Persian websites again say that the oldest sample of R1b-L23 in Iran has been found in Hajji Firuz Tepe, also from more than 6,000 years ago. I really don't know why western scientists don't study about both Tepe Sialk and Hajji Firuz Tepe and ignore these genetic evidences!!
What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?
- Thread starter Cyrus
- Start date
Persian websites again say that the oldest sample of R1b-L23 in Iran has been found in Hajji Firuz Tepe, also from more than 6,000 years ago. I really don't know why western scientists don't study about both Tepe Sialk and Hajji Firuz Tepe and ignore these genetic evidences!!
I found something about Hajjj Firuz: https://indo-european.eu/tag/pre-tocharian/
"The Hajji Firuz samples: I4243 dated ca. 2326 BC, female, with a clear inflow of steppe ancestry; and I2327 (probably to be dated to the late 3rd millennium BC or after that), of R1b-Z2103 lineage. Not related to Indo-Iranian migrations.
Gutian language
References to Gutian are popping up related to the Hajji Firuz samples of the mid-3rd millennium."
"The Hajji Firuz samples: I4243 dated ca. 2326 BC, female, with a clear inflow of steppe ancestry; and I2327 (probably to be dated to the late 3rd millennium BC or after that), of R1b-Z2103 lineage. Not related to Indo-Iranian migrations.
Gutian language
References to Gutian are popping up related to the Hajji Firuz samples of the mid-3rd millennium."
spruithean
Regular Member
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 43
Not much "western scientists" can do to study Tepe Sialk when there is no published study for peer-review about it, and the download link to the document itself doesn't even work. Hajji Firuz is an interesting case and I'm going to post an entry from another blog about it.
Did you read the entirety of the post you linked? He says that the "Tocharian-like nature of the Guti" lays in obscurity of a "undeveloped archaeological-linguistic hypotheses" and that its connection with the "attested R1b-Z2103 in Iran is not (yet) warranted"
Now to share a post also about Hajji Firuz, http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-hajji-firuz-fiasco.html and https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html
Again, none of this supports your theory that there was a migration of Germanic people moving from Iran to Scandinavia. It is not supported by aDNA we have from preshistoric Scandinavia and we see a very low chance of any real large population shift in Scandinavia from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age. We also see no remnants of this "Iranian migration" in the aDNA samples of Germanic-speakers in the Migration Period or Viking Age. Did these migrants from Iran just up and disappear?
You yourself say that we don't see any real large population shift in Scandinavia from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age, so it is clear that proto-Indo-Europeans didn't migrate to Scandinavia but it was in the Late Bronze Age (about 500 BC) that the Germanic people migrated there.
As I have said several times I believe Gutians from Iran migrated to the western land of black sea, land of Getae/Goths, and then from this land they migrated to Scandinavia, there many genetic evidences about this migration.
http://viking-archaeology-blog.blogspot.com/2007/08/viking-woman-had-roots-near-black-sea.html?m=1
Viking woman had roots near the Black Sea
The bones of one of the women found in one of Norway's most famous Viking graves suggest her ancestors came from the area around the Black Sea.
nornosh
Regular Member
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
- Location
- Kabul
- Ethnic group
- Caucasian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- Eurasian
- mtDNA haplogroup
- Eurasian
Look Cyrus is confused about old R1b sample finds from 4000 BC and presumed Indo-Iranian migration in 2000 BC so he says which one is correct and brought IE languages to Iran. So could it be that IEs came much earlier(4000 BC) to the region by crossing the caucasus mountains and not in 2000 BC from Central Asia which is generaly accepted by scholars.
The other problem which is signs of Iranians in Germanic population in the late bronze age, so could some Scythian groups went Northwest ward to settle in the region too if yes then this could solve the issues.
The other problem which is signs of Iranians in Germanic population in the late bronze age, so could some Scythian groups went Northwest ward to settle in the region too if yes then this could solve the issues.
spruithean
Regular Member
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 43
You realize that the cultures which were succeeded eventually as the Germanic period began show signs of continuity, along with added imports from Celtic influenced areas? We already know how genetically similar the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker people were, these cultural spheres had influence on Scandinavia (Battle-Axe Culture, Funnelbeaker, etc) whether an NWIE dialect came into Scandinavia via CWC or BB is not clear (at least for many, some are more decided), what I mean is we don't see a large deviation of new ancestry appearing. There is no trace of an Iranian settlement in the eras that gave way to the Germanic period.
So we are just going to ignore the fact the Vikings, especially the Swedish-Vikings had a notable involvement in Eastern Europe through to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea (Kievan Rus')? We're just going to assume that this single Viking woman's ancestry speaks for the entirety of Scandinavia and the Germanic-speaking sphere? We already know that there was a female-biased immigration in the Early Medieval Period. (see Veeramah et al on Early Medieval Bavaria, I can also provide a list of Migration Period, Early Medieval and later Medieval aDNA studies)
It's highly unlikely that the Gutians traveled to the Black Sea and became Getae and Goths (these are two different tribes, Getae are more closely related to the Dacians - these are Thracian people, an entirely different branch of Indo-European, Goths are Germanic speakers, which is clear from examples of their written language). We already know from archaeology that the Goths more than likely came from Wielbark and migrated to Chernyakhov.
Wielbark & Jutland Iron Age genetic link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20705-6
Gothic Chernyakhov DNA study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43183-w
(will you ignore these?)
Where are your "genetic evidences" of this Gutian to Scandinavia migration? You have presented no such evidence. Basal haplogroups, and haplogroups like the R-L664 (which is separated from Eastern clades of R1a (or R1b) by thousands of years and specific defining mutations) are not evidence, R-L664 has an entirely different set of mutations which set it apart from R-Z93. Cite specific studies that show this Gutian migration to Scandinavia/Northern Europe please. Linking a tribe which is shrouded in obscurity to better documented tribes based on similarities in the spelling of their name is not how these things are done. If anything the prevailing theory, which itself is undeveloped and lacks evidence, is the Guti could be more closely connected to the Tocharians, however linking any genetic aspects is not warranted as of yet (your own link you posted even says this), however there is nothing really concrete for this either.
I don't understand this pet theory you have, why do you constantly insist despite evidence already presented throughout various posts that there is some Iranian link to the Germanic group in ancient Europe? Again your linguistic evidences have been refuted time and time again and you deliberately ignore this. I've seen your other posts on Himmerland, Gallic statues, etc. what is this preoccupation?
What signs of Iranian migration to the Germanic population in the Bronze Age? Are we referring to the Scythian interaction and the later Alan interactions? We already have seen the influence of Scythians on East Germanic tribes (notably Goths and Gepids), we already know that the Goths were often allied to "Scythians", however this term "Scythian" in the period in which Gothic groups, such as the one led by Cniva, was a geographical term, the Romans and Greeks referred to area of the Pontic Steppe as just Scythia, as a way of saying that "these people came from that direction". We have to think about how feasible a migration is for a certain population. Would it make sense for a Steppe people, with a horse based style of warfare, a culture oriented around use of the horse to migrate into the forests? Or the rugger terrain of the Fennoscandian peninsula? Eastern Germanic interactions do not speak for the original ancestral population.
The Iranian-speaking Alans migrated to Iberia along with several Germanic tribes, they were defeated and elected to have their new leader be the Vandalic leader, from there this group of Vandals and Alans migrated to North Africa and set up a kingdom there. This does not speak for the original ancestors of Germanic-speakers either.
There is absolutely no evidence which shows an Iranian culture existed in Iran before the 1st millennium BC, I'm researching about the history of Iran in the bronze age for more than 20 years, this Indo-European culture in Iran could be nothing except proto-Germanic.
Would you please tell me what is your own theory about the origin of Germanic people? Do you believe 6,000 years ago an original proto-Indo-European people migrated to Scandinavia and 2,500 years ago they created proto-Germanic? Is there any genetic evidence for this claim? I said Germanic R1a and R1b haplogroups are subclades of R1a and R1b haplogroups in Iran, then you said modern genetic tests prove nothing and there should be aDNA evidences, then I mentioned Tepe Sialk and Hajji Firuz Tepe evidences and you yourself confirmed at least Hajji Firuz one, ... I think you just don't want to believe this historical fact.
Last edited:
spruithean
Regular Member
- Messages
- 434
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 43
My own opinion is varied here and there, but this, https://indo-european.info/indo-eur...m#viii_7_Germanic_peoplesbc-6&rhtocid=_10_6_5 (this whole chapter on Northern European EEBA is worth reading) is relatively close to my own beliefs and it seems relatively reasonable, there is debate about whether it was BB or CWC groups that spread NWIE to Scandinavia. This chapter from this e-book (which is available to download from the same website that provides this HTML version) details genetic evidence. There is an older version of this entry here: https://indo-european.info/ie/Germanic
Obviously things will change in the future with more information, however this is the gist.
"Germanic" subclades (again haplogroups are not language, or ethnicity) are not subclades of those found in Iran. Subclades found in Iran and Europe are subclades of OLDER R1a and R1b haplogroups from long ago, they are related lineages, not derived from one another. R-U106 is derived from R-L23, R-Z2103 is derived from R-L23, our oldest samples of R-L23 (which is upstream of Z2103) are in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, not Iran. The most common branch of R-L23 in Iran is R-Z2103 which is also common in Anatolia, Caucasus, Iran and the Steppes. Phylogeny of R-L23: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L23/
And out of curiosity, what about other haplogroups that are commonly found in Germanic speaking areas? Do we find them in Iran or the areas you purport these Germanic people to have originated? See both links I provided one for the HTML book and the older entry on Germanic people.
No one has said that modern studies prove nothing, what we have simply said is that modern distribution (or diversity) does not necessarily correlate to origin point or to ancient distribution. I have not "confirmed" Tepe Sialk because there is no citation of it other than the link you provided, which has a dead link for the PDF, if this "study" was available for everyone across the world to read, especially the scientists that do peer-reviews it could be a game changer, but why is not available for others to read? Did you read the links I provided about Hajji Firuz and the carbon dating issues? Also that this Iran Chalcolithic sample of Hajji Firuz apparently doesn't "fit" well with the Near-Eastern portion of Yamnaya DNA? http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-hajji-firuz-fiasco.html, https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html
What is this historical fact that you think I don't want to believe? That R1a and R1b have a presence in Iran? I don't deny that, but the phylogeny of haplogroups matter, especially when we start making claims of descent. If phylogeny doesn't not support it, it puts a wrench in things.
Can you provide genetic evidence that the Gutians migrated to Northern Europe/Scandinavia? I have provided two studies which show a Jutland Iron Age influence on Wielbark and Chernyakhov (both areas where the Goths and related Germanic tribes are said to have been present before their entrance into the Roman world).
mihaitzateo
Regular Member
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 98
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Bucharest
- Ethnic group
- Romanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- proly R1B
Germanic people have been mainly identified after the languages spoken, not after their Y DNA.
There have been 3 groups of Germanic languages, Norse Germanic, West Germanic and East Germanic.
Is very clear that R1B-U106 is also a branch quite present at West Germanic speakers.
R1A-"Norse" is typical to Norse Germanic speakers.
And so on.
For the moment, there is not known what Y DNA was present at the East Germanic speakers.
I did not mentioned I1 and I2B because is quite well known that these HGs were present at both Norse Germanic and West Germanic speakers.
Is very clear that Germanic speakers did assimilated a lot of people, so now we can also speak of R1A which is not Norse, as the lineage of Germanic people and of N1 lines and so on.
Besides the language it was also about how the people were having some customs and so on, about being a Germanic person.
There have been 3 groups of Germanic languages, Norse Germanic, West Germanic and East Germanic.
Is very clear that R1B-U106 is also a branch quite present at West Germanic speakers.
R1A-"Norse" is typical to Norse Germanic speakers.
And so on.
For the moment, there is not known what Y DNA was present at the East Germanic speakers.
I did not mentioned I1 and I2B because is quite well known that these HGs were present at both Norse Germanic and West Germanic speakers.
Is very clear that Germanic speakers did assimilated a lot of people, so now we can also speak of R1A which is not Norse, as the lineage of Germanic people and of N1 lines and so on.
Besides the language it was also about how the people were having some customs and so on, about being a Germanic person.
mihaitzateo
Regular Member
- Messages
- 943
- Reaction score
- 98
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Bucharest
- Ethnic group
- Romanian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- proly R1B
As for taking an Y DNA test and telling after that you are "Germanic" because of the Y DNA, that is quite weird.
A person that is ethnic German and has E-V13 is German, not SE Europe Celt or Ilyrian, a person that is ethnic German and has R1A-M458 is German, not West Slavic and so on.
A person that is ethnic German and has E-V13 is German, not SE Europe Celt or Ilyrian, a person that is ethnic German and has R1A-M458 is German, not West Slavic and so on.
According to your source: "There is continuity in southern Scandinavia during the Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1100 BC), with three samples from Skåne showing hg. I-M170 (probably all I1-M253), and one from Denmark showing hg. R1b1a1b-M269 (xR1b1a1b1a1a2-P312), i.e. likely R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 (Allentoft et al. 2015). An LBA sample from Trundholm also shows hg. R1b1a1b1a1a-L151, clustering closer to central European BA compared to the previous samples from Scandinavia, which clustered between central European Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples (Mittnik, Wang, et al. 2018)."
These things don't prove that proto-Germanic people lived in Scandinavia in the Bronze age, they could be Celtic or another IE people, your source also talks about certain Celtic haplogroups in the Germanic lands, I don't think that you believe Germanic was a subbranch of Celtic?!
The most important point is that you also believe that the proto-Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, it is possible that there was another IE or non-IE language in this region but it couldn't be called proto-Germamic, for example in Britain we know a Celtic language existed but English is not a Celtic language and it can't be said without any migration, a Celtic language was changed to English!
I can never believe that a language exists in a land for a long time and without any important event, like migration, it is changed to another language. If there were just a few differences between the language which was spoken in the Nordic bronze age and proto-Germanic (like x>h that I mentioned) then the language of Nordic bronze age should be called Old Germanic, so it can't be said that Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC.
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
If you're referring to the R1b-L23 > Z2103 sample that was found by western scientists and widely believed to have been an initial carbon dating mistake. That Hajji Firuz R1b-Z2103 was later estimated to date from the Early-Mid Bronze Age (when IE migrations were already happening into West Asia, they actually might've started in the Late Chalcolithic, so this Z2103 sample alone would hardly be a game-changer). As of now the oldest confirmed R1b-L23 (several samples, not just a sole outlier) are found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. In any case, R1b-L23 is certainly older than the bulk of the LPIE language dispersion, so its spread and reach was probably not limited to just speakers of one language in one area. Very few haplogroups are totally restricted , especially when the population in which it is found is not isolated geographically and genetically (and the early IEs were most definitely not isolated, either genetically, economically or geographically).
You really need to stop thinking that everyone who had the same haplogroup spoke the same language and belonged to the same ethnic group, and that entire populations had only one haplogroup in the past. Haplogroups are not people, haplogroups are not languages. There may be a correlation between those things, but they aren't the same. That is not how Y-DNA haplogroups work, and the aDNA records have proven that.
In any case, if you think that EBA R1b-Z2103 in Hajji Firuz proves anything in your "Iranian Germanic hypothesis", then I'm afraid you're again blinded by wishful thinking. R1b-Z2103 is not closely associated with the Germanic languages at all. Instead, the expansion of Germanic languages is mainly correlated with that of R1b-U106 (derived from L51), I1 and R1a-Z284, none of which have been demonstrated to exist in ancient Iran, let alone before the Bronze Age. Also, the Hajji Firuz sample lacked any steppe-like admixture which is found in very high proportion (as much as 40-60%) in the modern DNA and ancient DNA of Northern Europeans. It was actually full of Chalcolithic Iranian ancestry, which is not found in non-negligible proportions in most of Northern Europe. Autosomal DNA matters a lot, don't forget that.
As for Gutians, most linguists believe that the few Gutian names (mostly personal names) that were attested can't be made sense of using Indo-European or PIE roots, so they classify it as a non-IE unknwon language. A fringe hypothesis links Gutian language to Tocharian ones, i.e. decidedly not Germanic and only very distantly related to Germanic (either linguistically or genetically). In any case, that would also suggest the Gutians only arrived in the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age like the Yamnaya/Late Repin expansion to Afanasievo and to East Romania/Bulgaria.
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
You clerly didn't think it through much. Look, the language people speak in Portugal changed from ego hominem bonum sum to eu sou um bom homem, they changed from plenum to cheio and from plicatum to chegado. Do you think a migration was necessary for that, or that the Portuguese people "forgot" how to speak their own language? Do you even know what linguistic evolution and sound changes are? Do you think that language (Latin) was already Portuguese or should just be called Old Portuguese because Portuguese is clearly just the seamless evolution from without any rupture, so Portuguese is still Latin and Latin was Portuguese? lol. Or do you think Portuguese could only come to exist due to some foreign migration that changed their language or forced it to change as if all languages ever didn't change naturally on their own? Then without a foreign migration the people of Portugal would still be talking 1st century Latin?! lol. You sound so confused about the chronology of the evolution of languages...
Honestly it's baffling how much you ignore about linguistics, actually this isn't even a scientific topic of historical linguistics, all it takes is some common sense and a modicum of knowledge of languages to be aware of it and stop saying totally nonsense things derived from a total incapacity to interpret what things really mean, such as Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 B.C. because Proto-Germanic is dated to ~500-1 B.C. (do you even know what the concept of a proto-language means? It means the latest common stage of a language before it split into several distinct languages/branches; it obviously does not mean the language didn't exist before that). You became obsessed with this ~500 B.C. dating because you simply do not even understand what it really refers to, which is the approximate period where the specific stage in the continuous evolution from PIE to the modern Germanic languages was still spoken as a common, undivided dialect continuum with no discernible Germanic split. That obviously doesn't mean the language just popped out suddenly, nor does it mean that came directly from PIE, because just like Latin superseded all the other Italic languages what's most likely is that Proto-Germanic expanded and superseded all the other Northern European languages directly related to it.
Ygorcs
Active member
- Messages
- 2,259
- Reaction score
- 812
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Multiracial Brazilian
If those things don't prove anything to you, why are you insisting on so-called "genetic evidences" for the origin of IE Germanic people in Iran? Are they now suddenly insuficient to prove anything just because they totally contradict what you desperately wish to be true? Besides, if genetic evidences do not have any validity, then what will be useful to infer the linguistic affinity of the old Northern European peoples, who had a remarkable genetic continuity between the BA and the modern era, including the IA when you think a Proto-Germanic migration would've happened? Should we rely just on the very suspicious "Semitic loanwords" that fringe (pseudo-)linguists think they identified in Proto-Germanic, often based on mere sound similarities (one of the worst methods of historical comparative linguistics), and on the fact that Germanic has a few (pretty common crosslinguistically, in fact) sound changes similar to those of Indo-Iranian or Armenian? Yet more nonsense. If there is no evidence of Iranian influence in Germanic North Europe, no evidence of a noticeable change towards Iranian populations between the BA and the Middle Ages, no evidence of any big cultural and/or genetic rupture after the BA in North Europe, then I'm afraid your case is extremely weak.
hrvclv
Regular Member
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 225
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Auvergne, France
- Ethnic group
- Arvern
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-U152-DF103
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1bm
Oh, God... This thread deserves an AWARD of its own kind!!
That is certainly IE and proto-Germanic was an IE language but it doesn't mean all Germanic words are from proto-IE, for example we know proto-Germanic *xanap- "hemp" by considering Germanic sound changes is from *kanab-, it is a loanword from Akkadian kanabu "hemp" and in Akkadian xanapin means "Gutian hempen cloth", this word still exists in Arabic as Arabic خنیف (xanif) with the same meaning of "hempen" (p>f is an Arabic sound change).
It is interesting to mention that this p>f sound change in Arabic (we see the same sound change in proto-Germanic) has caused many Arabic words seem to be the same as proto-Germanic words such as خف (xuf) "hoof", فرح (frah) "frolic", فرق (fragh) "fright", ...
Last edited:
Ygorcs said:
I'm really interested to know who are these "most linguists"?!! As I said in another thread the names of Gutian kings on the Sumerian King List from the first one Ingesus (compare Ingemar & Ansgisus) to the last one Tirigan (compare Tirfing & Wolfgan) have clearly Germanic origin, we know Ingwi and Tyr were the main Gothic deities.
nornosh
Regular Member
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
- Location
- Kabul
- Ethnic group
- Caucasian
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- Eurasian
- mtDNA haplogroup
- Eurasian
Oh ok, then give your time period for this presumed migration, I think its not 500 BC, more like 2000BC, if research proves it to be true. More research is needed!
This thread has been viewed 162935 times.