What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

[real expert]

Indeed Germanic is a Roman invention, Caesar used it -to separate them from the Celtic (Keltoi), left of the Rhine lived the Celts and right of the Rhine the Germanics. That's rough and of course not based on 'anthropological' considerations, that is a modern thought not classic. Anyhow according tp the Tacitus the tribes right of the Rhine, had a disgust for the label Germanic. So it's no coincidence that the name Germanic became after the Roman period in disuse.

Actually, at first, it was difficult for the Romans to differentiate between Celtic and Germanic tribes. Both groups were kind of the same to them. However, the Romans started to distinguish between Celts and Germanics after coming more frequently into contact with Germanic and Celtic cultures and after examining the "differences" and the "common" lifestyles. Of course, the Celtic and Germanic identities were fluid in certain regions of Gaul or Germania. Claiming that the Romans or Julius Caesar "invented" the Germanic people is a stretch. The descriptions and information about the Gauls and Celts that Caesar provided were, in fact, fairly accurate. Caesar, for instance, pointed out that Germanic tribes were significantly taller and "bigger" due to the fact that they hunted different types of animals with more meat and had cheese and milk in their diets. Furthermore, unlike the Celts, Augustus believed that the Germanic tribes were not "civilized." That said, most people are unaware that the names and adjectives we now associate with Germanic peoples were originally Celtic group names. The word "Teuton," for instance, was originally the name of a Celtic tribe in northern Europe. The name became the name of a Germanic people as a result of either gradual merging through marriage or possible absorption of the original Celts into the Germanic stream, resulting in the original Teutonic people becoming German-speaking.

 

[Northener]

Actually, at first, it was difficult for the Romans to differentiate between Celtic and Germanic tribes. Both groups were kind of the same to them. However, the Romans started to distinguish between Celts and Germanics after coming more frequently into contact with Germanic and Celtic cultures and after examining the "differences" and the "common" lifestyles. Of course, the Celtic and Germanic identities were fluid in certain regions of Gaul or Germania. Claiming that the Romans or Julius Caesar "invented" the Germanic people is a stretch. The descriptions and information about the Gauls and Celts that Caesar provided were, in fact, fairly accurate. Caesar, for instance, pointed out that Germanic tribes were significantly taller and "bigger" due to the fact that they hunted different types of animals with more meat and had cheese and milk in their diets. Furthermore, unlike the Celts, Augustus believed that the Germanic tribes were not "civilized." That said, most people are unaware that the names and adjectives we now associate with Germanic peoples were originally Celtic group names. The word "Teuton," for instance, was originally the name of a Celtic tribe in northern Europe. The name became the name of a Germanic people as a result of either gradual merging through marriage or possible absorption of the original Celts into the Germanic stream, resulting in the original Teutonic people becoming German-speaking.

As you already have shown it the label Germani was laid up on, which according to Tacitus the tribes above the Rhine hated, It became in disuse until the sixteenth century.

So I guess we must not project too much 'folkish' thoughts on it.

 

[real expert]

As you already have shown it the label Germani was laid up on, which according to Tacitus the tribes above the Rhine hated, It became in disuse until the sixteenth century.

So I guess we must not project too much 'folkish' thoughts on it.

I don't get what you mean. Germanic and Celtic peoples were genetically and culturally similar but distinct enough to be distinguished, though the two ethnicities overlapped in some cases. It makes no difference that they were labeled Germani; they formed a demographically coherent group since they maintained a coherent genetic mix. The Roman label "Germani" corresponded to a genetically mostly homogeneous group of people—thus, people of similar ancestry. When one group of people encounters another group of people, they label them with their own terms.

 

[Northener]

I don't get what you mean. Germanic and Celtic peoples were genetically and culturally similar but distinct enough to be distinguished, though the two ethnicities overlapped in some cases. It makes no difference that they were labeled Germani; they formed a demographically coherent group since they maintained a coherent genetic mix. The Roman label "Germani" corresponded to a genetically mostly homogeneous group of people—thus, people of similar ancestry. When one group of people encounters another group of people, they label them with their own terms.

No they weren't. That's the clue. The Keltoi were inside the Roman limes (Rhine) and the Germani outside. The Romans called them Germani NOT because they were a genetic coherent group, that is modern kind of thinking not ancient! And besides that retrospect they were not coherent at all.
The more NW Germanics (around the North Sea) don't have the Baltic kind of input like for example the Swedes.

Besides that Germani is a label that-according to Tacitus- was laid up on. And Tacitus wrote that the tribes above the Rhine disgusted it. After the Roman period the label Germani became in disuse. We see labels like Allemani, Deutsch/Dutch what means folk, Germani has no such connotation, and is certainly not derived from the languages that were current above the Rhine. When Germani meant something coherent, and the tribes saw it as coherent, then they had worn it with pride....they didn't. So there is neither such thing as a Germanic heartland or Urheimat (not comparable with the Romans for example!).

So the supposed coherency is a nineteenth century nationalistic myth, in order to support unity claims (very much in the case of Germany). But in fact: fake.

 

[Northener]

I precise: when I say Y-R1b-U106 was the motor of IEization in Northern Europe, I would say of proto-"Germanic" orientation of the language because before them in far northern Europe were the Y-R1a ancestors of the today dominant Scandinavian R1a subclades, surely related to CWC, which I think were more on the satem side at first. In fact U106 was the paternal lineages of the eilite, it doesn't indicate a pure population; even under U106 label was already a mix where substrata were at play. But at the well formed "Germanic" times, U106 had no more the monopole of Y-haplos.

Totally agree, Germanics can't be reduced to one Y-DNA. Although bearers of R1b U106 were for sure a dominant factor among the Germanics. Nevertheless the influx of R1b U106 was very long before someone had heard of the label Germani

 

[MOESAN]

Whatever what can be said about the term "German(ic)" of the Latins, term of unsure etymology, and here I agree it was an imprecise enough term covering tribes that were maybe not of the same origin, I think nevertheless that well formed Celtic and Germanic languages (in the linguistic meaning) correspond to neatly separated formations; the tribes having spoken some pre-proto-Celtic or pre-proto-Germanic (Celtic eclosed before Germanic) which were maybe in a geographically between position and in some way a linguistically between position have disappeared (maybe some remnants among Belgica tribes?). I don't think we may absolutely deny some "urheimat" for first Germanic speaking tribes, urheimat I see between extreme northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia, where Y: I1/R1b-U106 and Y-R1a-Z284 (under Central-East European upstreams) met one with another to forme a first stable mix before expansion. It seems that he majority of the common traits separating Germanic from other I-E languages are shared by all Germanic varieties.

 

[torzio]

Totally agree, Germanics can't be reduced to one Y-DNA. Although bearers of R1b U106 were for sure a dominant factor among the Germanics. Nevertheless the influx of R1b U106 was very long before someone had heard of the label Germani

are we sure R-U106 are originally germanic?

remember central and southern germany lands was Celtic first .............before it became gemanic

 

[Northener]

are we sure R-U106 are originally germanic?
remember central and southern germany lands was Celtic first .............before it became gemanic

absolute true, R1b U106 the oldest one is from early Corded Ware Czech. It was a major input in what is going to be called the Germanic area's. Nevertheless some subclades were never part of Germanic culture.

 

[Northener]

Whatever what can be said about the term "German(ic)" of the Latins, term of unsure etymology, and here I agree it was an imprecise enough term covering tribes that were maybe not of the same origin, I think nevertheless that well formed Celtic and Germanic languages (in the linguistic meaning) correspond to neatly separated formations; the tribes having spoken some pre-proto-Celtic or pre-proto-Germanic (Celtic eclosed before Germanic) which were maybe in a geographically between position and in some way a linguistically between position have disappeared (maybe some remnants among Belgica tribes?). I don't think we may absolutely deny some "urheimat" for first Germanic speaking tribes, urheimat I see between extreme northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia, where Y: I1/R1b-U106 and Y-R1a-Z284 (under Central-East European upstreams) met one with another to forme a first stable mix before expansion. It seems that he majority of the common traits separating Germanic from other I-E languages are shared by all Germanic varieties.

On the paradigm level the Urheimat is very connected with folkish thought Moesan. Even the specific Volksgeist of Herder. It's like you plant a seed and a tree grows out of it. That doesn't reflect changing configurations during time and place.

When we look at the language situation above the Rhine the supposed Germanic core area of Caesar didn't speak clearcut Germanic as we know it by now. Kuhn (1962) spoke about the Northwestblock, like Kuzmenko (2011) and Schrijver (2017) speaks even about North Sea Celtic. And as you can see in the timetable of Koch Celtic and Germanic were long fellow travellers.....

My two cents would go to the Schleswig Holstein area were nowadays Denmark meets Northern Germany, from there was the biggest expansion c.q. Germanization towards other parts of Europe. But this was migration time. Someone like Wolfram Euler, in his 'Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen' (2009) mentions the Unetice area in Central Germany as the earliest Germanic speakers.

So I guess the long trajectory of Germanic is not to be pinpointed to one specific area or people.

 

[MOESAN]

On the paradigm level the Urheimat is very connected with folkish thought Moesan. Even the specific Volksgeist of Herder. It's like you plant a seed and a tree grows out of it. That doesn't reflect changing configurations during time and place.

When we look at the language situation above the Rhine the supposed Germanic core area of Caesar didn't speak clearcut Germanic as we know it by now. Kuhn (1962) spoke about the Northwestblock, like Kuzmenko (2011) and Schrijver (2017) speaks even about North Sea Celtic. And as you can see in the timetable of Koch Celtic and Germanic were long fellow travellers.....

My two cents would go to the Schleswig Holstein area were nowadays Denmark meets Northern Germany, from there was the biggest expansion c.q. Germanization towards other parts of Europe. But this was migration time. Someone like Wolfram Euler, in his 'Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen' (2009) mentions the Unetice area in Central Germany as the earliest Germanic speakers.

So I guess the long trajectory of Germanic is not to be pinpointed to one specific area or people.

I agree for the most. What I said didn't imply the Germanic (speaking) folks genesis has been a one stage and simple event; I just think the kernel of first Germanic tongue (I see more or less in the same place as you do) marked a kind of urheimat at the linguistic level. And this place was not in the southern Germany of Romans, OK. After this stage, the people speaking this relatively "new" language covered progressively other people where were Celts and others as well in South as in North. There is no opposition to your interpretation.

 

[Northener]

Indeed it would be false to trap in some kind of essentialism....

As stated see Koch (2021) he has a nice roadmap and timetable in which we can detect the development of (proto) Germanic:


In my opinion this took place in a triangular relationship between first the area around the North Sea -Sögel-Wohlde,-from the Rhine to Jutland, also known as the core area of the Single Grave culture (specific part of Corded Ware), second - Valsømagle- the Danish islands and Scania, radiating deeper into Scandinavia and third the Middle Elbe Saale -Unetice- area in Central Germany.

The last stage was most probably on the "bottleneck" Anglo-Saxon point of departure, for the language of them see also the works from Don Ringe.

The Sweden Urheimat frame is still present but is in fact a Nordicist invention: it has no single ground......