What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

[nornosh]

No, he's trying to pull a fast one, read the link Cyrus provided:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581
It says it is a pre-print.
Too bad it is still a pre-print.
If it isn't a pre-print anymore Cyrus, find the official published link and share it. You won't find the OFFICIAL FINALIZED version because it is still a pre-print.

Even the PDF from the bioXriv link says it is a pre-print.

Oh sorry man I thought its the official version released, but yes the "date" I didn't see my bad! but its been so long why its taking so long for them to publish full version, by the way other good results could not be wrong in this paper like the general ancestry of S.asians, C.asians which are so important.

 

[Cyrus]

Cyrus, that thread is old (03-31-2018) the paper is still not published, it is still a pre-print. It's still a pre-print at BioXRiv see your own link from that website. I'm well aware that it hasn't been officially published.
From your bioXriv link:
"[This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]."
It also says "March 31, 2018." as the date for the pre-print being posted on bioXriv.

It could be upwards of 6 months for this paper to be finalized. They've done their reassessment and will publish said results when they publish the paper.

So again, we should wait before we make assumptions and before we start making maps based off of bad Y-calls using a pre-print that hasn't been officially published.
Also still there is no evidence of Germanic people migrating from Iran as the Darra-i-Kur is a damaged sample with low reads of everything, Loebanr has inconsistent reads, the I2 samples inconsistent reads, etc the list goes on. Besides even if your precious Loebanr was U106 and if those I2 were legitimate they are PREDATED by European samples by a huge timeframe. So it would mean a migration from Europe, not to.

I repeat, the BioXRiv link is a pre-print and the study has not been officially published and it will likely be published on Nature when it is finalized.
Hate to burst your bubble, but this paper is a STILL a pre-print.

I follow the main author on twitter and he has not posted anything about the study being finalized.

This was shared from Mr. Narasimhan himself on April 4, 2019 via his twitter:

"We would appreciate if people would: - Identify errors or fill in missing information for location, lat, long, archaeological context, date, label- fix Y chr haplogroup determinations (by manual checking).- identifying other problems in the data or annotations for individuals"

Sorry, I thought you mean nothing has been published about these haplogroups and these are just some non-official data in the web.
Is it really believable that it is just by coincidence that both in Afghanistan and Pakistan they have mistaken another haplogroup with R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2?! I really can't believe it.

 

[Northener]

Read this blog of Davidski, it's very clear that the genetic profile of Nordic Bronze (LNBA) is basically the cluster (=origin) that formed the Germans of the Iron Age and later.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/who-were-people-of-nordic-bronze-age.html

 

[spruithean]

Sorry, I thought you mean nothing has been published about these haplogroups and these are just some non-official data in the web.
Is it really believable that it is just by coincidence that both in Afghanistan and Pakistan they have mistaken another haplogroup with R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2?! I really can't believe it.

Pre-print is where the papers initially go for review to look for errors. It is not coincidence, nor is this a conspiracy this is science, scientists don't set out with a theory and then look for evidence, they acquire data and then build from there. I've looked through the Y-calls and they are really quite inconsistent there are some that are consistent but that is because they follow phylogeny well (and they are high quality samples), some are somewhat questionable others are extremely questionable. It's not about belief here, it's about the data and the reads and probabilities and how a new computer program (by new I mean very new) interpreted the data. Anyway this paper with its corrections has gone through peer review (the data currently out on bioXriv is NOT the new stuff that is set to be released) and it will be published eventually, it could be as long as 6 months.

We will always find samples that present low coverage, damage, etc. due to the nature of genetic material (it degrades over time) and the chemical processes that human bodies undergo when buried in various types of soil or other materials, we know some soils are acidic and they damage the DNA if not entirely destroying it. Damaged DNA can cause incorrect sequence reads due to the damage (it can alter how the nucleobases are interpreted), there are many studies where some samples are reported with no haplogroups at all due to the damage, or are given very basal calls due to the damage and being unnable to read the bases along the "strands".

Anyway,

Some of the calls that ARE consistent are S8505.E1.L1., S8504.E1.L1., I6550, I6549, I1784, S8524.E1.L1., I2927, I2128, S8194.E1.L1., I6553, I3262, I1985, and many others

Some of the inconsistent calls are S8527.E1.L1., Darra-i Kur, S8998.E1.L1., I1003, I1992 etc. to name a few of them.

Several of the Haplogroup Q people in the supplementary excel file are from the Steppe (Sintashta, Khvalynsk, etc.)

Oh sorry man I thought its the official version released, but yes the "date" I didn't see my bad! but its been so long why its taking so long for them to publish full version, by the way other good results could not be wrong in this paper like the general ancestry of S.asians, C.asians which are so important.

No worries, it has been a really long time! There were rumours of this paper being connected to another study coming out of India that was taking a long time too, however as I just mentioned the Central/South Asia paper has undergone peer review and when it is released the new corrected/improved data will be published. In regards to the pre-print judging by some of the samples, many are accurate, or partially accurate (with some missing calls that potentially negate the final call) and others are quite inconsistent, just the nature of testing DNA. I agree testing the DNA of Central Asians and South Asians is important (as is testing every population group!)

Read this blog of Davidski, it's very clear that the genetic profile of Nordic Bronze (LNBA) is basically the cluster (=origin) that formed the Germans of the Iron Age and later.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/who-were-people-of-nordic-bronze-age.html

Good read!

 

[Cyrus]

Read this blog of Davidski, it's very clear that the genetic profile of Nordic Bronze (LNBA) is basically the cluster (=origin) that formed the Germans of the Iron Age and later.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/who-were-people-of-nordic-bronze-age.html

Nordic bronze age culture is the base of Germanic culture in Europe but the Germanic culture itself came through Halstatt culture and they were combined in the Jastrof culture about 500 BC, it can be said Germanic men married Nordic women!
About mtDNA haplogroup U7:

We read in Wikipedia: Genetic analysis of individuals associated with the Late Hallstatt culture from Baden-W?rttemberg Germany considered to be examples of Iron Age "princely burials" included haplogroup U7. Haplogroup U7 was reported to have been found in 1200-year-old human remains (dating to around 834), in a woman believed to be from a royal clan who was buried with the Viking Oseberg Ship in Norway. Haplogroup U7 was found in 1000-year-old human remains (dating to around AD 1000-1250) in a Christian cemetery is Kongemarken Denmark. However, U7 is rare among present-day ethnic Scandinavians.

 

[Cyrus]

Pre-print is where the papers initially go for review to look for errors. It is not coincidence, nor is this a conspiracy this is science, scientists don't set out with a theory and then look for evidence, they acquire data and then build from there. I've looked through the Y-calls and they are really quite inconsistent there are some that are consistent but that is because they follow phylogeny well (and they are high quality samples), some are somewhat questionable others are extremely questionable. It's not about belief here, it's about the data and the reads and probabilities and how a new computer program (by new I mean very new) interpreted the data. Anyway this paper with its corrections has gone through peer review (the data currently out on bioXriv is NOT the new stuff that is set to be released) and it will be published eventually, it could be as long as 6 months.

We will always find samples that present low coverage, damage, etc. due to the nature of genetic material (it degrades over time) and the chemical processes that human bodies undergo when buried in various types of soil or other materials, we know some soils are acidic and they damage the DNA if not entirely destroying it. Damaged DNA can cause incorrect sequence reads due to the damage (it can alter how the nucleobases are interpreted), there are many studies where some samples are reported with no haplogroups at all due to the damage, or are given very basal calls due to the damage and being unnable to read the bases along the "strands".

Anyway,

Some of the calls that ARE consistent are S8505.E1.L1., S8504.E1.L1., I6550, I6549, I1784, S8524.E1.L1., I2927, I2128, S8194.E1.L1., I6553, I3262, I1985, and many others

Some of the inconsistent calls are S8527.E1.L1., Darra-i Kur, S8998.E1.L1., I1003, I1992 etc. to name a few of them.

What if they confirm this haplogroup in Afghanistan and Pakistan and it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this region too? Does it prove the Germanic people lived here in the ancient times? Or it also proves nothing?!

 

[Northener]

Nordic bronze age culture is the base of Germanic culture in Europe but the Germanic culture itself came through Halstatt culture and they were combined in the Jastrof culture about 500 BC, it can be said Germanic men married Nordic women!
About mtDNA haplogroup U7:

We read in Wikipedia: Genetic analysis of individuals associated with the Late Hallstatt culture from Baden-W�rttemberg Germany considered to be examples of Iron Age "princely burials" included haplogroup U7. Haplogroup U7 was reported to have been found in 1200-year-old human remains (dating to around 834), in a woman believed to be from a royal clan who was buried with the Viking Oseberg Ship in Norway. Haplogroup U7 was found in 1000-year-old human remains (dating to around AD 1000-1250) in a Christian cemetery is Kongemarken Denmark. However, U7 is rare among present-day ethnic Scandinavians.

There could indeed be a certain Hallstatt influence, but I'm of North Dutch descent and I plot right into the Nordic LNBA cluster. There was some Saxon influx (Jastorf-heirs) but they didn't replace the indigenous population all the way, the resemblance in genetic profile is already from LNBA times.

The Hallstatt genetic influence is big in Belgium/ South Dutch/Southwest Germany/Northern France that's not Germanic core area.

At the core of the (proto) Germanic genetic profile stands not Hallstatt but Funnelbeaker and Single Grave/Bell Beaker admixtures.

 

[Northener]

I didn't know Europe is too large! Anyway whether from Anatolia or Pontic Steppe (both of them are not far from Iran) I believe a branch of proto-Indo-Europeans came to Iran and created proto-Germanic language and from this land they migrated to the north of Europe.

So in fact I'm an Iranian in disguise?

 

[Cyrus]

So in fact I'm an Iranian in disguise?

Some people from Europe came to Iran, created the Germanic culture and came back, it can't mean that you are Iranian.

 

[Northener]

Some people from Europe came to Iran, created the Germanic culture and came back, it can't mean that you are Iranian.

Looks nonsens to me. The Germanic culture was not ready made imported from Iran.
It evolved in the first place, like for the most parts of Europe, out of HG, EEF and Steppe pastoralist. In the Germanic case it evolved out of Neolithic Funnelbeaker and LN/BA Single Grave/Bell Beaker. This evolved on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia in Iron Age to what the Roman labeled as Germanic. If we want to pin point it than the Jastorf culture the first Germanic culture. But the Jastorf culture was no 'Iranian imported Germanic' culture. See no reason why....
No beem me up Scotty.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY9NkYGUEyE

 

[Ygorcs]

What if they confirm this haplogroup in Afghanistan and Pakistan and it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this region too? Does it prove the Germanic people lived here in the ancient times? Or it also proves nothing?!

Of course it proves nothing, because these samples date to several centuries after the same clades and their upstream parent clades were already found in Europe. Besides the autosomal admixture that appears together with them in the very same age is European, more specifically Steppe_MLBA. Similarly, other clades of R1a and R1b first found in Eastern Europe started to appear at that very same time in South-Central Asia, having appeared earlier in North-Central Asia - and always together with the appearance of some amount of Steppe_EMBA or Steppe_MLBA autosomal admixture. Thus, anyone linking the dots chronologically and geographically will conclude that, even if those haplogroups were found in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the LBA/EIA, they had logically come from Eastern Europe via North-Central Asia.

 

[Northener]

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.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/08/children-of-divine-twins.html

 

[Ygorcs]

Read this blog of Davidski, it's very clear that the genetic profile of Nordic Bronze (LNBA) is basically the cluster (=origin) that formed the Germans of the Iron Age and later.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/05/who-were-people-of-nordic-bronze-age.html

To be fair I think Eurogenes is interpreting the PCA data and his pretty restricted models (very few reference populations) in a way that is too literal and IMHO a bit implausible, as if the premise was one of strong isolation of Scandinavia from the rest of North Europe even. The neighboring populations around Scandinavia were already very similar genetically, so unless you really use a higher-resolution analysis, you won't detect possible demographic and sociocultural/ethnic changes from LN/EBA to the IA. If linguists are right then Germanic must've arisen from a complex and close interaction of a language group closer to Balto-Slavic with an influential language group closer to Italo-Celtic. As Eurogenes admit, there are other models that can get just as good fits or in fact even better, spectacular ones, but he claims that "they are not necessary to explain the genetic makeup of the Nordic population after the BA" or something like that. Okay, not necessary, but should it be? We should try to be realistic, and I don't think expecting virtually no gene flow with other North European regions even during the expansive Nordic BA period is realistic. Admixture events involving very similar populations, in different proportions and intensities, could well end up creating a population that would plot pretty much in the same spot on a PCA. Some of my admittedly flawed nMonte models using Global 25 population samples can be best modeled using mainly a mix of BB (particularly Britain and Netherlands, i.e. northern BB) and CWC (particularly Germany, i.e. western CWC) reference admixtures.

 

[Ygorcs]

As you read here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13904-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper

Central and South Asian DNA Paper

Its finally out!!!

The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia

Next time you post an obvious lie here to try to lead other members to mistakes in order to advance your pet agenda, you will receive an infraction, okay? You're so obsessed with nitpicking anything that could give a modicum of credibility to your hypothesis that you're starting to act in an irresponsible and dishonest way. Quit that now, Cyrus. Even the seemingly most absurd hypothesis and points of view can be discussed here, but not outright lies.

 

[Cyrus]

Looks nonsens to me. The Germanic culture was not ready made imported from Iran.
It evolved in the first place, like for the most parts of Europe, out of HG, EEF and Steppe pastoralist. In the Germanic case it evolved out of Neolithic Funnelbeaker and LN/BA Single Grave/Bell Beaker. This evolved on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia in Iron Age to what the Roman labeled as Germanic. If we want to pin point it than the Jastorf culture the first Germanic culture. But the Jastorf culture was no 'Iranian imported Germanic' culture. See no reason why....
No beem me up Scotty.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY9NkYGUEyE

I meant Germanic language, I am really interested to know that is there something in the Germanic culture which doesn't exist in the Iranian culture, especially those ones which don't exist in other Indo-European cultures?

Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams

http://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC

For example look at page 180:

 

[Northener]

I meant Germanic language, I am really interested to know that is there something in the Germanic culture which doesn't exist in the Iranian culture, especially those ones which don't exist in other Indo-European cultures?

Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams

http://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC

For example look at page 180:

You talk about language but your 'evidence' is mythology. As said there is some Indo-European mythological (and genetic) connection. But loose not 1:1 as you seem to suppose.

Germanic (just like Slavic, Celtic or you name it) is an unique historical phenomenon, bound to a certain area, a product of mixtures. No Gutian tribes that travelled a few miles and popped up as Jutes or Goths. That's outdated nineteenth century stuff.

What the difference is, I guess the Gernanic language is evident not Iranian like. So besides some Indo-European common traces this all has no single ground.

 

[Cyrus]

Of course it proves nothing, because these samples date to several centuries after the same clades and their upstream parent clades were already found in Europe. Besides the autosomal admixture that appears together with them in the very same age is European, more specifically Steppe_MLBA. Similarly, other clades of R1a and R1b first found in Eastern Europe started to appear at that very same time in South-Central Asia, having appeared earlier in North-Central Asia - and always together with the appearance of some amount of Steppe_EMBA or Steppe_MLBA autosomal admixture. Thus, anyone linking the dots chronologically and geographically will conclude that, even if those haplogroups were found in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the LBA/EIA, they had logically come from Eastern Europe via North-Central Asia.

I didn't get what you mean, do you mean R1b-U106 is not a Germanic haplogroup and if it is found in other lands, whether in the west Asia or Europe, it can't mean that they are a Germanic people?

 

[Cyrus]

You talk about language but your 'evidence' is mythology. As said there is some Indo-European mythological (and genetic) connection. But loose not 1:1 as you seem to suppose.

Germanic (just like Slavic, Celtic or you name it) is an unique historical phenomenon, bound to a certain area, a product of mixtures. No Gutian tribes that travelled a few miles and popped up as Jutes or Goths. That's outdated nineteenth century stuff.

What the difference is, I guess the Gernanic language is evident not Iranian like. So besides some Indo-European common traces this all has no single ground.

Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, other than genetic evidences that we are talking about it here, we should also trace the Germanic culture to know where this language was spoken before 500 BC.

 

[Northener]

Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, other than genetic evidences that we are talking about it here, we should also trace the Germanic culture to know where this language was spoken before 500 BC.

And as if there are no sources, no records, no books of that period, everyone can project it's own pet theory on it. Of course there will be some or more than some Indo-European influences, but that doesn't mean this all leads restrictive to Iran or the Iranian language. Or in real German all "schwärmerei".

 

[Ygorcs]

I didn't get what you mean, do you mean R1b-U106 is not a Germanic haplogroup and if it is found in other lands, whether in the west Asia or Europe, it can't mean that they are a Germanic people?

I meant that chronology matters, so the direction of the genetic flow is obvious if autosomal admixtures and parental markers are disbuted in time and space and appear first in some place and only much later pop up in other place with the same genetic characteristics not just found earlier elsewhere, but also derived from earlier admixtures and lineages also found in that other place. If R1b-U106 appears together with a previously nonexistant European-derived Steppe_MLBA ancestry in a place (Pakistan, Afghanistan) only centuries after it was found in Europe, and there is a striking chronological concomitance between the arrival of that haplogroup and the arrival of a clearly European genetic signal that didn't exist there before... then, well, what do you think that suggests to us? Of course, that U106 arrived in South-Central Asia in the BA and as late as the IA, just like other haplogroups and just like the BA steppe admixture, and that it came via Central Asia from Europe. If you don't understand even that, then it's a lost case, indeed.

And no, U106 is not a literal "Germanic haplogroup" since its inception. There isn't such a thing. It's just a haplogroup that, probably because of several factors of genetic drift, became particularly common in the population that would later form the Proto-Germanic speakers. U106 is correlated with Germanic speakers, but it is obvious that haplogroups are not languages, and people have always moved and shifted their language, so males with U106 could've spoken any number of languages in the past (though probably not most of them).