What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

[Pip]

You can stop right there. This isn't some dumb conspiracy theory t-roll forum. We do in fact support academic peer-reviewed theories over nonsense that is peddled by laymen t-rolls.

Yes sir! Maybe all laymen should be excommunicated from this forum, along with any dissenting academics, who should tow the establishment line or face deletion. Perhaps it is time for Government to step in and start regulating and censoring all posts on this website?

 

[Pip]

The fact is that I just wanted to know what genetics says about the origin of modern Germanic people. What I know is that a Germanic culture existed in the west of Iran from at least 3rd millinium bc to the first half of the 1st millennium BC, but geneticists should say what happened latter, it is possible that some people from this part of Iran migrated directly to the North Europe or they migrated to another part of Europe, like Tuscany, and from this land the Germanic culture spread to the north of Europe, ...
If you believe that the Germanic culture didn't exist in Iran, you should either prove that Indo-Europeans never migrated to Iran before the 1st millennium BC or those who migrated couldn't be proto-Germanic people. For example you can say for these reasons an Indo-European language couldn't be changed to proto-Germanic in Iran. Why for example the German city of Munich/München is pronounced as Munix/Munxen in Iran, and probably Tuscany?

I'm not saying you are wrong. For one, there is a substantial shared R1a inheritance between Germans and Iranians going back to only about 3000 BC. But the question is still a conflation of language, culture and genetics. Regardless of what our academic overlords try to assert, there is no simple answer to it or refutation of it

 

[Jovialis]

Yes sir! Maybe all laymen should be excommunicated from this forum, along with any dissenting academics, who should tow the establishment line or face deletion. Perhaps it is time for Government to step in and start regulating and censoring all posts on this website?

Don't be childish, that is a false equivalency. Asking people to substantiate their theories with academic peer-reviewed sources is not the same as your absurd comparison. Moreover, making baseless claims deserves the criticism it has received. Doing it to an excessive and disruptive volume is t-rolling.

 

[Cyrus]

You can stop right there. This isn't some dumb conspiracy theory t-roll forum. We do in fact support academic peer-reviewed theories over nonsense that is peddled by laymen t-rolls.

Please stop these offensive accusations, I'm an academic historian and my works have been published in Iran.

 

[bigsnake49]

Please stop these offensive accusations, I'm an academic historian and my works have been published in Iran.

1. Have you been published outside of Iran in a peer reviewed journal?
2. Even if you are a academic historian it does not qualify you as a geneticist

Now I have nothing against you but those are two questions that need to be asked when you are proposing theories that are way outside the mainstream.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm not saying you are wrong. For one, there is a substantial shared R1a inheritance between Germans and Iranians going back to only about 3000 BC. But the question is still a conflation of language, culture and genetics. Regardless of what our academic overlords try to assert, there is no simple answer to it or refutation of it

I'm really interested that you prove I am wrong, for example you can say:

1. There is a consonant or vowel in proto-Germanic phonology which didn't exist in the west Iran.
2. There is a sound change in proto-Germanic which didn't happen in the west of Iran.
3. There is something in the Germanic culture which didn't exist in the west of Iran.
4. There is a paragroup among original Germanic people which doesn't exist in the west of Iran.
...

 

[hrvclv]

Yes sir! Maybe all laymen should be excommunicated from this forum, along with any dissenting academics, who should tow the establishment line or face deletion. Perhaps it is time for Government to step in and start regulating and censoring all posts on this website?

We are all dissenters to a degree on this forum. No problem with that. But when somebody asks such questions as...

What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?

they can't hope to be taken seriously. Germanic people in the 6th millenium BC?!? Why not ask what was the predominant haplogroup of English people in the 6th millenium BC?

Up from a certain point you lose all credibility. Either you are totally lacking in any sense of chronology (a weakness in a "historian" for sure), or you are a t-roll.

 

[Cyrus]

1. Have you been published outside of Iran in a peer reviewed journal?
2. Even if you are a academic historian it does not qualify you as a geneticist

Now I have nothing against you but those are two questions that need to be asked when you are proposing theories that are way outside the mainstream.

I'm still researching and there are some things that I need more evidences for my theory, like ancient DNA evidences. Of course I'm not a geneticist but as a historian I can use genetic evidences in my work.

 

[Cyrus]

We are all dissenters to a degree on this forum. No problem with that. But when somebody asks such questions as...
they can't hope to be taken seriously. Germanic people in the 6th millenium BC?!? Why not ask what was the predominant haplogroup of English people in the 6th century BC?
Up from a certain point you lose all credibility. Either you are totally lacking in any sense of chronology (a weakness in a "historian" for sure), or you are a t-roll.

What is wrong about this question? Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European which became extinct in the 6th millennium BC, if you believe it is not, please prove it.

It is meaningless that you compare it to English.

Indo-Europran > Germanic > West Germanic > Anglo-Frisian > Anglic > Old English > Middle English > English

 

[Northener]

I consider the Iron Age Jastorf culture of outmost NW Germany as the first Germanic culture. I'm no language expert but the development of Germanic out of Nordic Germanic Bronze Age (?) is mostly seen as bound to the Jastorf culture. This culture was very expansive. Especially at the end of the Roman period and the early middle ages.

The Germanic genotype can basically be traced back to LNBA Nordic. So the Nordic Bronze Age. I'm North Dutch and my family shares in G25 Eurogenes a Nordic LNBA genetic profile. This can have two reasons. One is that on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia there is a shared gene pool due to the same Ertebölle like HG, Neolithic Funnelbeaker, shared Single Grave Culture (Corded Ware) and NW Bell Beaker development. Or I have a pretty high chunk genes of the Anglo-Saxons that went to the North Dutch area the last biggest population influx (in my region), besides the influx during the last centuries from the same NW Germanic area (although a little bit more southwards like Emsland and Westfalia).

Maybe it's both: a shared basic layer in the gene pool and a Germanic influx during the early middle ages.

Large parts of that are now cultural and national German(ic) don't share this as a whole. For example an area like Bavaria had an early middle age Germanic influx, but the (pre-Germanic) indigenous population didn't share the same gene pool (with the North European Plan/ South Scandinavia) before that.

 

[spruithean]

I'm not saying you are wrong. For one, there is a substantial shared R1a inheritance between Germans and Iranians going back to only about 3000 BC. But the question is still a conflation of language, culture and genetics. Regardless of what our academic overlords try to assert, there is no simple answer to it or refutation of it

A common paternal origin (partially) that traces back to the Steppe is not to be confused with OP's theory that "proto-Germanic" people migrated OUT of Iran. Alternate theories that still consider evidence (not cherry-picked evidence) are how the scientific field moves forward. Blatantly ignoring data, omitting portions of quotations when they don't suit ones needs and other displays of academic dishonesty do not make one any more convincing nor does it make ones theory more "legitimate". The motives of this forum and the earlier discussion about deleting misinformation is geared toward the t-roll-like nature of the misinformed theory as it is presented despite repeated references to legitimate peer-reviewed sources that state the actual accepted theories on the origins of "Germanic" people.

I've never argued that the "Germanic" people were a homogeneous group, I am well aware they are heterogeneous, but their population sources are most definitely not migrants from a Bronze Age/Iron Age source of the Zagros region.

Please stop these offensive accusations, I'm an academic historian and my works have been published in Iran.

Your status as an academic historian does not make you some superior figure in genetics (or linguistics) and you should stop presenting it as such, and if anything, repeatedly omitting portions of quotations from papers that pertain to population genetics and the movements of humans, and ignoring scientific data simply discredits you, especially when you state that you are an academic historian. I do not intend to offend and let's be clear here, I have nothing against you, I do however vehemently disagree with your theory.

I'm really interested that you prove I am wrong, for example you can say:

1. There is a consonant or vowel in proto-Germanic phonology which didn't exist in the west Iran.
2. There is a sound change in proto-Germanic which didn't happen in the west of Iran.
3. There is something in the Germanic culture which didn't exist in the west of Iran.
4. There is a paragroup among original Germanic people which doesn't exist in the west of Iran.
...

You continue to ignore actual language laws and developments that preceded various aspects of a language, yet again you compare two Indo-European cultures that have parallels and you believe that to be evidence? All Indo-European cultures have similarities (Sky God, Storm God, Divine Twins, Horse Twins) and that shouldn't be a surprise really. Your last point makes no sense, what are you arguing with that? Are you referencing a paragroup like R1a/R1b or something along those lines and ignoring the specific phylogeny?

We are all dissenters to a degree on this forum. No problem with that. But when somebody asks such questions as...



they can't hope to be taken seriously. Germanic people in the 6th millenium BC?!? Why not ask what was the predominant haplogroup of English people in the 6th century BC?

Up from a certain point you lose all credibility. Either you are totally lacking in any sense of chronology (a weakness in a "historian" for sure), or you are a t-roll.

Precisely.

I'm still researching and there are some things that I need more evidences for my theory, like ancient DNA evidences. Of course I'm not a geneticist but as a historian I can use genetic evidences in my work.

Continuing to research, that's what everyone is doing, hence all of our collective interests in these topics, however using ancient DNA evidences and misconstruing them, misinterpreting them or disregarding the information as presented by scientific papers in pursuit of proving your own theory is really quite dishonest. An example from earlier was the earlier stated theory (by you) that the Gutians were somehow the ancestors of Goths yet a genetic paper on the cultural complexes in Poland (and further east) as they pertained to the Gothic people showed a genetic connection to Iron Age Jutland (in the male population) and supported the idea that the Goths came from Scandinavia.

You are the one presenting a theory, the onus is on you to present the data and account for discrepancies in your theory, so I will ask again, if your theory is ever found to be true why do we not see autosomal admixture of Zagros populations in Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc Northern Europeans? Why does the archaeological record support a continuation of shared material culture of the Nordic Bronze Age in Southern Scandinavia/Northern Germany (Kinder & Hilgemann 2004 among others) as it relates to the origins of "Germanic" peoples? Why does the archaeological record not support a Zagros migration?

What is wrong about this question? Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European which became extinct in the 6th millennium BC, if you believe it is not, please prove it.

He's not denying that Proto-Germanic is a descendant of PIE, but he was quoting you as your initial question there was anachronistic as it pertains to "Germanic" peoples.

 

[matty74]

I'm still researching and there are some things that I need more evidences for my theory, like ancient DNA evidences. Of course I'm not a geneticist but as a historian I can use genetic evidences in my work.

What are your credentials as a historian? I've seen a couple other handles on other similar sites trying to make the same argument that you have.

 

[Cyrus]

I consider the Iron Age Jastorf culture of outmost NW Germany as the first Germanic culture. I'm no language expert but the development of Germanic out of Nordic Germanic Bronze Age (?) is mostly seen a bound to the Jastorf culture. This culture was very expansive. Especially at the end of the Roman period and the early middles ages.
The Germanic genotype can basically be traced back to LNBA Nordic. So the Nordic Bronze Age. I'm North Dutch and my family shares in G25 Eurogenes a Nordic LNBA genetic profile. This can have two reasons. One is that on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia there is a share gene pool due to the same Ertebölle like HG, Neolithic Funnelbeaker, shared Single Grave Culture (Corded Ware) and NW Bell Beaker development. Or I have a pretty high chunk genes of the Anglo-Saxons that went to the North Dutch area the last biggest influx, besides the influx during the last centuries from the same NW Germanic area (although a little bit more southwards like Emsland and Westfalia).
Maybe it's both: a shared basic layer in the gene pool and a Germanic influx during the early middle ages.
Large parts of which are now cultural and national Germanic don't share this as a whole area's like Bavaria had an early middle age Germanic influx, but the indigenous population didn't share the same gene pool before that.

You actually believe in three miracles:
1. Existence of a language almost the same as proto-IE in the north of Europe at least 3,000 years after extinction of this language in other lands.
2. A huge change in the phonology of this language in 500 BC without any substrate language.
3. Expiration of sound changes in this language.
I think the 3rd one is the most important one, for example when we see p>f/b in Arabic, like in proto-Germanic, it can't be said that this sound change just happened in the ancient times, so Arabs shouldn't pronounce Pepsi as Bibsi!

 

[spruithean]

You actually believe in three miracles:
1. Existence of a language almost the same as proto-IE in the north of Europe at least 3,000 years after extinction of this language in other lands.
2. A huge change in the phonology of this language in 500 BC without any substrate language.
3. Expiration of sound changes in this language.
I think the 3rd one is the most important one, for example when we see p>f/b in Arabic, like in proto-Germanic, it can't be said that this sound change just happened in the ancient times, so Arabs shouldn't pronounce Pepsi as Bibsi!

You've missed Northener's main points.

 

[Northener]

You actually believe in three miracles:
1. Existence of a language almost the same as proto-IE in the north of Europe at least 3,000 years after extinction of this language in other lands.
2. A huge change in the phonology of this language in 500 BC without any substrate language.
3. Expiration of sound changes in this language.
I think the 3rd one is the most important one, for example when we see p>f/b in Arabic, like in proto-Germanic, it can't be said that this sound change just happened in the ancient times, so Arabs shouldn't pronounce Pepsi as Bibsi!

Nothing of this all read it well please. The fata morgana is on your side.
I only mentioned the real thing.....not pepsi hahahah

 

[Pip]

Don't be childish, that is a false equivalency. Asking people to substantiate their theories with academic peer-reviewed sources is not the same as your absurd comparison. Moreover, making baseless claims deserves the criticism it has received. Doing it to an excessive and disruptive volume is t-rolling.

In my opinion, it is childish to use a succession of pejorative words like "dumb", "conspiracy theory", "t-roll", "nonsense", "peddled" and "absurd". This is not the measured, academic approach that I am used to.

 

[Pip]

1. Have you been published outside of Iran in a peer reviewed journal?
2. Even if you are a academic historian it does not qualify you as a geneticist

Now I have nothing against you but those are two questions that need to be asked when you are proposing theories that are way outside the mainstream.

I don't see why you need to have published outside of Iran, to have "peers" agree with you or to have a certificate in order to be able propose an idea.

 

[nornosh]

They most certainly were not Germanic. You keep arguing this despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a thing. If a population ancestral to that of Germanic peoples migrated from the Zagros region we would expect to see remnants of this in the autosomal admixture, and we do not.

which admixtures we would have seen if Cyrus's theories were right? because he says they(Germanics) were unmixed at the time they left Zagros region, so he makes it hard for others to contradict him lol.

 

[Pip]

What is wrong about this question? Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European which became extinct in the 6th millennium BC, if you believe it is not, please prove it.

So it appears we are talking principally about language, rather than genetics or culture.

I am interested in genetics, rather than language, but it seems Proto-Germanic had a very long gestation period (a formation directly from PIE somewhere between 4,500-2,500 BC and a TMRCA which Wikipedia estimates as 500 BC).

As far as I can see, all sorts of people contributed to the Germanic gene pool between these dates. Unless we have clear documentary evidence of the use of all the intermediate languages over this entire time period, I don't see we how we can know for sure exactly which combination of people living where each contributed how much to the development of this language.

As in many other areas, there is too much simplistic thinking, leading to over-confidence and unwarranted hostility towards people thinking differently.

 

[nornosh]

Who said the extinction of Common IE language was in 6th millenium BC, I would rather put it in 3rd millenium BC so then from 2500 BC to 500 BC could be the time of PreProtoGermanic now if you say why so long time it toke to the emergence of Common Germanic well its because I said earlier "the Germanics geography remained more or less the same" look languages become diverge when tribes immigrate far from eachother. Germanics only begin to diverge into bigger geography in 500 BC so from then on their language get diverged.