanapiz, which is a doublet of cannabis and canvas. Let's look at cannabis first: Borrowed from Latin cannabis from ancient Greek κάνναβις, a kulturwort of either Scythian or Thracian origin. Word ultimately not a Semitic borrowing into PGmc, but instead a borrowing from Latin from Greek. A likely relic of Phoenician and Greek contact. Which is a hell of a lot more likely than your proposed theory. Now canvas, from Middle English canevas, from Anglo-Norman from Old Northern French canevas, from Latin cannabis, from Ancient Greek κάνναβις. In Akkadian the kulturwort is qunnapu, Classical Syriac qnp, Arabic qinnab, Proto-Slavic *konopja, Lithuanian kanãpės, Old Prussian knapios, Vulgar Latin canapis, canapus, Middle Persian k'nb (kā̆naβ), Persian kanab, kanav North Kurdish konif, Sogdian kynp'/kēnapā, Chorasmian knb-ynk, Ossetian gæn, gænæ, Khotanese kamha, kumbā, Albanian kânëp, kërp, the list just goes on. Where is your evidence that qunnapu/kanabu means "Gutian hempen cloth" show me your sources, other wise this is leap and is pure conjecture. This is a kulturwort like the word computer. Kulturworts and wanderworts do not define a languages origins.
• sack - from Old English sacc and sæcc from late PGmc *sakkuz borrowed from Latin saccus which was borrowed from ancient Greek σάκκος (sákkos) which is borrowed from Semitic, likely Phoenician because well you know these two groups, Greeks and Phoenicians encountered one another.
• hoof - from Middle English hoof, hof from Old English hōf, from proto-Germanic *hōfaz from PIE *ḱoph₂ós. The Arabic word you cite, خف has a different etymology. The Arabic word for hoof is ḥāfir with a different etymology than the Germanic roots for hoof, there only possible connection is a PIE loanword from a non-IE language, and this goes for ALL derivatives of the root PIE word for hoof (*ḱoph₂ós)
• frolic - borrowed from Dutch vrolijk, from Middle Dutch - vrolijc from Old Dutch *frawalīkaz, the first part of this word is from proto-Germanic *frawaz, which is a cognate of Middle English "frow" meaning "hasty" and *-līkaz is cognate with -ly and -like. *frawaz itself comes from Pre-Germanic *prow-os from PIE *prew as in to "jump" or "hop". The Arabic etymology of فرح is different.
• Fright is from Middle English words fright, furht which ultimately are from Old English fryhtu, fyrhto from Proto-Germanic *furhtī meaning fear, from PIE *perg-. Cognates include: Scots fricht, Old Frisian fruchte, Low German frucht, Middle Dutch vrucht, German furcht, Danish frygt, Swedish fruktan, Gothic fuarhtei. Similar to Albanian frikë which are likely influenced by Gothic considering, well you know Gothic/Gepidic presence in these areas. Arabic has more words for fear than simply فرق, which itself has many meanings not limited to fright, and frankly the sources I looked at showed this word did not mean fright.

Are you at all familiar with Grimm's Law and Verner's Law? Again, re-read Ygorcs posts (139, 154, 155) about languages. Especially his Portuguese example and sound changes.

I'm really interested to know who are these "most linguists"?!! As I said in another thread the names of Gutian kings on the Sumerian King List from the first one Ingesus (compare Ingemar & Ansgisus) to the last one Tirigan (compare Tirfing & Wolfgan) have clearly Germanic origin, we know Ingwi and Tyr were the main Gothic deities.

Again, no real strong etymological argument. What is your evidence for linking, Inkishush, Iarlagab, etc to Germanic names? Even if Gutians spoke an IE language and are somewhat related to Tocharian people it doesn't make them Germanic, which has clear traits showing its origins in Europe (Celtic influences, Uralisms and loan words to Finnish and Proto-Slavic), I should also note that Julius Oppert's theory on Gutians being linked to Germanic Goths is not an accepted theory outside of biased circles, and is more commonly accepted theory in "Pro-Aryan media". That's a big deal, and bad science, as it is a biased position from the outset.

I think you just want to fool me about the relations between these haplogroups, the same site which says Gutians were Tocharian, says a sample of R1b-U106 subclade has been found in Loebanr_IA, 950 BC, in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region. I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then R1b-U106 can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same R1b-U106 can't be related to Iran!!

We want to fool you? There is no great conspiracy here. Since I know you are using the Indo-European website I'll quote the page and link it for others: https://indo-european.eu/tag/yamnaya-ancestry/

"A sample of R1b-U106 subclade is found in Loebanr_IA ca. 950 BC, which – together with the sample of Darra-e Kur – is compatible with the presence of L51 in Yamna."

Note that 950BC is also not our oldest sample or R-U106, and the Swat Culture (Gandhara Grave culture) is more than likely related to the BMAC culture Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau, an association with Indo-Aryans is indicated.

R-L23>Z2103 and R-L23>L51>L52>L151>U106 are entirely different branches (refer to my L23 YFull tree link, phylogeny matters! Notice their last common ancestor was L23) that share a common root they are not descended from each other. I also encourage you peruse the Eurogenes Blog, the author there has opposing views to the IE website linked above and it's good to read a balance of views. That entry of that website is about Yamnaya ancestry (that bit, right there, is important!) which is also found in the sample you cite. Yamnaya in this context is important, because if indeed Yamnaya is the home land of PIE (in all likelihood it is) it makes sense to find their proposed offshoots showing Steppe admixture. This is why autosomal DNA is important when coupled with Y & mtDNA, it gives the FULL picture.

Also worth noting from the author of that website:

NOTE. Errors in haplogroups of previously published samples makeevery subclade of new samples from the supplementary table questionable, but all new samples (safe for the Darra_i_Kur one) were analysed and probably reported by the Reich Lab, and at least upper subclades in each haplogroup treeseem mostly coherent with what was expected. Also, the contribution of Iranian Farmer related (a population in turn contributing to Hajji Firuz) to Khvalynsk in their sketch of the genetic history may be a sign of the association of R1b-M269 lineages with CHG ancestry, although previous data on precise R1b subclades in the region contradict this. (EDIT 11 APR 2018) The sample of Hajji Firuz is most likely much younger than the published date, hence its younger subclade may be correct. No revision or comment on this matter has been published, though

The same website that says the Guti were Tocharian? Did you actually read what the author wrote? Or did you omit the other parts?

From this post from that website: https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/co...alynsk-migration-waves-with-r1b-l23-lineages/.The full piece about Gutian from the website you claim calls them Tocharian (note I've omitted portions that produce large blank space):

"Gutian language

(…) Comparativists have asserted that, in spite of its late appearance, Tokharian is a relatively archaic form of Indo-European.³ This claim implies that the speakers of this group separated from their Indo-European brethren at a comparatively early date. They should accordingly have set out on their migrations rather early, and should have appeared within the Babylonian sphere of influence also rather early. Earlier, at any rate, than the Indo-Iranians, who spoke a highly developed (therefore probably later) form of Indo-European. Moreover, as some of the Indo-Iranians after their division into Iranians and Indo-Aryans⁴ appeared in Mesopotamia about 1500 B.C., we should expect the Proto-Tokharians about 2000 B.C. or even earlier.


If, armed with these assumptions as our working hypothesis, we look through the pages of history, we find one nation – one nation only – that perfectly fulfills all three conditions, which, therefore, entitles us to recognize it as the “Proto-Tokharians”. Tis name was Guti; the intial is also spelled with q (a voiceless back velar or pharyngeal), but the spelling with g is the original one. The closing -i is part of the name, for the Akkadian case-endings are added to it, nom. Gutium etc. Guti (or Gutium, as some scholars prefer) was valid for the nation, considered as an entity, but also for the territory it occupied.

(…).


The text goes on to follow the invasion of Babylonia by the Guti, and further eastward expansions supposedly connected with these, to form the attested Tocharians.


The referenced text by Thorkild Jakobsen offers the interesting linguistic data:


Among the Gutian rulers is one Elulumesh, whose name is evidently Akkadian Elulum slightly “Gutianized” by the Gutian case(?) ending -eš.40 This Gutian ruler Elulum is obviously the same man whom we find participating in the scramble for power after the death of Shar-kali-sharrii; his name appears there in Sumerian form without mimation as Elulu.

...

I don’t think we could derive a potential relation to any specific Indo-European branch from this simple suffix repeated in Gutian rulers, though.


The hypothesis of the Tocharian-like nature of the Guti (apart from the obvious error of considering them as the ancestors of Tocharians) remains not contrasted in new works since. It was cited e.g. by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1995) to advance their Armenian homeland, and by Mallory and Adams in their Encyclopedia (1997).


It lies therefore in the obscurity of undeveloped archaeological-linguistic hypotheses, and its connection with the attested R1b-Z2103 samples from Iran is not (yet) warranted."

"Tocharian-like" does not equal "Tocharian" we don't call donkeys "horses" because they are horse-like that would be flat out wrong, and the Guti are not Tocharian ancestors even if an IE speaking people. Tocharian is far removed from Germanic. If the Guti are related to Tocharians it doesnt make them Germanic. I aleady highlighted this in Post 143

Again, I will mention yet again that autosomal evidence shows no Iranian components in Nordic Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Migration Period Germanic-associated ancient DNA samples or Medieval Germanic-speaking area aDNA samples. If this supposed Germanic out of Iran migration happened wouldn't we expect it to show up on an autosomal level? It would have to be a fairly sizable migration no? We aren't talking "Iranian" in the cultural sense with these components we are taking about genetic components in the geographical sense (see Ygorcs post on these components), The components that contributed to the populations of Iran like Hunter-Gatherer, Farmer, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, BA, IA, etc. we do not see any signs of this sort of admixture in Nordic LN, BA, IA, Migration Period, Medieval Period Germanic-associated ancient DNA Why? Did these people just up and vanish? If there is no sign of an autosomal influx how can the migration have happened? Where are the archaeological signs? The only archaeological evidence you've shown us some animal figurines, which if we are being honest isn't exactly proof, come on any one can come up with similar looking things out of sheer imagination and creativity. Saying these prehistoric North Europeans couldn't have created such art of their own is ridiculous.

 

[spruithean]

(continued)

More about the Hajji Firuz sample and RC dating issue:

From the same website (this not the only website to report a carbon dating issue with Hajji Firuz:

A sample from Hajji Firuz in Iran ca. 5650 BC, of subclade R1b-Z2103, may confirm Mesolithic R1b-M269 lineages from the Caucasus as the source of CHG ancestry to Khvalynsk/Yamna, and be thus the reason why Reich wrote about a potential PIE homeland south of the Caucasus . (EDIT 11 APR 2018) The sample shows steppe ancestry, therefore the date is most likely incorrect, and a new radiocarbon dating is due. It is still interesting – depending on the precise subclade – for its potential relationship with IE migrations into the area.

It is interesting to mention that in the same region in the north of Pakistan, Kalash people live:

Isn't it strange that like anicent Gutians, they are also blonde?

Here we go again, citing phenotypes as evidence of a certain ethnolinguistic groups presence. This phenotype is not restricted to Germanic-speaking people and certainly not a European only phenomena.

To quote the ever so "reliable" wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people

This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrûtum, one of its many meanings being "light colored".^[20][21]

This racial character of the Gutians as light skinned can't be equated to being blond. ...

The rest of this section of this page is mostly about the bickering of two historians.
Obviously given how this thread has panned out it's clear that no matter what is presented to you, you will continue to disregard evidences presented to you, as well as misquote or misinterpret the sources that have been shared with you. I don't know why you want to prove this connection between Germanic people and Gutians so badly, but it has a large amount of evidence AGAINST it, not for it. There is evidence that quite clearly proves that the Gutians are not the Goths (see my Wielbark and Chernyakhov links) I can understand the idea of linking an obscure people with a later historical people, it's tantalizing and makes things feel more fluid but it is greatly misleading. It's like saying the Picts of Scotland were Scythians, this is a common claim however in reality they were most definitely a continuation of the people who preceded them in the area (Caledonii and other various tribes).

 

[Cyrus]

Spruithean, thanks for your long reply, about linguistics, I can mention thousands other words but I know you will say the same things, like what you said about hemp, a very early proto-Germanic word with Germanic sound shifts from a Vulgar Latin word!! And then you compare it with some other words in middle ages in different languages, mostly from Arabic and Vulgar Latin, and call it a wanderwort!
But about genetics, I expected that you explain about the existence of R1b-L151 in Afghanistan and R1b-U106 in Pakistan from the 3rd millennium BC, isn't U106 a Germanic haplogroup which should be just found in the north of Europe in the ancient times? Why 3,000 years ago it existed as far as Pakistan? Does it mean this haplogroup didn't relate to the Germanic people? So what was the IE-related haplogroup of them?

 

[spruithean]

Spruithean, thanks for your long reply, about linguistics, I can mention thousands other words but I know you will say the same things, like what you said about hemp, a very early proto-Germanic word with Germanic sound shifts from a Vulgar Latin word!! And then you compare it with some other words in middle ages in different languages, mostly from Arabic and Vulgar Latin, and call it a wanderwort!

The proto-Germanic root for hemp is related to the Greek word and Latin words, and imho it's more likely that these words are kulturworts because they are doublets of these words in several languages. I did not compare, I showed cognates. However, this is besides the point and your linguistic reasoning to claim an origin of proto-Germanic in a part of Iran is still not a reality, considering all other evidences. Besides we should be focusing on far more than isolated words. There are more clues to this language family and its origins than just those words that are either kulturworts, wanderworts or unknowns.

But about genetics, I expected that you explain about the existence of R1b-L151 in Afghanistan and R1b-U106 in Pakistan from the 3rd millennium BC, isn't U106 a Germanic haplogroup which should be just found in the north of Europe in the ancient times? Why 3,000 years ago it existed as far as Pakistan?

Sure, do you mean L51? R-L51 is relatively old with an estimated formation date of 6100 ybp (TMRCA of 5700 ybp), so the lineage that became R-L51 diverged from the common root of R-L23 around that time (R-L23 is found in Yamnaya samples quite early), that is quite consistent with the estimated migrations of Yamnaya related people, no? Since the Swat Culture is closely associated with the BMAC culture, all of which show Steppe admixture it seems only reasonable to assume that these people were descended from PIE speakers from the Pontic-Steppe and the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and those related groups.

In regards to U106 in that study, that individual is dated to 1000-800 BCE, U106 is estimated to have formed 4800 ybp and some of our oldest samples are from Europe, especially the north in this 3000-2000 BCE timeframe. Upon a brief investigation of that paper which features the Loebanr individual there are SNP quality questions in the study (false positives, misreads, no reads, etc) and some debate which ISOGG format they used and according to a certain knowledgeable individual on another forum in all likelihood the haplogroup call is more accurately placed in the R2 haplogroup:

This is one person's opinion:

" Originally Posted by Megalophias
I've gone through some of the suspect haplogroups:

There are 6 Gonur Tepe and 1 Swat Iron Age samples listed as A. As far as I can tell these are just super low coverage samples with no haplogroup assignment, they do not have any derived calls for A(xBT) clades or ancestral calls for BT or CT.

- I2312 - Belt Cave Iran Mesolithic - listed as E1b1a1a1c2b1 - very unlikely. It has one derived allele for this, contradicted by 1 ancestral E1b1a1. It is some kind of BT. J, as at Hotu next door, is not excluded.
- I6119 - Gonur Tepe BMAC - listed as E1b1a1a1c2c3c - definitely not, it has 5 ancestral calls for E. It is CT(xC, E, G, J, R), with single ancestral calls also for D, H1a1, L1, Q1b. Perhaps T?
- I1992 - Swat Iron Age - listed as E1a-M132 - very unlikely, it has 4 ancestral calls and only 1 derived call for E1a. It is E, with 3 derived calls. E1b1b1b2-Z830, which is the majority at this site, is not excluded.
- I8998 - Swat Iron Age - listed as R1b-S21782 (under U106) - definitely not, it has dozens of upstream calls contradicting this. It is R(xR1, R2a), probably R2* (found in northern Pakistan today).
- Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311. Low coverage, there is one positive call for the SNP, nothing + or - upstream. This is some kind of BT.
- I1003 - Sintashta - listed as I2a1a1a - seems not, as it has 1 ancestral IJ call, 3 ancestral and 1 derived for I, 1 derived R. Looks like R(xR1b1a), so probably the usual R1a.
- I8527 - Geoksyur - listed as I2a2a2a - unlikely, there is 1 positive call, but 1 ancestral call for I2a2. Some kind of F."

(red is my own emphasis)


U106 is not a "Germanic" haplogroup. It is commonly associated with Germanic migration patterns and Germanic-speaking areas, but it is not strictly a Germanic haplogroup. Haplogroups are not language, nor are they ethnicity. We find a fair number of outlier lineages far from their normal distribution patterns. We've found I-Z140 in certain Bashkir clans, R-U152 in Yaghnobis, etc. and even the U152 haplogroup call for the R-U152 Yaghnobis is debatable according to the ongoing discussion about this on another website.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Ygorcs]

It is interesting to mention that in the same region in the north of Pakistan, Kalash people live:

Isn't it strange that like anicent Gutians, they are also blonde?

Utter myth spread by carefully cherry-picked pictures. Most Kalash people are not blonde. Their genetics also prove that they have a significant BA steppe ancestry of a kind most related to the Sintashta & Andronovo DNA samples, cultures associated by most experts to the Indo-Iranian expansion (Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indo-Aryan). There you have where that blonde hair must've come from (not to mention that such genes may also have come from other Caucasian/Iranian/Anatolian ancestors, why not? Do you think blonde hair is IE?!). The very fact that the Kalash speak a very unique branch of Indo-Iranian (the Nuristani languages are not Iranian nor Indo-Aryan, but a very early split) demonstrates that they have nothing to do with "Asian Germanic" people or whatever. They have spoken a language completely unlike that of their neighbors for millennia, so it's obvious that they didn't shift to another language in the "recent" past, because their neighbors do not speak Nuristani languages (and did not as far as written historic records exist).

However, besides that the Kalash have very significant BA South Asian (Indus Periphery, probably similar to the genetics of the IVC) and Chalcolithic Iran ancestry, and even some West Siberian ancestry. They are most definitely no good proxy AT ALL for part of the ancestry of the modern Germanic people. The genetic structure is completely different, totally unrelated.

Honestly, for someone who doesn't like Germanic nationalists you are still way too obsessed with associating blonde hair and light skin specifically to Germanic peoples as if only the ancestors of Germanic peoples could have had such features. You should now be in the 21st century and not revisiting old "proto-Nazi" ideas of racist anthropologists.

 

[Ygorcs]

I wonder why these people obsessed over the "blonde white" Kalash don't EVER show these pictures when they talk about them (maybe because that would shatter their biased fantasies?). It's clear that most Kalash don't look very different from the Tadjiks or many (particularly North) Iranians. It's actually even somewhat hard to find pictures of really blonde ADULT people.

 

[Cyrus]

Sure, do you mean L51?

No, I mean R1b-L151 (R1b1a2a1a), look at it: https://indo-european.eu/2018/04/ea...are-out-of-indo-european-speaking-migrations/ > The Darra-e Kur sample, 2655 BC, of haplogroup R1b-L151

This haplogroup (R1b1a2a1a) still exists in different parts of Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/table/pone-0041252-t001/?report=objectonly

You yourself said in your quote from Angela: Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M269

The subclade R-P311 appears to have originated after the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution in Europe, and is substantially confined to Western Europe in modern populations. R-P311 is absent from Neolithic-era ancient DNA found in Western Europe, strongly suggesting that its current distribution is due to population movements within Europe taking place after the end of the Neolithic. The three major subclades of P311 are U106 (S21), L21 (M529, S145), and U152 (S28).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe Neolithic Europe is the period when Neolithic technology was present in Europe, roughly between 7000 BCE and 1700 BCE.

So we know R1b-P311/L151 existed in Europe after the end of the Neolithic (1700 BC) but it existed in Afghanistan in 2655 BC and it still exists in Iran. We also know that Gutians lived in Iran from at least the 3rd millennium BC, so it is certainly possible that they had migrated to Europe, isn't it?

 

[hrvclv]

Around 3000 BC, L51 and its subclades were pastoralist tribes roaming the steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cyrus]

Around 3000 BC, L51 and its subclades were pastoralist tribes roaming the steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After R1a, now about R1b, when I say R1b-P311/L151 (R1b1a2a1a), not R1b-L51, has been found in several samples from Iran, you say modern distribution proves nothing and there shoud be aDNA evidences in this region, but it is clear that when you don't want to believe something all evidences prove nothing! I think if even ancient Gutians back to life and say "We are a Germanic people", you will say they are wrong!

 

[hrvclv]

After R1a, now about R1b, when I say R1b-P311/L151 (R1b1a2a1a), not R1b-L51, has been found in several samples from Iran, you say modern distribution proves nothing and there shoud be aDNA evidences in this region, but it is clear that when you don't want to believe something all evidences prove nothing! I think if even ancient Gutians back to life and say "We are a Germanic people", you will say they are wrong!

Wrong. I am probably the only one on this forum who does not exclude straight away the possibility that "Guti" and Goth" might be remotely connected (through some ancient, separate migration pattern, though, not the way you want it to be).

The problem is that you not only entirely (and seemingly deliberately) ignore what archeology is known to have established, but also ignore chronology, jump over the millenia to associate totally disconnected things, and cherry-pick isolated genetic samples to infer rash conclusions. Besides, your understanding of linguistic rules and linguistic comparative methods seems elementary at best.

On top of that, you do not read what people write, nor read the papers they refer you to. You have developed the most unrealistc hypotheses ever, and adamantly stick to them, however absurd better informed people show them to be.

In other words, you don't understand, either because you can't, or, more likely, because you don't want to understand.

You seem to be "past recovery". Have it your way.

 

[nornosh]

I think Eupedia got it right! Germanics despite minority lineages(mixtures) of IEs are overwhelmingly Neolithic farmer(hg g) \ mesolithic WHG(hg I2) mixture people with very little Indo-european mixture in them. IEs are people of Asia not europe IMHO. Look Turkey their language is Turkic yet turkic ydna makes only 12% because ruling elite imposed their language on natives same is true with Germanic\IE languages in western europe they were imposed on to majority paleolithic population of natives with only 12% mixture of IE blood, so Eupedia got it right!

 

[nornosh]

Look only 12% of adna in Germanics came in BA the others were local neolithics who already lived in the region for thousands of years according to Mr.Cunliffe, Mr.Oppenheimer, Eupedia.

 

[spruithean]

No, I mean R1b-L151 (R1b1a2a1a), look at it: https://indo-european.eu/2018/04/ea...are-out-of-indo-european-speaking-migrations/ > The Darra-e Kur sample, 2655 BC, of haplogroup R1b-L151

This haplogroup (R1b1a2a1a) still exists in different parts of Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/table/pone-0041252-t001/?report=objectonly

You yourself said in your quote from Angela: Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M269



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe Neolithic Europe is the period when Neolithic technology was present in Europe, roughly between 7000 BCE and 1700 BCE.

So we know R1b-P311/L151 existed in Europe after the end of the Neolithic (1700 BC) but it existed in Afghanistan in 2655 BC and it still exists in Iran. We also know that Gutians lived in Iran from at least the 3rd millennium BC, so it is certainly possible that they had migrated to Europe, isn't it?

Re-read the quote in regards to the R-P311: "- Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311. Low coverage, there is one positive call for the SNP, nothing + or - upstream. This is some kind of BT." The sample from Darra-i-Kur was low coverage and had only one positive call and nothing + or - upstream or downstream, this doesn't confirm anything and the likelihood of a false positive is fairly high, especially with coverage that is low without any corroborating upstream SNP calls. That sample from that quote isn't the only one with low coverage and wonky haplogroup calls, read the whole quote, the majority of them are questionable.

Again, the Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA evidence we have right now does not support any migration for the Gutians into Europe. As you can imagine a people such as the Gutians would have absorbed various peoples as they grew in influence in their respective territory, they would have absorbed various autosomal components from there area of Iran that would have then been visible in Bronze Age Northern European samples if they were the descendants of these migrants. We don't see this, so the chances of such a migration are really really low.

Cyrus, I also have an interest in ancient peoples like the Guti and it would be great to link them to later historical people, however we can't link them to another people based solely off the spelling of their exonym alone, especially when we have no text corpus for the Guti to even begin to determine what language they spoke. Besides we know that there were areas still referred to as Gutium after the Guti faded into history, and the people in those post-Guti Gutium areas included Medes and Mannaeans. It is much more realistic to theorize that the Gutians were a people who lived in Iran that were more similar to the neighbours and likely faded into history as they were absorbed by other rising nations.

After R1a, now about R1b, when I say R1b-P311/L151 (R1b1a2a1a), not R1b-L51, has been found in several samples from Iran, you say modern distribution proves nothing and there shoud be aDNA evidences in this region, but it is clear that when you don't want to believe something all evidences prove nothing! I think if even ancient Gutians back to life and say "We are a Germanic people", you will say they are wrong!

Where are your citations for these ancient R-L51 samples found in Iran? You are saying it's clear that we "don't want to believe something"? Oh, please. When several times we have provided Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA evidence through various studies and links, and even archaeological and linguistic evidence doesn't support your theory, and you have the audacity to say we don't want to believe something? Come on man. As hrvclv has said you ignore evidence, and frankly it really seems like you don't actually read the studies we've linked you to and we've seen you cherry-pick parts of quotes completely ignoring the context and the entirety of the message it conveys. I

Whatever, you're free to believe what you want and we will agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I think Eupedia got it right! Germanics despite minority lineages(mixtures) of IEs are overwhelmingly Neolithic farmer(hg g) \ mesolithic WHG(hg I2) mixture people with very little Indo-european mixture in them. IEs are people of Asia not europe IMHO. Look Turkey their language is Turkic yet turkic ydna makes only 12% because ruling elite imposed their language on natives same is true with Germanic\IE languages in western europe they were imposed on to majority paleolithic population of natives with only 12% mixture of IE blood, so Eupedia got it right!

Look only 12% of adna in Germanics came in BA the others were local neolithics who already lived in the region for thousands of years according to Mr.Cunliffe, Mr.Oppenheimer, Eupedia.

What page of the Eupedia mainsite talks about this? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

 

[nornosh]

What page of the Eupedia mainsite talks about this? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

Hi I first believed Ydna is the main indicator of ones descent then Moderators came to teach me that adna shows complete picture, then I have studied the admixture maps of adna, which shows ENF admixtures, WHG admixtures togather form 4\5th of European admixture the ANE forms 10
-17%. So if we infer from these datas then IEs had little general affect on Europeans. Ydna is less important than adna which shows complete admixture rather than person's one line of descent.

 

[Cyrus]

Re-read the quote in regards to the R-P311: "- Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311. Low coverage, there is one positive call for the SNP, nothing + or - upstream. This is some kind of BT." The sample from Darra-i-Kur was low coverage and had only one positive call and nothing + or - upstream or downstream, this doesn't confirm anything and the likelihood of a false positive is fairly high, especially with coverage that is low without any corroborating upstream SNP calls. That sample from that quote isn't the only one with low coverage and wonky haplogroup calls, read the whole quote, the majority of them are questionable.

I think you just want to fool yourself, just one ancient skeleton in Afghanistan has been analyzed and this haplogroup has been found (it is possible that it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this land too), a subclade of this haplogroup has been also found in the north of Pakistan, another important point is that this haplogroup still exists among the people of this region. This thing that what you or another person in this forum think about this genetic evidence, really doesn't matter, if you believe it is wrong, you should show me valid sources which fundamentally reject this DNA analysis.

 

[halfalp]

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.

You cannot say R1a and R1b then R1a-Z95. The R1a from all Iran and Middle-East and Western Iran will mostly be R1a-Z93 wich Z95 is a downstream. As for R1b, its mostly Z2105 + minor lineages as V1636, for wich we all have almost a story. The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Germanic countries are not Z93 nor Z2103.

 

[halfalp]

I think you just want to fool yourself, just one ancient skeleton in Afghanistan has been analyzed and this haplogroup has been found (it is possible that it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this land too), a subclade of this haplogroup has been also found in the north of Pakistan, another important point is that this haplogroup still exists among the people of this region. This thing that what you or another person in this forum think about this genetic evidence, really doesn't matter, if you believe it is wrong, you should show me valid sources which fundamentally reject this DNA analysis.

The South and Central Asian paper is a complete shit show with a lot of weird calls, dating and assumptions. Its been postponed for a lot of times now and is probably not a good argument until the complete paper is out and that people have put their hands on the samples. As exemple, the preprint of the paper came 2 months before the preprint for the Caucasus paper, wich was out a few months earlier on.