What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

[spruithean]

My sources about ancient R1a-M17 are just in Persian, I mentioned one of them in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/38596-Wrong-Migration-map-of-haplogroup-R1a-in-Eupedia!
I don't believe that Iran was the original land of proto-Indo-Europeans but just the proto-Germanic people, in all probability PIE people originally lived in Anatolia (modern Turkey). Why you think PIE culture relates to R1a? The earliest known PIE people, like Hittites, had no R1a.

Do you know if your source has published their work outside of Iran for peer-review? Do you have a link that works for the PDF document? If you have the document do you care to translate any conclusions it made or any abstracts or important data and share it with the forum? I would very much like to see ALL the data of this study. If it hasn't been published for peer-review that is VERY suspect and just bad science. I've read the brief overview that your link gives and it's a very broad statement to say that "M198/M17" is associated with "Aryan peoples" when the important lineage found in these regions of Z93 derived, which occurred MUCH later than the formation of M198/M17 (YFull estimates 14,000 YBP, not Bronze Age), Z93 (YFull estimates 5000 YBP, Bronze Age).

I don't think R1a is strictly PIE, I think PIE contained a lot more lineages, much like modern groups of people. Obviously new lineages get introduced, do better than others, etc. There was a recent paper (which I don't remember the date of, however it was only 1-3 years ago) that proposed that Anatolian languages split off early enough from the main root of PIE that Anatolian languages had more of a sister relationship to the rest of PIE. Mathieson et al 2017 had a very interesting conclusion regarding autosomal ancestral components in various parts of Europe and the Middle East (and elsewhere) that support this early split of Anatolian. Uniparental markers are not the main part of aDNA, autosomal DNA also helps provide a better picture and right now it is fairly clear what likely was going on at this point in time.

What we've been talking about with R1a is about ancient samples and how they don't support modern distribution of the clades that are common across Eurasia (ignoring early basal offshoots). We also briefly discussed R1b, which again has varying basal offshoot lineages and specific mutation defined descending lineages with a large spread across the world...

Moving on...

So you believe that Iran is the homeland of the proto-Germanic people? Okay, let me dig into this a bit here, prehistoric Scandinavia most likely did not see a large population shift. This is reflected by the rather high rates of similarity between the autosomal profiles of ancient samples from the Nordic Neolithic and Bronze Ages. If there was a migration from some part of Iran of these proto-Germanic people don't you think for a lack of a better term, an Iranian-derived autosomal component would be found in ancient Scandinavian samples? I would think there would if such a migration took place. Guess what? No component or anything similar to what we know about the various prehistoric populations of Iran shows up (Iran has multiple components as Iran experienced a rather significant population shift in the Late Neolithic).

This is what I already brought up with a continuity of people (not culture) in Southern Scandinavia leading up to the eventual rise of Germanic culture/language. Ygorcs has gone over proto-Germanic and related topics multiple times, but just to throw it in here again, historical linguists have noted the material and social continuity connecting the cultures of the Nordic BA to the pre-Roman Iron Age in N. Europe and this has some implications on the stability and development of the Germanic languages. The current consensus is that the 1st Germanic Sound Shift, the probable defining mark in the development of PGmc happened as late as 500 BCE. I'm not sure how many more times this needs to be said.

Besides, we have ancient DNA from Germanic areas from Migration Period era graves that show most had a strong genetic similarity to Western/Central Europeans and Northern Europeans (the women in some studies showed diverse origins from beyond Central Europe, notably in the Balkans and the eastern part of the steppe close to Kazakhstan.)

Well, THERE you have what's controversial about it. Underhill's conclusions never included a "direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia". You're putting words in his mouth, that's very intellectually dishonest. He just makes a simple claim, based on a sound even if honestly not very reliable premise: if most BASAL CLADES of R1a are found in Iran (btw do you know what basal means? Sometimes I doubt it as I read your answers), then the INITIAL DIVERSIFICATION of R1a (which happened DOZENS OF THOUSANDS of years ago and most definitely had nothing to do with the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age PIE expansion many millennia later) must've STARTED in Iran (started, you know, it obviously does not mean that the entire process of expansion of R1a clades and the appearance of new mutations defining new subclades happened exclusively within Iran outward to other regions, followed by a big stasis for more than 10,000 years, that's an absurdly simplistic view of how population movements and admixture events take place in real life).

Now, what's the evidence for a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia? The map shows RECENT AND ALREADY DISTINCT CLADES OF R1A-M417 (R1a-M417 is NOT the same as R1a-M17, okay? M417 appeared ~10,000 years after R1a-M17) like Z284, Z282 and Z94 moving from the very same land where R1a and R1a-M17 are both assumed to have appeared, as if in total isolation and stasis for many millennia, DIRECTLY to where they were found in higher frequencies much later, in recent historic times. That's so simplistic and so unlikely thay the map doesn't even merit much discussion. This hypothesis is now even weaker because of all the aDNA evidences showing that R1a was already widespread in Eastern Europe and North Asia millennia before even M417 appeared (and certainly well before PIE "proper" was spoken), and proving that specific clades, including the most important M417, were already present in those regions, far away from Iran, since a very long time ago, so they might have developed there from earlier R1a clades, or they might have migrated to those areas very early (so, nothing to do with the PIE expansion). In any case, this map is really naive: it imagines, with no proof, that, because basal clades of R1a are found in Iran, then it did not just start to diversify there, its entire phylogeny must then have arisen there, from R1a to R1a-M17 to R1a-M417, and it only expanded in the Bronze Age with the specific clades derived from M417 going into separate directions right to where they are found much later, with no intermediary homelands for some 15,000 years between R1a and R1a-M417. How likely is that? Not at all. And it's also not corroborated by the aDNA records.

You keep talking of the older R1a-M17 in a quite suspicious Iranian study that nobody ever heard about in any other scientific publication (you yourself told me that), and which claims controversial things like "R1a (as a whole) is associated with Aryan peoples". R1a-M17, okay? Now we are here talking about aDNA samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe with R1a-M417 specifically only a few centuries after M417 is supposed to have been born, and aDNA samples already with Z93 and other subclades derived from M417 in Eastern Europe and North-Central Asia.

Honestly, you either don't understand this subject enough to notice the huge holes in your claims, or you just don't want to understand, because that would mean having to change your cherished "theory" accordingly to fit the evidences (which is what everyone with a scientifically oriented mind does, but not people obsessed with a pet hypothesis).

I'll just quote this to echo it, since I'm a bit bored of rehashing the same information over and over. Basal lineages of R1a are an entirely different situation to lineages associated with M417. R-M420* is very different from R-M417, so let's look at why R-M420* (note the asterisk) is not the same as R-M459 and why R-M420* (note the asterisk) cannot be the ancestor of R-M459 (which is the node that branches into R-M459*, R-YP1272 and R-M198/M17)

Imagine R-M420 as the father of a family if you will, he has three sons their names are M420*, YP4141 and M459 because these are siblings they cannot be the parents of one another. M420* is an early offshoot of the M420 lineage that is negative for defining SNPs that define YP4141 and M459 lineages. M420* is a separate lineage, related to the others but not the ancestor of the others, the fact that it is found in Caucasus and Iran (it's also found in Europe BTW) doesn't really mean much compared to where the ancient DNA is found and STR diversity is not a strong argument. STRs are difficult to calculate dates accurately with (they are rarely accurate).

Also, just because we feel like citing Wikipedia every now and then in this thread:

"R1a-M198: is common in Iran, more so in the east and south rather than the west and north; suggesting a migration toward the south to India then a secondary westward spread across Iran.^[131] Whilst the Grongi and Regueiro studies did not define exactly which sub-clades Iranian R1a haplogrouops belong to, private genealogy tests suggest that they virtually all belong to "Eurasian" R1a-Z93.^[132] Indeed, population studies of neighbouring Indian groups found that they all were in R1a-Z93.^[133] This implies that R1a in Iran did not descend from "European" R1a, or vice versa. Rather, both groups are collateral, sister branches which descend from a parental group hypothesized to have initially lived somewhere between central Asia and Eastern Europe.^[134]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples#Genetics (second bolding emphasis mine)

Look from LGM to spread of IE languages theres 15,000 years or so, so why should we think in this long time there could have been only handful of migrations of peoples in Central Asia, Iranian plateau, Pontic steppe, Asia minor, Europe. There could have been many migrations, many extinctions of old lineages which left the ancient samples, but we should focus the current major migrations from Bronze age which left the biggest mark on these regions, for exmple if we see J2 lineages they don't exists in large percentages in Neolithic turkey, Europe but after bronze age they become more dominant yet they were present in neolithic too but in minuet numbers.

Certainly, I agree. This is a huge span of time and it doesn't take very much for entire lineages or groups of people to disappear (sort of why autosomal DNA is important in ancient DNA). I recommend reading all the studies one can and rather than jumping to any conclusions weighing the evidence. Why R1a became so heavily discussed in this thread is because of the confusion with nomenclature we've ended up discussing various lineages many of which are basal lineages which are quite a bit different from the important lineages that we find today from Europe to India. J2 is one of those confusing ones, we expected to find it in high numbers in Early Farmer samples and instead we found rather low numbers. There are definitely a lot of theories flying around , I think eventually one of theories or a combo of the theories will be correct.

Is it true that the oldest samples of R1a-M17 have been found in Germany? Is it possible that they were actually the Germanic people who migrated to Iran in the 3rd millennium BC?

Who ever said that R-M17 was found in Germany? Are we confusing nomenclature yet again? Markod has just linked that one of the earliest samples was found at Lake Baikal in Siberia.

Wait so the Germanic people migrated to Iran? Or they migrated out of Iran? Or they did both? What are you saying exactly? What tribe moved to Iran? Germanic people in the 3rd millennium BC?! What? Anachronistic much? The proto-Germanic language hadn't even developed yet and Germanic people we mentioned much much later in historical documents. Proto-Germanic language developed (and developed as late as 500 BC) out of pre-Proto-Germanic in southern Scandinavia and it's possible that IE was brought to southern Scandinavia with the Corded Ware culture in the 3rd millennium BC.

 

[Cyrus]

I believe Baikal Neolithic is the oldest.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16306927

I don't think that the Germanic culture existed 7,500 years ago, I talk about it: http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015/05/r1a1a-from-early-bronze-age-warrior.html?m=1

All of the other ancient R1a1a (R1a-M17) samples reported to date from Central Europe are also younger than the Middle Neolithic and from presumably steppe-derived Indo-European archeological cultures:

- Late Neolithic, Eulau, Germany, Corded Ware Culture, three related samples

- Late Neolithic, Esperstedt, Gemany, Corded Ware Culture, one sample

- Late Bronze Age, Halberstadt, Germany, Urnfield Culture (?), one sample

- Late Bronze Age, Lichtenstein Cave, Germany, Urnfield Culture, two samples

 

[Cyrus]

Who ever said that R-M17 was found in Germany? Are we confusing nomenclature yet again? Markod has just linked that one of the earliest samples was found at Lake Baikal in Siberia.

Wait so the Germanic people migrated to Iran? Or they migrated out of Iran? Or they did both? What are you saying exactly? What tribe moved to Iran? Germanic people in the 3rd millennium BC?! What? Anachronistic much? The proto-Germanic language hadn't even developed yet and Germanic people we mentioned much much later in historical documents. Proto-Germanic language developed (and developed as late as 500 BC) out of pre-Proto-Germanic in southern Scandinavia and it's possible that IE was brought to southern Scandinavia with the Corded Ware culture in the 3rd millennium BC.

I just want to consider all possibilities, this R1a-M17 didn't come from the sky to Iran, I don't know what you believe about it, it is clear that you don't expect that it is found in ancient sites in Iran and at the same time you say it is a very old haplogroup which dates back to Neolithic period!
About proto-Germanic and this 500 BC, I think it is better that I don't talk about this proto-Germanic but X language which was a direct descendent of proto-Indo-Europeam with *k>x, *d>t, *p>f and other Germanic sound shifts from PIE, this X language certainly existed 5,000 years ago.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, THERE you have what's controversial about it. Underhill's conclusions never included a "direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia". You're putting words in his mouth, that's very intellectually dishonest. He just makes a simple claim, based on a sound even if honestly not very reliable premise: if most BASAL CLADES of R1a are found in Iran (btw do you know what basal means? Sometimes I doubt it as I read your answers), then the INITIAL DIVERSIFICATION of R1a (which happened DOZENS OF THOUSANDS of years ago and most definitely had nothing to do with the Copper Age/Early Bronze Age PIE expansion many millennia later) must've STARTED in Iran (started, you know, it obviously does not mean that the entire process of expansion of R1a clades and the appearance of new mutations defining new subclades happened exclusively within Iran outward to other regions, followed by a big stasis for more than 10,000 years, that's an absurdly simplistic view of how population movements and admixture events take place in real life).

Now, what's the evidence for a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia? The map shows RECENT AND ALREADY DISTINCT CLADES OF R1A-M417 (R1a-M417 is NOT the same as R1a-M17, okay? M417 appeared ~10,000 years after R1a-M17) like Z284, Z282 and Z94 moving from the very same land where R1a and R1a-M17 are both assumed to have appeared, as if in total isolation and stasis for many millennia, DIRECTLY to where they were found in higher frequencies much later, in recent historic times. That's so simplistic and so unlikely thay the map doesn't even merit much discussion. This hypothesis is now even weaker because of all the aDNA evidences showing that R1a was already widespread in Eastern Europe and North Asia millennia before even M417 appeared (and certainly well before PIE "proper" was spoken), and proving that specific clades, including the most important M417, were already present in those regions, far away from Iran, since a very long time ago, so they might have developed there from earlier R1a clades, or they might have migrated to those areas very early (so, nothing to do with the PIE expansion). In any case, this map is really naive: it imagines, with no proof, that, because basal clades of R1a are found in Iran, then it did not just start to diversify there, its entire phylogeny must then have arisen there, from R1a to R1a-M17 to R1a-M417, and it only expanded in the Bronze Age with the specific clades derived from M417 going into separate directions right to where they are found much later, with no intermediary homelands for some 15,000 years between R1a and R1a-M417. How likely is that? Not at all. And it's also not corroborated by the aDNA records.

You keep talking of the older R1a-M17 in a quite suspicious Iranian study that nobody ever heard about in any other scientific publication (you yourself told me that), and which claims controversial things like "R1a (as a whole) is associated with Aryan peoples". R1a-M17, okay? Now we are here talking about aDNA samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe with R1a-M417 specifically only a few centuries after M417 is supposed to have been born, and aDNA samples already with Z93 and other subclades derived from M417 in Eastern Europe and North-Central Asia.

Honestly, you either don't understand this subject enough to notice the huge holes in your claims, or you just don't want to understand, because that would mean having to change your cherished "theory" accordingly to fit the evidences (which is what everyone with a scientifically oriented mind does, but not people obsessed with a pet hypothesis).

This thing that R1a-M17 existed 10,000 years before R1a-M417 or nor, doesn't matter because this haplogroup still exists in Iran with a high frequency, the important point is that the oldest sample with M417 dates to back to just 5,500 years ago, by considering Anatolian hypothesis, we know proto-IE was spoken in Anatolia from 8,000 or even 9,000 years ago, this culture probably reached Iran 7,000-6,000 BP (around Tepe Sialk) and then the northern lands in the Caspian steppe about 5,500 BP, in this region it should be called the Satem branch of PIE (Balto-Slavic & Indo-Iranian), not proto-IE.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't know why those who believe in Kurgan hypothesis, have just focussed on R1a, what about R1b? Is there any ancient sample in the Pontic- Caspian steppe with R1b-L23 (one of the main haplogroups of IE people)?
The interesting point is that Iranian Zoroastrians have R1b-L23 and no R1a.

 

[spruithean]

I don't think that the Germanic culture existed 7,500 years ago, I talk about it: http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015/05/r1a1a-from-early-bronze-age-warrior.html?m=1
All of the other ancient R1a1a (R1a-M17) samples reported to date from Central Europe are also younger than the Middle Neolithic and from presumably steppe-derived Indo-European archeological cultures:
- Late Neolithic, Eulau, Germany, Corded Ware Culture, three related samples
- Late Neolithic, Esperstedt, Gemany, Corded Ware Culture, one sample
- Late Bronze Age, Halberstadt, Germany, Urnfield Culture (?), one sample
- Late Bronze Age, Lichtenstein Cave, Germany, Urnfield Culture, two samples

Markod was not saying that... anyways,

Someone from YFull reanalyzed that Bronze Age Polish man and he appears to be R-Z280 and most likely R-S24902. This man is associated with the Strzyżow Culture which is considered to have had contacts with incoming Kurgan steppe migrating people.

I just want to consider all possibilities, this R1a-M17 didn't come from the sky to Iran, I don't know what you believe about it, it is clear that you don't expect that it is found in ancient sites in Iran and at the same time you say it is a very old haplogroup which dates back to Neolithic period!

I honestly don't have that much of an interest in anything about haplogroups R1b or R1a, so my beliefs about it are subject to change as new data rolls in. It's not that I don't expect it any ancient samples of DNA from Iran, it's that no one has published anything about ancient samples out of Iran under the "umbrella" of R1a.

I also think we definitely need a lot more ancient DNA in general from Iran, to help improve our understanding of population movements. Some of the oldest Y-DNA samples in Iran appear to belong to J and G haplogroups IIRC.

R-M17 didn't come to Iran from the sky. We know that the oldest sample of M17 was found around Lake Baikal (Markod was not talking about Germanic people) in Siberia, this fits with the oldest sample of haplogroup R (not R1a or R1b or R2, but R) called Ma'alta boy was also found in Siberia.

About proto-Germanic and this 500 BC, I think it is better that I don't talk about this proto-Germanic but X language which was a direct descendent of proto-Indo-Europeam with *k>x, *d>t, *p>f and other Germanic sound shifts from PIE, this X language certainly existed 5,000 years ago.

There is the opinion that the ancestor (Pre-PGmc) of Proto-Germanic (PGmc) was a dialect of Northwest Indo-European (NW IE), however there are different theories on where pre-PGmc was spoken, however as Markod mentioned, early Celtic loanwords are noticeable quite early, examples like Celtic *rīgs to Germanic *rīks, Germanic *Rīnaz (Rhine) from Celtic *Reinos, or Germanic *tuna- from Celtic *dūno-, a spreading Celtic influence had an impact on early "palaeo-Germanic" speakers through trade and living near each other. There are East Iranian loanwords borrowed from contact with the steppes too. There are also Finnic and Samic influences. It's pretty clear where the dialects that became Germanic were likely spoken, no?

This thing that R1a-M17 existed 10,000 years before R1a-M417 or nor, doesn't matter because this haplogroup still exists in Iran with a high frequency, the important point is that the oldest sample with M417 dates to back to just 5,500 years ago, by considering Anatolian hypothesis, we know proto-IE was spoken in Anatolia from 8,000 or even 9,000 years ago, this culture probably reached Iran 7,000-6,000 BP (around Tepe Sialk) and then the northern lands in the Caspian steppe about 5,500 BP, in this region it should be called the Satem branch of PIE (Balto-Slavic & Indo-Iranian), not proto-IE.

The oldest sample of M417 (not the same as M17) was found in Eneolithic Ukraine. The majority of R1a related haplogroups in Iran to India are Z93 derived (Z93 is derived from M417), the oldest sample of Z93 is found in the Steppes as well, only more eastern.

Again, basal lineages be them M420* or M198/M17* are extremely old and branched off early, perhaps in Iran or somewhere nearby, this still doesn't account for the other branches that branched off of their root parent haplogroup.

I'm not denying that initial growth of R1a could have started in Iran, what we've been yammering on about in this thread is the spread of the seemingly "steppe" related subgroups which show a relatively clear pattern right now across the continent of Eurasia.

In regards to what you say about the early split of Anatolian and the rest went more north to the steppe and spread from there makes sense and I think many people agree (however some have differing views).

I honestly would prefer to discuss more about the topic of Germanic people and genetic data we have on them and what it may tell us, as per the thread title.

 

[Cyrus]

There is the opinion that the ancestor (Pre-PGmc) of Proto-Germanic (PGmc) was a dialect of Northwest Indo-European (NW IE), however there are different theories on where pre-PGmc was spoken, however as Markod mentioned, early Celtic loanwords are noticeable quite early, examples like Celtic *rīgs to Germanic *rīks, Germanic *Rīnaz (Rhine) from Celtic *Reinos, or Germanic *tuna- from Celtic *dūno-, a spreading Celtic influence had an impact on early "palaeo-Germanic" speakers through trade and living near each other. There are East Iranian loanwords borrowed from contact with the steppes too. There are also Finnic and Samic influences. It's pretty clear where the dialects that became Germanic were likely spoken, no?

Your examples actually show that proto-Germanic didn't originate in the north of Europe, as I said one of the main sound changes in proto-Germanic is *k>x but in the north of Europe we see x was changed to hard h and then h, because x didn't exist in the phonology of the native people in this region.
About *rīks as your here: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/rīks "An early borrowing from Proto-Celtic *rīxs, from Proto-Indo-European *h₃rḗǵs." In proto-Germanic phonology x(kh) existed, so if it were a loanword from proto-Celtic, we should see *rīhs, not *rīks in Germanic. In fact x>k is a normal sound change in the north of Europe which can be seen in loanwords from modern Arabic and Persian languages too.

 

[spruithean]

https://indo-european.info/indo-european-uralic/index.htm#t=4_12_Germanic-.htm

Finnic and Samic influences are earliest according to the above link, which states that their influence occurred sometime before Common Germanic. Celtic and East Iranian influences occurred during the phase of Proto-Germanic (Common Germanic) which we know was expanding out of Southern Scandinavia already (with associated cultures) of course this expansion would find Celtic and East Iranian interaction. Celtic influences have been found in Jutland and Eastern Iranian steppe tribes were nomadic and present in Eastern Europe.

The evidence is much stronger for an origin of this language family within Europe, not Iran. The genetics of Germanic tribes throughout the migration period don't lend themselves to an Iranian origin either, and neither do Mesolithic, Neolithic or Bronze Age Scandinavian periods show any Iranian component influence on autosomal genetics, you would expect if these people originally came from Iran they would leave a genetic trace, no?

 

[Cyrus]

https://indo-european.info/indo-european-uralic/index.htm#t=4_12_Germanic-.htm

Finnic and Samic influences are earliest according to the above link, which states that their influence occurred sometime before Common Germanic. Celtic and East Iranian influences occurred during the phase of Proto-Germanic (Common Germanic) which we know was expanding out of Southern Scandinavia already (with associated cultures) of course this expansion would find Celtic and East Iranian interaction. Celtic influences have been found in Jutland and Eastern Iranian steppe tribes were nomadic and present in Eastern Europe.

The evidence is much stronger for an origin of this language family within Europe, not Iran. The genetics of Germanic tribes throughout the migration period don't lend themselves to an Iranian origin either, and neither do Mesolithic, Neolithic or Bronze Age Scandinavian periods show any Iranian component influence on autosomal genetics, you would expect if these people originally came from Iran they would leave a genetic trace, no?

I think both of us believe that the Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, but it seems you believe that in the same land a miracle happened in 500 BC, the same people couldn't pronounce some consonants anymore and they invented some new consonants, like x, and some years latter they couldn't again pronounce some of the same ones that I had themselves invented! I don't know why we should believe in the most impossible events about the Germanic language?

 

[spruithean]

Proto-Germanic (aka Common Germanic, PGmc) was most likely present in Northern Europe, Jutland peninsula/some presence in North German plain, etc and southern Scandinavia. Pre-Proto-Germanic (Pre-PGmc) is less clear. However any migration from Iran as had been stated earlier would have been autosomally noticeable in our aDNA data of Scandinavia/North Germany. There is no sign of it, which is a problem for this theory.

They didn't invent a pronunciation, it was a development, which further developed into something else. The link I shared earlier has proposed an Indo-European dialect spoken with a Finnic accent.
An interesting read: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3IXUWFIZWYFkar9rw1R6pe
Dutch linguist Peter Schrijver wrote a very good book on this subject. You can find a summary of his info in the URL I linked from Indo-European.info about the Germanic branch of IE.

 

[Cyrus]

Proto-Germanic (aka Common Germanic, PGmc) was most likely present in Northern Europe, Jutland peninsula/some presence in North German plain, etc and southern Scandinavia. Pre-Proto-Germanic (Pre-PGmc) is less clear. However any migration from Iran as had been stated earlier would have been autosomally noticeable in our aDNA data of Scandinavia/North Germany. There is no sign of it, which is a problem for this theory.

They didn't invent a pronunciation, it was a development, which further developed into something else. The link I shared earlier has proposed an Indo-European dialect spoken with a Finnic accent.
An interesting read: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3IXUWFIZWYFkar9rw1R6pe
Dutch linguist Peter Schrijver wrote a very good book on this subject. You can find a summary of his info in the URL I linked from Indo-European.info about the Germanic branch of IE.

As I said Iran's main haplogroups are R1a-M17 and R1b-L23, after them it is J2a-M530 (6.1℅) which can't be found in the central parts of Iran, like Isfahan. If you believe there couldn't be any migration from Iran to Scandinavia, you should prove either R1a and R1b don't exist in this land, or those ones which exist are not subclades of these haplogroups. Is it true or not?

 

[Ygorcs]

Yes indeed, only J1 belonged to Semitic languages not J2, in areas where J2 is prominent we see languages which don't belong to Afro Asiatic language family like Sumerian, Hurrian, Gutian, Kassite, Georgian language family... so on, So pre IE europe grouped certainly with Basque and other unknown european languages.

There is no such a thing as a haplogroup "belonging" exclusively to one language family (Afro-Asiatic) or rather to one branch of a language family (Semitic). There might be a correlation between the expansion of a language and the expansion of a certain lineage (or several of them), but haplogroups are not "people" and most certainly are not tied to languages. J1 as a whole is far too old to "belong to Semitic languages", and it was certainly found, just like J2, across different languages and language families as well as different populations. Haplogroups do not determine even one's overall ancestry, let alone one's language. It might be that J1, more specifically J1-P58, became particulaerly prominent among Semitic speakers, but it was certainly presentin some frequency in many other populations in West Asia (perhaps even beyond it). E.g. J1 is today very prominent in some Caucasian populations, yet there's no proof that they were heavily colonized by Semitic peoples in historic times. In fact, a plausible possibility is even that Semitic speakers originally did not have much J1 at all, and it was an "Iranian/South Caucasian" lineage absorbed by Proto-Semites together with the huge influx of Caucasian/Iranian ancestry that happened in the lowlands of Southwest Asia after the Neolithic.

 

[Ygorcs]

Please provide your source of Tepe Sialk being the oldest R1a-M17 sample, I would to like see the study including supplementary data.

He's clueless (again). Even if this finding be correct, he himself informs us that it's dated to 6000-5000 BP, that is, 3000-4000 B.C. That'smillennia after the earliest R1a1, with various clades including M17, is already found in the aDNA record in Eastern Europe. R1a1 was there even before the arrival of Neolithic farmers in Eastern Europe and many millennia before the spread of pastoralism in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. And obviously well before the expansion of PIE speakers.

• I1819, Y-DNA R1a1-M459, mtDNA U5b2, Ukraine Mesolithic ca. 8825-8561 calBCE, from Vasilievka.
  
• I5876, Y-DNA R1a, mtDNA U5a2a, Ukraine Mesolithic 7040-6703 calBCE, from Dereivka.
  
• I0061, hg R1a1-M459 (xR1a1a-M17), mtDNA C1, ca. 6773-6000 calBCE (with variable dates), from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov in Karelia.
  
• Samples LOK_1980.006 and LOK_1981.024.01, of hg M R1a1a-M17, mtDNA F, Baikalic cultures, dated ca. 5500-5000 BC.
  
• Sample I0433, hg R1a1-M459(xM198), mtDNA U5a1i, from Samara Eneolithic, ca. 5200-4000 BCE

 

[Cyrus]

He's clueless (again). Even if this finding be correct, he himself informs us that it's dated to 6000-5000 BP, that is, 3000-4000 B.C. That'smillennia after the earliest R1a1, with various clades including M17, is already found in the aDNA record in Eastern Europe. R1a1 was there even before the arrival of Neolithic farmers in Eastern Europe and many millennia before the spread of pastoralism in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. And obviously well before the expansion of PIE speakers.

• I1819, Y-DNA R1a1-M459, mtDNA U5b2, Ukraine Mesolithic ca. 8825-8561 calBCE, from Vasilievka.
  
• I5876, Y-DNA R1a, mtDNA U5a2a, Ukraine Mesolithic 7040-6703 calBCE, from Dereivka.
  
• I0061, hg R1a1-M459 (xR1a1a-M17), mtDNA C1, ca. 6773-6000 calBCE (with variable dates), from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov in Karelia.
  
• Samples LOK_1980.006 and LOK_1981.024.01, of hg M R1a1a-M17, mtDNA F, Baikalic cultures, dated ca. 5500-5000 BC.
  
• Sample I0433, hg R1a1-M459(xM198), mtDNA U5a1i, from Samara Eneolithic, ca. 5200-4000 BCE

You yourself say before the expansion of PIE speakers, what is your explanation about the high frequency of R1a-M17 in Iran? Do you also believe what Spruithean said about their isolation? What about R1b-L23? Indo-European migrations relate to these haplogroups but Iran is an exception?! I think you believe these haplogroups should never be found in Iran because they change your Indo-European origin hypothesis, yes?

 

[hrvclv]

He's clueless (again). Even if this finding be correct, he himself informs us that it's dated to 6000-5000 BP, that is, 3000-4000 B.C. That'smillennia after the earliest R1a1, with various clades including M17, is already found in the aDNA record in Eastern Europe. R1a1 was there even before the arrival of Neolithic farmers in Eastern Europe and many millennia before the spread of pastoralism in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. And obviously well before the expansion of PIE speakers.

• I1819, Y-DNA R1a1-M459, mtDNA U5b2, Ukraine Mesolithic ca. 8825-8561 calBCE, from Vasilievka.
  
• I5876, Y-DNA R1a, mtDNA U5a2a, Ukraine Mesolithic 7040-6703 calBCE, from Dereivka.
  
• I0061, hg R1a1-M459 (xR1a1a-M17), mtDNA C1, ca. 6773-6000 calBCE (with variable dates), from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov in Karelia.
  
• Samples LOK_1980.006 and LOK_1981.024.01, of hg M R1a1a-M17, mtDNA F, Baikalic cultures, dated ca. 5500-5000 BC.
  
• Sample I0433, hg R1a1-M459(xM198), mtDNA U5a1i, from Samara Eneolithic, ca. 5200-4000 BCE

I simply ADMIRE your patience !!

 

[Ygorcs]

What about R1b-L23? Indo-European migrations relate to these haplogroups but Iran is an exception?! I think you believe these haplogroups should never be found in Iran because they change your Indo-European origin hypothesis, yes?

Who told you the Indo-European migrations relates directly to R1a-M17? The Indo-European migrations are clearly CORRELATED to R1a-M417 and R1b-L23, period (correlated does not mean a necessary and sufficient link, okay? Y-DNA alone without other evidences - genetic, archaeological ones, etc. - is very insufficient). No, it's not related to R1a-. The R1a-M417-derived clades in Iran are clearly related to the R1a-M417 in Eastern Europe, where R1a-M17 and R1a-M417 specifically were found as far back as the Neolithic era, well before any PIE expansion. And the basal R1a clades are just way too old and too restricted (mostly found only in Iran) to have anything to do with the PIE expansion. M417 and M269 are are downstream, more recent, specific subclades of haplogroups, not this generic amateurish comparison. Also, I think you're forgetting that haplogroups are not people and they most certainly do not belong to just one people or one language, especially if they're very old. You sound like those people who keep talking about "R1b people" or "R1a people" or making childishly simplistic and totally nonsense haplogroup-people-language associations like "R1b = Indo-European; J1 = Semitic; R1a = Uralic".

As for "high frequency" of R1a-M17 and R1b-L23, honestly if you're still in the stage where you think high frequency (and it's not even that high in fact, get your facts straight: there are regions with much higher frequencies of R1a-M17 and/or R1b-L23 than Iran) equals origin of a haplogroup and dispersal from there, or a very old presence in that given area. These things don't work as you seem to assume. You're so misguided, so lost in your absolute ignorance about even the most basic things , that it's really impossible that you will even understand what users like me and Spruithean are saying here. Frequencies in modern people mean nothing in Y-DNA haplogroups. And in the case of Iran the obvious documented, archaeological and linguistic evidences of migrations of Indo-European-speaking populations to Iran as well as to the vicinity of Iran are more than enough to explain why and how specific clades of R1a-M417 (we're not talking of very basal R1a clades here, which are very rare anyway) and R1b-L23 came to be present there and rise in frequency due to multiple random factors, since haplogroups more than autosomal DNA are strongly subject to genetic drift.

What's so bad about first learning and only later feeling bold and confident enough to make such "hypotheses"? You're so reckless that you really believe that your "theory" full of mistakes and of misconceptions about even the most basic stuff of genetics and linguistics will "change the IE origin hypothesis"? How cute...

 

[Ygorcs]

I simply ADMIRE your patience !!

Hahahaha sometimes I also admire my own patience, I just feel I NEED to say something, lol... but I swear I'll stop it, it's a clear waste of time, lack of knowledge coupled with excessive self-confidence and a clear ideological fervor (maybe some ethnic/national agenda?) make this discussion look like people writing in Greek to someone who can only read Chinese. lol

 

[Ygorcs]

As I said Iran's main haplogroups are R1a-M17 and R1b-L23, after them it is J2a-M530 (6.1℅) which can't be found in the central parts of Iran, like Isfahan. If you believe there couldn't be any migration from Iran to Scandinavia, you should prove either R1a and R1b don't exist in this land, or those ones which exist are not subclades of these haplogroups. Is it true or not?

What's exactly your source to say R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 are found in HIGH FREQUENCY in Iran?

This is not what I have found in other sources on the internet, including this map which details the Y-DNA distribution per region of Iran (and it's very clear that even upstream clades to those, i.e. R1a-M198 and R1b-M269, are not as prevalent as you're claiming at all; not that matters much, as I said modern frequencies are not very relevant at all... but I'd really like to see some proof of what you say given the countless mistakes we have read in your answers previously):

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...whole-Iranian-population-inset_fig1_229427983

I found the source to yur claim that "Iran's main haplogroups are R1a-M17 and R1b-L23, after them it is J2a-M530 (6.1℅)". You conveniently omit the fact that, since the Y-DNA distribution in Iran is extremely diverse, those "main haplogroups" in fact have very modest frequencies in Iran: 13.9% for R1a-M198 and 8.5% for R1b-L23. Is that what you call "high frequency"? Oh come on... lol. Those frequencies could be easily reached even through a modest genetic impact of Indo-European migrations into Iran (which are unquestionable, Indo-Iranian is clearly exogenous, and Armenians, Cimmerians and Scythians made their presence felt in or near it), in a male-biased fashion followed by genetic drift heavily favoring the conquering IE-speaking males. The two combined don't add up to more than ~22%. High frequency? Don't be so hyperbolic. If we consider not just Iran's modern Y-DNA profile, but especially its ancient one as showed by several aDNA samples, and above all its ancient autosomal component, it's totally obvious that the Indo-European expansion does not correlate with a typical population originated in that area.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...in-the-examined-Iranian-groups_fig6_229427983

 

[Ygorcs]

I think both of us believe that the Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, but it seems you believe that in the same land a miracle happened in 500 BC, the same people couldn't pronounce some consonants anymore and they invented some new consonants, like x, and some years latter they couldn't again pronounce some of the same ones that I had themselves invented! I don't know why we should believe in the most impossible events about the Germanic language?

Here, take it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_change. Believe it or not people (as in humans in each and every place ever) don't "lose the ability to speak a consonant and they invent new ones". They just change the phonology of their languages in different ways, gradually, along several generations. That's random and completely natural. Do you think sound changes only happen when people migrate or under the influence of foreigners? That's nonsense. Languages always keep evolving even if the population remains completely isolated and static - and that evolution means slowly changing the actual realization of some phonemes more and more until some day they shift into other phoneme, triggered by the countless natural possibilities of variation in the physical realization of sounds. I'm really surprised that you seem to believe that the consonant shifts in Proto-Germanic are something "extraordinary". That really shows how much basic learning of linguistics is sorely lacking in your intellectual baggage, and yet you decide you already know so much that you can even devise your own "scientific" theories about linguistics, genetics and whatnot. It's just baffling.

 

[Ygorcs]

I don't know why those who believe in Kurgan hypothesis, have just focussed on R1a, what about R1b? Is there any ancient sample in the Pontic- Caspian steppe with R1b-L23 (one of the main haplogroups of IE people)?
The interesting point is that Iranian Zoroastrians have R1b-L23 and no R1a.

Virtually all the Yamnaya DNA samples are R1b-L23, more specifically R1b-Z2103 in most cases, and there are several earlier ancient R1b samples of other clades in Eastern Europe, and even the earliest R1b ever found in the Villabruna cluster of Mesolithic Italy. R1b-L23 seems to have been not just present, but prevalent in the Pontic-Caspian area some 5000-6000 BP, perhaps even earlier. AFAIK no other Copper Age/Bronze Age culture has been found with so much R1b-L23 in its aDNA samples as the Yamnaya. And when you consider that Yamnaya-like autosomal DNA is also clearly correlated with virtually all IE-speaking peoples of the modern era and of the past, it becomes even harder for people who still cling to the virtually debunken "Anatolian hypothesis" (even Renfrew himself "refined it" to include the steppe as a "secondary homeland", lol) or to even fancier hypotheses.