What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

I doubt the Celtic population in Asia Minor was ever large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Asia Minor populations whether they were endogenous or not.
So, in just the same way, there could have been a small Germanic population in Iran that was not large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Iran populations.

Is there any specific evidence that states the Guti were of "northern provenance"?
That they were "pale" suggests they were likely to be of Northern provenance, compared to the people who described them as such. That they were ignorant of local practices suggest they were most likely newcomers. Combined with genetic estimates that Northern autosomal DNA arrived in the region at about that time, and a branch of the Northern haplogroup R1-M417 began developing there also at that time. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting the contrary, so on the balance of probabilities, I would suggest a Northern provenance is most likely.

I would be very wary of drawing connections between people based on demonyms (be they exonyms or endonyms). We know for some time it was believed that the Getae were related to the Goths, however the Getae are a Thracian people more closely related to the Dacians, while the Goths are a Germanic people with an attested Germanic language. In regards to the Caspians and Kashubians, from what I've seen the Caspian people are often regarded as a pre-Indo-European people linked to the Kassites. Kashubians are a Slavic people in the Baltic region, living in Pomerania (literally, by the sea). Now if the Gutians were indeed Indo-European, from what I've read, they were probably more like Tocharians than Germanic people, secondly I think we'll be hard-pressed to find anything that definitively proves whether they were IE people, we lack a corpus of their language and a kings list does not tell us much about their language.
I don't believe in conflating language with genetics - language can be adopted. Most views about these various tribes are speculative, and I am as wary of these as I am of conclusions drawn on the basis of demonyms. However, we know from more recent populations that denonyms can be significant, even when they are separated by up to 2,000 years - Danish Anglians and English East Anglians, Dutch Franks and French, German Goths and Spanish Zaragoths, Italian Romans and Romanians. Why not the Guti, Getae and/or Gauti likewise? They don't have to have the same language, culture or genetics to be related.

If we cannot rule out connections, we also shouldn't assume there are connections either, especially when the evidence is weak, or based off of the seeming similarity of names.
Agreed. We should neither assume, nor rule out.

We also should be very careful of interpreting medieval "historical" (more like pseudo-historical) works as having any semblance of truth.
I am sure there is some semblance of truth in some medieval works. To work on the basis that there isn't any is denying yourself access to data that helps build a picture.

I'm all for finding new connections throughout history, however they need be backed by solid evidence.
Solid evidence is hard to come by. If we only relied upon what was definitely proven and ignored all circumstantial evidence and balance of probabilities, we would have very little indeed.

It might not be that Iranian Guti, Ukrainian Getae and Eastern Baltic Gauti descend directly from each other, but the question is could they have a root in common (possibly reflected in their names), which could be a genetic, a cultural or a linguistic one? Genetically, I suspect they have a relatively recent common root in R1a-Z645, which (according to yfull estimates) only arose in the early third millennium BC. And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they had a common ancestor significantly later than this (on the collapse of Corded Ware circa 2,400 BC), which by the way probably also spawned the Kashubian Slavs, the Thracians and the Caspian Indo-Aryans (in admixture with various other people).
 
When you want to look at the Indo-European component in the Germanic culture initially brought in by Corded Ware (Single Grave Culture) people than Davidski has made this connection....not exactly Iran but still.

Totally agree!
 
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.

I totally agree. A very convincing theory.
 
What is the relation between the western branch of the Corded Ware culture and Pakistan?


Map is wrong. Z283 is an ancestral branch to Z284, Z280, M458, which could well exist in the place of contact with Z93
 
I totally agree. A very convincing theory.

Yes, as with Cyrus' posts, there are grains of truth in it, but there is little basis for its confident conclusions, which in my view are essentially misleading.

For example, L51:
We cannot possibly know that all (or indeed any) L51 people around 3,000 BC were pastoralists, nor that they roamed the Steppe, as there are no samples of it at or before this date.
There is no evidence that they moved into Europe at that point from anywhere else, nor that they moved en masse. There is no evidence that they were organised into patrilineal tribes. There is no evidence that they chased away Corded Ware people from the East, with Corded Ware people fleeing straight into their path. There is no evidence that their admixture with Corded Ware people was gradual. There is no evidence to show what language they spoke.

The limited data that we do have supports different conclusions about what is most likely:
Ancient Pontic Steppe people have far too much WHG with their EHG, and ancient Caspian Steppe people far too much CHG with their EHG, for either to have been ancestors of the earliest L51 samples. These earliest samples clearly fit better with prior samples from the Balkan Chalcolithic. I have asked on several threads for people to present any data that demonstrates anything different, but have never received any response.
Phylogenic analysis supports an early (pre-3,000 BC) most likely coalescence point for L51 in France. Z2103 (almost certainly accompanied by brother L51) was already in Croatia circa 2,850 BC. M269 (associated autosomally with L51) was already present in Northern Spain circa 3,400 BC (and this population is strongly associated autosomally with a Basque-speaking non-IE modern population). A sample very similar autosomally to Yamnayan brother Z2103 was already at the Latvian Baltic circa 2,885 BC. L51 is associated with G-PF3345, with E-V13, and autosomally with I2a and I2c in Unetice. Any hypothesis that L51 was only organised in patrilineal tribes, only moved into Europe 2,500 BC and only spoke centum IE seems unsupported by the actual data.

Unfortunately, most orthodox opinions regarding historical genetics are like this - little more than unevidenced mantras that have only become widely ingrained through constant repetition and hostile reaction to anyone who dares to question them.
 
Yes, as with Cyrus' posts, there are grains of truth in it, but there is little basis for its confident conclusions, which in my view are essentially misleading.

For example, L51:
We cannot possibly know that all (or indeed any) L51 people around 3,000 BC were pastoralists, nor that they roamed the Steppe, as there are no samples of it at or before this date.
There is no evidence that they moved into Europe at that point from anywhere else, nor that they moved en masse. There is no evidence that they were organised into patrilineal tribes. There is no evidence that they chased away Corded Ware people from the East, with Corded Ware people fleeing straight into their path. There is no evidence that their admixture with Corded Ware people was gradual. There is no evidence to show what language they spoke.

The limited data that we do have supports different conclusions about what is most likely:
Ancient Pontic Steppe people have far too much WHG with their EHG, and ancient Caspian Steppe people far too much CHG with their EHG, for either to have been ancestors of the earliest L51 samples. These earliest samples clearly fit better with prior samples from the Balkan Chalcolithic. I have asked on several threads for people to present any data that demonstrates anything different, but have never received any response.
Phylogenic analysis supports an early (pre-3,000 BC) most likely coalescence point for L51 in France. Z2103 (almost certainly accompanied by brother L51) was already in Croatia circa 2,850 BC. M269 (associated autosomally with L51) was already present in Northern Spain circa 3,400 BC (and this population is strongly associated autosomally with a Basque-speaking non-IE modern population). A sample very similar autosomally to Yamnayan brother Z2103 was already at the Latvian Baltic circa 2,885 BC. L51 is associated with G-PF3345, with E-V13, and autosomally with I2a and I2c in Unetice. Any hypothesis that L51 was only organised in patrilineal tribes, only moved into Europe 2,500 BC and only spoke centum IE seems unsupported by the actual data.

Unfortunately, most orthodox opinions regarding historical genetics are like this - little more than unevidenced mantras that have only become widely ingrained through constant repetition and hostile reaction to anyone who dares to question them.

The point is also point that some see "germanic' (could also be celt or slave) as a coherent folk or people (genetics, culture, language all 1:1). IMO that's not the point it are all regional specific bricolages. The reality is more messy than coherent.

Germanic is the description of the people/ tribes roughly right of the Rhine in the Roman period.It's a large area but they shared some basic Germanic language and a kind of Nordic LNBA genetic profile.

But that wasn't ts due to a (mass) migration from Iran to NW Europe. It was a result of a mix between HG (Ertebølle), Neolithic Farmer (TRB) and Indo-European/Steppe (SGC/BB). All had their share so not "en bloc" so to say.
 
Last edited:
The point is also point that some see "germanic' (could also be celt or slave) as a coherent folk or people (genetics, culture, language all 1:1). IMO that's not the point it are all regional specific bricolages. The reality is more messy than coherent.
Germanic is the description of the people/ tribes roughly right of the Rhine in the Roman period.It's a large area but they shared some basic Germanic language and a kind of Nordic LNBA genetic profile.
But that wasn't ts due to a (mass) migration from Iran to NW Europe. It was a result of a mix between HG (Ertebølle), Neolithic Farmer (TRB) and Indo-European/Steppe (SGC/BB). All had their share so not "en bloc" so to say.
I broadly agree with this measured post with two provisos -
1. The most substantial contributors of Germanic DNA as a whole look most likely Corded Ware (mainly steppic autosomally) and Bell Beaker (mainly Balkanic autosomally), with Balkanic EEF probably contributing more than TRB.
2. There is insufficient evidence to identify any particular contributor as Indo-European.
But while there seems no significant trace in genetics of a first millennium BC Iran-to-Scandinavia migration, whether there was a linguistic or cultural migration is another matter. It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there. There are many people across the world speaking English and adopting aspects of western culture who have no West European DNA in them whatsoever.
When you ask an ambiguous question, you can get a variety of potentially valid answers.
 
I broadly agree with this measured post with two provisos -
1. The most substantial contributors of Germanic DNA as a whole look most likely Corded Ware (mainly steppic autosomally) and Bell Beaker (mainly Balkanic autosomally), with Balkanic EEF probably contributing more than TRB.
2. There is insufficient evidence to identify any particular contributor as Indo-European.
But while there seems no significant trace in genetics of a first millennium BC Iran-to-Scandinavia migration, whether there was a linguistic or cultural migration is another matter. It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there. There are many people across the world speaking English and adopting aspects of western culture who have no West European DNA in them whatsoever.
When you ask an ambiguous question, you can get a variety of potentially valid answers.

1. TRB is a mixture of EEF and HG. And indeed CW c.q. Bell Beaker (overlapping in Yamna ancestry) are the major contributors.
2. I can uphold different stories, but 'It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there.' is IMO a real star trek story.....beam me up scotty, really I want to accept out of the box theories but this sounds a little bit too wild amigo!
 
1. TRB is a mixture of EEF and HG. And indeed CW c.q. Bell Beaker (overlapping in Yamna ancestry) are the major contributors.
2. I can uphold different stories, but 'It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there.' is IMO a real star trek story.....beam me up scotty, really I want to accept out of the box theories but this sounds a little bit too wild amigo!
It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.
 
It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.

Pip to me science and common sense requires some prove, some evidence. Not the other way around, I state something, no clear evidence, but ok until there is any or no prove it’s a possibility. Than every option is a possibility, makes no sense.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
 
Pip to me science and common sense requires some prove, some evidence. Not the other way around, I state something, no clear evidence, but ok until there is any or no prove it’s a possibility. Than every option is a possibility, makes no sense.....
Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum
It makes perfect sense. There is no proof of which languages everyone spoke in every location thousands of years ago. There is no record of Yamnayans speaking IE, but it doesn't stop you asserting it. Where there is clear evidence (e.g. that Bell Beaker is closer autosomally to Balkan Chalcolithics than to Yamnayans or TRB), it doesn't stop you or anyone else asserting the contrary.
Ancient history is a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing. There is no absolute scientific proof.
But there is plenty of evidence of Germanic people venturing widely, often leaving little or no genetic trace. Examples - Vandals to Andalusia, Goths to Aragon, English to India, Danes to Greenland, Varangians to the Caspian, Normans to Sicily, crusaders to Jerusalem. Why write off the possibility that there was some sort of link with Iran? And even if there wasn't, why the hostility and ridicule?
 
Hostility and ridicule? Not so IMO, just criticism of a theory that despite everything is continuously pushed in this thread and others with no citations, cherry-picked quotes, quotations with contradictory aspects removed, etc. I can see that getting some people a little past disagreement to hostility.
 
oh if R1b-U106 too is originally from Europe then which(Germanic) ydna hgs migrated in 500 BC from Zagros then, I am very confused?

This Satem, Centum thing is much less important than people give them, if one IE language diverge to hundreds of languages then how come CW satem cannot change to Germanic Centum with some Celtic influence" their new neighbours in West Europe"? Has Thor, Zeus guaranteed Centum remain centum, satem remain satem lol

I agree with your first statement concerning U106. That said, the switching from satem to centum is not an easy thing, not so easy as the contrary I think.
And more generally, the adoption of new languages are not so easy themselves as some forumers seem thinking: it implies certain conditions and takes some generations, and almost always it comports modifications of the adopted languages;
 
It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.

Some Celts actually stayed in Anatolia in the province called Galatia.
 
I was just reading this thread and found it informative and interesting.
Made an account just to comment on it
...

Remember when the mods in this thread tried to discredit Cyrus and his sources?

This one paper in particular stands out, "its not peer reviewed","it's pre preprint", etc etc.
Its now cited about 380 times. Didn't age well did it... Source: [h=1]The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia[/h]
 
I was just reading this thread and found it informative and interesting.
Made an account just to comment on it
...

Remember when the mods in this thread tried to discredit Cyrus and his sources?

This one paper in particular stands out, "its not peer reviewed","it's pre preprint", etc etc.
Its now cited about 380 times. Didn't age well did it... Source: The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia

If Cyrus thinks proto-Germanic people and proto-Germanic languages come already well formed into Europe from Iran, I think personally he is wrong all the way. Germanic direct heir of proto-IE? not IE? or even IE? Uneasy to swallow down, IMO.
Y-I1 is far to be a direct descendant of Y-I-M170, and we think it was rather Y-R1b-U106 the motor of I-Europeanization in Northern Europe, but I suppose my arguments and others, better, have already been exposed long ago in this thread.
 
If Cyrus thinks proto-Germanic people and proto-Germanic languages come already well formed into Europe from Iran, I think personally he is wrong all the way. Germanic direct heir of proto-IE? not IE? or even IE? Uneasy to swallow down, IMO.
Y-I1 is far to be a direct descendant of Y-I-M170, and we think it was rather Y-R1b-U106 the motor of I-Europeanization in Northern Europe, but I suppose my arguments and others, better, have already been exposed long ago in this thread.

From what I read, at first he claimed that IE spikers were minority elite that brought language and culture, then he switched into some kind of back and forth migration.

My opinion is that Germanics are creole, mix between proto Slavs, proto Basques and native Skandinavians.
Satem got changed into Kentum because of proto Basques influence.
Celts became Celts in central Europe because of horsmen IE influence, and then spread westward and assimilated basically the same people that had old ways.

R1b are not IE, they were those proto Basques, first civ that brought Bronze into Europe, possibly also EEF

End yeah, word Germans a Roman nomenclature, for "those people over there", Germans never called themselves like that until Roman influence
 
From what I read, at first he claimed that IE spikers were minority elite that brought language and culture, then he switched into some kind of back and forth migration.

My opinion is that Germanics are creole, mix between proto Slavs, proto Basques and native Skandinavians.
Satem got changed into Kentum because of proto Basques influence.
Celts became Celts in central Europe because of horsmen IE influence, and then spread westward and assimilated basically the same people that had old ways.

R1b are not IE, they were those proto Basques, first civ that brought Bronze into Europe, possibly also EEF

End yeah, word Germans a Roman nomenclature, for "those people over there", Germans never called themselves like that until Roman influence

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.

So there is no Germanic Urheimat, a restricted area were there was a source population. Proto-Germanic goes back to the Bronze Age. This proto-Germanic development, in my opinion, 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.

That's a pretty large area in Europe. So Germanics were not one size fit's all. When it comes to the language, Koch (2021) has a nice roadmap and timetable in which we can detect the development of (proto) Germanic:


When it comes to genetics we see that in autosomal sense Germanics are about a mixture of Corded Ware (about 50%), Early European Farmers (specific Lineair Pottery Culture/ LBK like, about 30% plus) and about 20% Western European Hunter Gatherers c.q. Ertebølle culture. In specific region especially on the North German Plain the Ertebølle people took (parts) of the neolithic package but staid basically WHG like. In the more Northeastern Germanic parts (Sweden) were SHG Scandinavia Hunter Garthers played a part.

When it comes to Y-DNA, I-M253 and R1b U106 are significant. The oldest R1b U106 is found in early Czech Corded Ware (98% Yamna like). From central (-east) Europe Corded Ware went to the NW in the form of Single Grave Culture (see Egfjørd 2021). I1 is found in Ostorf Funnelbeaker culture which were essential Ertebølle people (WHG like).

G25 model to picture this:

Code:
SWE_Motala_HG:I0011,0.124067,0.099522,0.168573,0.188633,0.087093,0.054105,0,0.013153,0.035383,-0.04483,0.001786,-0.024129,0.035976,-0.014863,0.028908,0.051975,0.007171,0.003421,-0.009302,0.03164,0.053531,0.011129,-0.019843,-0.092784,0.008263
SWE_Motala_HG:I0012,0.135449,0.084289,0.173476,0.195739,0.092017,0.056894,-0.00752,0.009692,0.050722,-0.038999,-0.000325,-0.018434,0.032557,-0.016928,0.02823,0.052771,0.004303,0,-0.006913,0.035017,0.062016,0.016693,-0.021445,-0.104714,0.001437
SWE_Motala_HG:I0013,0.127482,0.088351,0.155751,0.168607,0.089247,0.049921,-0.00329,0.001615,0.040291,-0.030616,0.00747,-0.015736,0.023488,-0.026699,0.034202,0.04402,0.00326,0.002407,-0.009427,0.048023,0.043922,0.010634,-0.019966,-0.097002,0.010897
SWE_Motala_HG:I0014,0.137726,0.083273,0.167064,0.190571,0.078476,0.056336,-0.004935,0.006,0.036201,-0.038816,0.002273,-0.015436,0.031962,-0.009909,0.034066,0.046672,0.007953,0.006081,-0.005279,0.043771,0.04517,0.011871,-0.026991,-0.098689,0.006107
SWE_Motala_HG:I0015,0.137726,0.092413,0.160653,0.193155,0.085554,0.058567,0.003995,0.01223,0.025565,-0.041368,-0.002923,-0.019782,0.031219,-0.018304,0.032437,0.051047,0.006128,0.000253,-0.000754,0.040269,0.049163,0.021763,-0.022185,-0.095315,0.008502
TRB_GermanPlain:OST001.A0101,0.130897,0.141159,0.15198,0.133723,0.142796,0.040997,0.021151,0.018461,0.064425,0.01713,-0.002598,-0.001948,0.000595,-0.007432,0.046281,0.059135,0.010431,0.013049,0.008547,0.04077,0.056525,0.008161,-0.037591,-0.098327,0.030297
TRB_GermanPlain:OST002.C0201,0.132035,0.127957,0.156505,0.137599,0.127408,0.041276,0.012926,0.028614,0.069743,0.02442,-0.007795,-0.013488,0.008028,-0.00234,0.027958,0.034473,-0.003781,0.008361,-0.002891,0.037018,0.054529,0.002968,-0.042644,-0.10857,0.006466
TRB_GermanPlain:OST003.A0101,0.125205,0.11577,0.173853,0.172483,0.148643,0.056057,0.010575,0.028153,0.069129,0.003645,-0.018999,-0.013788,0.022894,0.002752,0.048724,0.06298,0.008084,0.004561,-0.001383,0.039644,0.081481,0.013478,-0.035126,-0.120619,0.015567
TRB_GermanPlain:TGM009.A0101,0.134311,0.141159,0.155751,0.122095,0.127101,0.032909,0.012691,0.015692,0.066266,0.021504,-0.011205,-0.011839,0.010406,-0.002064,0.024973,0.041766,0.011735,0.011275,-0.000754,0.035892,0.077488,0.015209,-0.032661,-0.104955,0.012214
DEU_LBK_HBS:I0048,0.127482,0.178733,0.001131,-0.10013,0.055395,-0.039881,-0.00564,-0.007154,0.040087,0.07909,0.011205,0.016635,-0.027354,0.00055,-0.043023,-0.010872,0.018906,0.00114,0.013073,-0.006503,-0.010606,0.011871,-0.013557,-0.002169,-0.005508
Corded_Ware_CZE_early:PNL001.merged,0.12862,0.099522,0.050911,0.122741,-0.016926,0.046854,0.006345,-0.001846,-0.048677,-0.071619,-0.004709,0.001499,-0.008028,-0.014863,0.03393,0.008353,-0.01004,-0.003167,-0.006913,0.003126,-0.00262,0.002597,0.006532,0.02904,-0.00467
https://www.academia.edu/44802752/C...ndo_European_vocabulary_in_the_North_and_West
 
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.
 
The Basque origin of Y-R1b is still to be proved. Phonetically the evolution of Celtic and Germanic as well as Italic, spite diverse, show no evident link with Basque, left side the strcuture question.
 

This thread has been viewed 160857 times.

Back
Top