What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

Are you saying Germanic U106 also came into Europe from Iran in the 1st millennium BC, but speaking a wholly different (Rhaetian) language to other Germanic (IE) migrants from Iran?
If so, how is there an early 2nd millennium BC Swedish U106 sample? Why would phylogeny suggest U106 development around Sweden and the Western Baltic pre-2,000 BC?
And why would Swedish Bronze Age samples be such a close match to modern Germanic U106 samples autosomally?

R1b1a is an European haplogroup and it came from Europe to Iran, not vice versa. We know even in the first centuries of the 1st millennium AD, some different non-Indo-European peoples, such as Etruscans, Iberians, Basques, ... lived in Eurupe and R1b was the main haplogroup of these people. U106 actually became a Germanic haologroup after adopting the Germanic culture in 500 BC.
 
Cyrus, you missed the best work about the Germanic tribe the Frisii a very old culture more than 4000 years old, the founding fathers of the Greek and Latin world....all written down in worlds best history book the Oera Linda Book in authentic Frisian. Have you read it?

When you have read it you will see the light, you never talk about German tribes spreading their Germanic culture 500 BC from Iran again, for sure.

https://eden-saga.com/en/dutch-myth...ok-over-de-linden-family-oera-linda-boek.html
 
Now serious....Dear administrator this is getting ridiculous. Please can this kind of crap be cut!
Thanks.

About the Oera Linda Book
It was meant as an irony. But it was getting serious business especially when Himmler was getting this kind of stuff serious. Even today some esoteric people and pagans believe it.....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oera_Linda_Book

What Cyrus is putting forward here is from the same kind of level. A historian must not copy paste mythical or ancient sources without criticism or putting them in a right context. The idea of a Persian tribe bringing in Germanic culture 500 BC has no fundament and is therefore ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
I thought Cyrus theory is about big number of Germanics come from W.Persia yet he says only minor but culturaly very important hgs settled W.Europe which are R1b-Z2103, J2, some Q so they today make very minor percentages, so there shouldn't be seriuos problems then because they could have indeed settled W.Europe from even Schythia if not proper Persia.
 
Side kick remark. When I was a few years ago with my family in a little village in the Rif mountains Maroc people stared at us (my sons and I are pretty robust) and shouted Allemani Allemani! ;) In many parts of the world this is the usual word for 'Germans' even in Persian ;)

Wiki:
" The
names for Germany in modern Arabic (ألمانيا), Catalan (Alemanya), Welsh (Yr Almaen), Cornish (Almayn), French (Allemagne), Persian (ألمان), Portuguese (Alemanha), Spanish (Alemania), and Turkish (Almanya) all derive from Alamannia.'
 
I thought Cyrus theory is about big number of Germanics come from W.Persia yet he says only minor but culturaly very important hgs settled W.Europe which are R1b-Z2103, J2, some Q so they today make very minor percentages, so there shouldn't be seriuos problems then because they could have indeed settled W.Europe from even Schythia if not proper Persia.

Yes and even for the minor no prove, bad history writing.
 
R1b1a is an European haplogroup and it came from Europe to Iran, not vice versa. We know even in the first centuries of the 1st millennium AD, some different non-Indo-European peoples, such as Etruscans, Iberians, Basques, ... lived in Eurupe and R1b was the main haplogroup of these people. U106 actually became a Germanic haologroup after adopting the Germanic culture in 500 BC.

So Germanic people were only partly of Iranian descent, with at least the substantial part descending from U106 people being indigenous European after all? So are you saying the only Germanic yDNA of 500 BC Iranian descent was I1? If so, its impact on Germanic autosomal DNA looks to have been negligible, as present-day Germanic DNA is largely the same as it was in the Bronze Age. And surely U106 must have migrated from Rhaetia or wherever to the Baltic long before 500 BC too, as archaeological and phylogenic evidence indicates?

I'm not denying that you might have some valid points on a cultural or linguistic level, but it does not seem to fit the data I have seen on a genetic level. As I have mentioned previously, genetics, culture and language are three different things - to conflate them is simplistic and potentially misleading.
 
I'm a historian and I know the exact word "Germani" was first used by Herodotus in the 5th century BC as a people who lived in Iran, not Europe.
The Germanic culture in Europe certainly differed from the original one in Iran, we see strong influences especially from ancient Roman and Nordic cultures, but I think almost all nationalist people in the world believe that their own ancestors created their own cultures in their own lands, ok but we can't write history based on their inclination.
Not Iranian tribes but Germanic tribes, Iran is just a land where different people have lived there, in the ancient times Germanic tribes lived and now different Iranian, Turkic, Arab, ... people live. It never means Germanic culture is the same as Iranian culture or vice versa.
I don't want to fool anyone, I just believe before 500 BC Germanic people lived in my country and I'm researching about it.
You yourself talked about insult, we are all humankind and our original land was actually in Africa.
What are these biased kind of stuff?!
Herodotus was referring to Germanioi (Latinized Carmanii) not the Germani of the Roman period.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/germanioi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmania_(region)
You've not convinced anyone of a Germanic presence in Western Iran, where is the archaeology for this? Where is the autosomal admixture? Where is the evidence? This isn't a nationalist issue, this is a discussion about your differing theory and you've yet to provide concrete evidence.
spruithean, what is the major difference between what I say and what you believe? I don't think that you want to deny what David Reich and other geneticists say about the original land of Indo-Europeans in present-day Iran, do you believe they migrated from Iran to the north of Europe in 2,000-1,500 BC, not 1,000-500 BC? We know ancient Gutians lived in Iran from at least 25th century BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people so even in your theory it is still possible that the same Gutians migrated to the north of Europe, isn't it?
Reich and others propose that the PIE homeland is likely the Pontic-Caspian steppe, this in some circles pertains to PIE minus the Hittite branch, as there is evidence that Hittite broke off much earlier than the others making it almost a sister language.
In my theory is there still a possibility of Gutians migrating to Europe? No. I don't see it being possible for Gutians to have migrated to Northern Europe because there isn't any strong genetic evidence for such a thing, we would expect Bronze Age and Iron Age Northern Europeans of a "Germanic" persuasion to have some more Iran autosomal components. Secondly, the Gutians are NOT the ancestors of the Goths IMO, as the Goths (male graves specific to Wielbark and related cultural complexes) show a genetic affinity to Iron Age Jutland (which plots closer to Nordic Bronze Age and related complexes, and not near geographical Iran components, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, BA, IA).
R1b-U106 seems to be originally a Rhaetian haplogroup, not Indo-European. R1b existed in Europe from at least 14,000 years ago, when geneticists talk about Indo-European origin in modern Iran, it doesn't mean almost the whole people of Europe migrated from Iran.
U106 is Rhaetic? It some how became Germanic by 500 BCE? Care to explain the ancient samples of U106 from Northern Europe, with a sample from Sweden dating to the 2275-2032 BCE?
In 500 BC Europe is a well-populated area and we shouldn't expect to see a huge change in DNA, anyway you think the same haplogroup R1b-Z2103 that I mentioned, also J2, Q, ... came from which land?
Haplogroup Q in Europe has a very specific phylogeny and this was discussed in a study on Haplogroup Q that I linked several pages back. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00438-017-1363-8
R1b1a is an European haplogroup and it came from Europe to Iran, not vice versa. We know even in the first centuries of the 1st millennium AD, some different non-Indo-European peoples, such as Etruscans, Iberians, Basques, ... lived in Eurupe and R1b was the main haplogroup of these people. U106 actually became a Germanic haologroup after adopting the Germanic culture in 500 BC.
Yet, R1b-U106 is found in ancient samples from Scandinavia prior to 500 BCE? Explain your reasoning, provide evidence please.
 
So Germanic people were only partly of Iranian descent, with at least the substantial part descending from U106 people being indigenous European after all? So are you saying the only Germanic yDNA of 500 BC Iranian descent was I1? If so, its impact on Germanic autosomal DNA looks to have been negligible, as present-day Germanic DNA is largely the same as it was in the Bronze Age. And surely U106 must have migrated from Rhaetia or wherever to the Baltic long before 500 BC too, as archaeological and phylogenic evidence indicates?
I'm not denying that you might have some valid points on a cultural or linguistic level, but it does not seem to fit the data I have seen on a genetic level. As I have mentioned previously, genetics, culture and language are three different things - to conflate them is simplistic and potentially misleading.
This.
In regards to I1, it being the result of Iranian-speakers is a strange suggestion. So far aDNA of I1 (or pre-I1**) have been found exclusively in Europe (oldest pre-I1 in Paleolithic Spain, Mesolithic Sweden and Neolithic Hungary, followed by pre-I1/I1 in Bronze Age Sweden). **Please note that pre-I1 is part of the same lineage as modern I1 that diverged from I-M170 some 27,500 years ago, however as of yet we do not know the chronological order (did M253 come before L840?) of the 312 defining mutations that define modern I1. Most I1 today is I1a-DF29, with a small percentage being I1b-Z131 and I1c-Z17925.
I don't think any ancient I1 has been found outside of Europe (the list of ancient I1 is short). Though we see I1 in areas that saw Germanic settlement/activity, Viking Activity and Norman/European involvement (I1 in Turkey, could be from Varangians, Normans or Medieval European people, Crusaders and the like).
 
This.
In regards to I1, it being the result of Iranian-speakers is a strange suggestion. So far aDNA of I1 (or pre-I1**) have been found exclusively in Europe (oldest pre-I1 in Paleolithic Spain, Mesolithic Sweden and Neolithic Hungary, followed by pre-I1/I1 in Bronze Age Sweden). **Please note that pre-I1 is part of the same lineage as modern I1 that diverged from I-M170 some 27,500 years ago, however as of yet we do not know the chronological order (did M253 come before L840?) of the 312 defining mutations that define modern I1. Most I1 today is I1a-DF29, with a small percentage being I1b-Z131 and I1c-Z17925.
I don't think any ancient I1 has been found outside of Europe (the list of ancient I1 is short). Though we see I1 in areas that saw Germanic settlement/activity, Viking Activity and Norman/European involvement (I1 in Turkey, could be from Varangians, Normans or Medieval European people, Crusaders and the like).
Agreed. I can't see any genetic signs of a significant 500 BC migration of people from Iran to North Central Europe. I only mentioned I1, because I wondered whether that was what Cyrus was suggesting and because its development looks more recent.

I can see signs, however, of possible migration in the opposite direction; and am open to the idea that Iranian cultural and possibly linguistic traits, and even some minor genetic admixture, could have been brought back to Europe by North Westerners who raided or traded South of the Caspian.
 
I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?
 
Agreed. I can't see any genetic signs of a significant 500 BC migration of people from Iran to North Central Europe. I only mentioned I1, because I wondered whether that was what Cyrus was suggesting and because its development looks more recent.

I1 has a star-like expansion right around the same time as other European haplogroups, right around the Bronze Age. So for some odd 20,000 years I1 was in a bottleneck and eventually expanded in the Bronze Age, as to what caused that, I'm not exactly sure. Razib Khan and a few others have presented the idea that I1 may have benefitted by association with R1b populations in the north. However most seem to agree that modern I1 developed in Northern Europe, where the initial split from I-M170 occurred is unknown, though judging by the earliest samples of pre-I1, usually labeled I1 in papers, it could have been somewhere in mainland Europe (perhaps Western or Central Europe).

I can see signs, however, of possible migration in the opposite direction; and am open to the idea that Iranian cultural and possibly linguistic traits, and even some minor genetic admixture, could have been brought back to Europe by North Westerners who raided or traded South of the Caspian.

There was a fair bit of European activity in the Near East from the Roman era and much later, so of course there may be minor genetic admixture, but that wouldn't quite lend itself to the theory that is being presented in this thread.

I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?

We're all tired of this discussion, because it does not end. Several people have provided solid information that you've pushed aside since it does not favour your theory. This is not about "belief", this is about verifying a theory with the data we have available, and it does not point in your favour.

Where is the evidence for a Germanic language/culture in Western Iran? Please provide some actual well-documented evidence.
 
I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?
I'm sorry if my comments have contributed to frustrating you. I'm quite prepared to accept that there might have been linguistic and cultural associations between Western Iran and Northern Europe during this period. There are also indications of significant genetic links, but with the flow of DNA in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, it appears there is little interest from anyone in giving this observation any consideration.
 
I1 has a star-like expansion right around the same time as other European haplogroups, right around the Bronze Age. So for some odd 20,000 years I1 was in a bottleneck and eventually expanded in the Bronze Age, as to what caused that, I'm not exactly sure. Razib Khan and a few others have presented the idea that I1 may have benefitted by association with R1b populations in the north. However most seem to agree that modern I1 developed in Northern Europe, where the initial split from I-M170 occurred is unknown, though judging by the earliest samples of pre-I1, usually labeled I1 in papers, it could have been somewhere in mainland Europe (perhaps Western or Central Europe).
Extant I1 had an extremely long formation period, so it was most likely located all over the place - to try to pinpoint it is pointless. But it is not the only haplogroup that looks close to R1b-L51. Unetice looks R1b Beakerish autosomally, despite it including the Caucasian haplogroup I2c2, so migration from NW Iran is not out of the question; it's just that this would look to have pre-dated 500 BC by some way.
 
Pip said:
I'm sorry if my comments have contributed to frustrating you. I'm quite prepared to accept that there might have been linguistic and cultural associations between Western Iran and Northern Europe during this period. There are also indications of significant genetic links, but with the flow of DNA in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, it appears there is little interest from anyone in giving this observation any consideration.

I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (namru "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.
 
I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (namru "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.

Gutians also look like newcomers, being represented as ignorant of the gods and culture.

They first appear at pretty much exactly the time that both SNP and STR analysis estimate that a branch of R1a-M417 (Z94) started developing rapidly South of the Caspian.

Autosomal analysis also suggests that Iran received a substantial amount of Northern autosomal DNA post-Chalcolithic (fitting with Armenian, Georgian, Southern Steppe Yamnayan and Baltic) - a result which is replicated in similar Indo-Aryan descendant populations like Punjabis. I see good fits for minor contribution from several kinds of early Baltic people, including Latvian Corded Ware, Lithuanian Corded Ware, Latvian Neolithic and Swedish Battle Axe. It is not too difficult or unlikely for Northern people to have made this journey - the Vikings followed exactly the same trail down the Volga to Iran.

It is reasonable to hypothesise that some indigenous Iranian DNA might have returned to the Baltic with these people, although I can see no substantial trace of that in the DNA.
 
I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (namru "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.

That's a strong cop out. If this is your counter, it's not very good. Are you literally saying that these so-called "proto-Germanic" people in the Zagros just stuck to themselves in an endogenous fashion? That would be even more pronounced genetically, why don't we see that exactly? I don't see any convincing evidence for Germanic (or Celtic) origins in the parts of Iran or in the contexts of which you propose.

As to the "fairness" of the Gutians, it is debated. Their alleged "light-skinned" appearance cannot be equated with being blond. Realize that different cultures have different definitions of "fair" or "light-skinned".
 
Are you literally saying that these so-called "proto-Germanic" people in the Zagros just stuck to themselves in an endogenous fashion? That would be even more pronounced genetically, why don't we see that exactly? I don't see any convincing evidence for Germanic (or Celtic) origins in the parts of Iran or in the contexts of which you propose.
It is possible that groups can be endogamous, particularly if they only stay for a short period. Don't we know the Celts were in Asia Minor for a time? But we see little evidence of this in either European or Anatolian DNA.
The Guti appear to be of Northern provenance, of which we do see signs in DNA. We also see Gauti in the Baltic and Geti halfway between the two. We see Caspians in Iran, and Kasabians in the Baltic. I wouldn't rule out connections.
 
I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?

The solution is simple. There is only one unique Germanic language/ culture and that is situated in NW Europe. This Germanic language/culture is (partly) rooted in a wider Indo-European language/ culture.

The acceptance of that solves endless discussion ;)
 
It is possible that groups can be endogamous, particularly if they only stay for a short period. Don't we know the Celts were in Asia Minor for a time? But we see little evidence of this in either European or Anatolian DNA.
The Guti appear to be of Northern provenance, of which we do see signs in DNA. We also see Gauti in the Baltic and Geti halfway between the two. We see Caspians in Iran, and Kasabians in the Baltic. I wouldn't rule out connections.

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. Is there any specific evidence that states the Guti were of "northern provenance"? 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.

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. We also should be very careful of interpreting medieval "historical" (more like pseudo-historical) works as having any semblance of truth.

I'm all for finding new connections throughout history, however they need be backed by solid evidence.
 

This thread has been viewed 161391 times.

Back
Top