Does genetics prove Iran/Armenia is the original land of Indo-Europeans?

[Cyrus]

Could this be relevant? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae#Germanic - an link between Germanic and Iranic peoples in Ukraine & Eastern Carpathians. In particular, described by Greco-Romans as Germanic-speaking, but with the proposition of Trubacev that their name derives from the ancient Persian/Avestani words bast- "bound, tied; slave" and *arna- "offspring",

Perhaps these people descended from freed Germanic slaves of Iranic Scythians, some of whom admixed in with the Iranics, and most of whom later returned to their Germanic brethren in the Eastern Baltic.

Small traces of DNA I've picked up in modern Iranians look a bit like an odd mixture of ancient populations from Sweden, Czech Republic and NW Ukraine, although there is insufficient data to have much confidence about this.

Could the Germanic Bastarnae and Iranic Scythians each have had some influence on each other's languages?

I talked about Bastarnae, a Germanic tribe in Getae about 600 years before Goths, in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...evidence-to-prove-Goths-came-from-Scandinavia

Some Scythians who lived in Europe were actually Germanic people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scythian_Warriors.jpg

Scythian warriors, drawn after figures on an electrum cup from the Kul'Oba kurgan burial near Kerch. The warrior on the right is stringing his bow, bracing it behind his knee; note the typical pointed hood, long jacket with fur or fleece trimming at the edges, decorated trousers, and short boots tied at the ankle.

As I said in my previous post Old Persian xauda "hood" is a loanword from proto-Germanic (proto-IE *k could never be changed to x in Iranian languages, except in consonant clusters), and in the Old Persian texts we read this word just about Scythians who wore pointed xauda "hood".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U7

"Genetic analysis of individuals associated with the Late Hallstatt culture (6th century BC) from Baden-Württemberg Germany considered to be examples of Iron Age "princely burials" included haplogroup U7."

Warrior of Hirschlanden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_of_Hirschlanden

The Warrior of Hirschlanden (Krieger von Hirschlanden in German) is a statue of a nude ithyphallic warrior made of sandstone, the oldest known Iron Age life-size anthropomorphic statue north of the Alps. It was a production of the Hallstatt culture, probably dating to the 6th century BC. It is now in the Württembergisches Landesmuseum in Stuttgart, with a copy at the Hirschlanden site (now Ditzingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany), where it was found.
The warrior wears a torc (neck-ring), a belt with a typical late Hallstatt dagger, and a pointed hat, possibly made (as with the real hat in the princely grave of Hochdorf) of birchbark.

Gutian Warrior with pointed hat, Luristan bronze:

 

[tyuiopman]

As I have found, there are at least 600 Persian/Avestan words from proto-Germanic, like Old Persian xauda from proto-Germanic *xōda "hood" from Proto-Indo-European *kadʰ "to cover", wal/awal "whale" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/وال#Persian) from proto-Germanic *hwal "whale" from proto-IE Proto-Indo-European *(s)kʷálos, cognate with Latin squalus, xeng "horse, stallion" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/خنگ) from proto-Germanic xengist- "horse, stallion" from Proto-Indo-European *ḱanḱest, compare German hengst, xʷast "quest" from Proto-Indo-European *kʷeh₂s-, xʷah "whether", kulak "cold, cool", kalla "head", ...

Again, these are all Proto Indo-European words. Perhaps as Pip pointed out, there was some influence on Proto-Germanic from Scythian/Sarmatian, but that hardly means that the Proto-Germans were in Iran or that Germanic=PIE.

You need to compare all these words with Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Balto-Slavic.

I don't quite understand why you're trying to achieve or prove. Compare any two Indo-European languages and you're going to find a lot of similarities. You should compare Iranian words with Indic or even Balto-Slavic words. You'll be surprised by the similarities you find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ6BzzBY-PU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZPTBGihHeo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IexL5q1W5I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fVMSn0ljJs

So why aren't you arguing that Latin is Iranian or that Iranian is Slavic?

 

[tyuiopman]

I talked about Bastarnae, a Germanic tribe in Getae about 600 years before Goths, in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...evidence-to-prove-Goths-came-from-Scandinavia

Some Scythians who lived in Europe were actually Germanic people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scythian_Warriors.jpg



As I said in my previous post Old Persian xauda "hood" is a loanword from proto-Germanic (proto-IE *k could never be changed to x in Iranian languages, except in consonant clusters), and in the Old Persian texts we read this word just about Scythians who wore pointed xauda "hood".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA)#Haplogroup_U7

"Genetic analysis of individuals associated with the Late Hallstatt culture (6th century BC) from Baden-Württemberg Germany considered to be examples of Iron Age "princely burials" included haplogroup U7."

Warrior of Hirschlanden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_of_Hirschlanden



Gutian Warrior with pointed hat, Luristan bronze:

A) that hat means nothing.

View attachment 11210

Urartian

View attachment 11211
Anatolian (not sure what culture specifically)

View attachment 11212
Phrygian

View attachment 11213
Greek/Balkan

View attachment 11214
Hittite

I'm sure these cone style hats were widespread.

And so what if they had a haplogroup that U7? Many European haplogroups were brought to Europe through Iran/South Caucasus/greater Near East. We know this.

 

[Cyrus]

Again, these are all Proto Indo-European words. Perhaps as Pip pointed out, there was some influence on Proto-Germanic from Scythian/Sarmatian, but that hardly means that the Proto-Germans were in Iran or that Germanic=PIE.

You need to compare all these words with Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and Balto-Slavic.

I don't quite understand why you're trying to achieve or prove. Compare any two Indo-European languages and you're going to find a lot of similarities. You should compare Iranian words with Indic or even Balto-Slavic words. You'll be surprised by the similarities you find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ6BzzBY-PU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZPTBGihHeo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IexL5q1W5I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fVMSn0ljJs

So why aren't you arguing that Latin is Iranian or that Iranian is Slavic?

When I say proto-Germanic people lived in Iran from at least the 3rd millennium BC , I actually just want to prove that this land could be an original land of Indo-Europeans, please look at this thread again: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27182-Proto-Semitic-and-Proto-Indo-European without any doubt almost all Indo-European loanwords in Old Akkadian are from proto-Germanic, if I found just one Avestan word among them then I would say that my country has been always the land of Iranian-speaking people.

 

[tyuiopman]

When I say proto-Germanic people lived in Iran from at least the 3rd millennium BC , I actually just want to prove that this land could be an original land of Indo-Europeans, please look at this thread again: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27182-Proto-Semitic-and-Proto-Indo-European without any doubt almost all Indo-European loanwords in Old Akkadian are from proto-Germanic, if I found just one Avestan word among them then I would say that my country has been always the land of Iranian-speaking people.

This is what I criticized you for before though—you’re creating new (i.e. your own) definitions for terms.
It’s very likely that some early form of Proto-IE was spoken in Iran. Maybe even other full-fledged IE languages (i.e. Steppe-derived). For example, as I said before, I think there were Proto-Armenian tribes around Urmia. I think there was an Indo-Iranian superstratum on the Kassites (which they could have picked up anywhere from the South Caucasus to Iran/Zagros to Mesopotamia). We know that there were Armenians, Anatolians, Greeks, and likely Indo-Iranians/Indics, as well as possibly Blakanic peoples that interacted with the Akkadians. Sometime around 800 BCE but maybe as early as 1400 BCE Iranians entered the picture in the region. There was also likely some other IE group(s) long before interacting with the Sumerians and (my theory) Hattians...could have been Anatolians, could have been very early Armenians, could have been Gutians, could have been some or all of these or somebody else entirely. In other words, a theory as radical as Germanic-speakers in Iran isn’t needed to explain these loans into Semitic and other neighboring non-IE Near Eastern languages.
As for IE in Iran, I believe that myself. But I think Iranian languages as we know them today (i.e. Iranian languages that share a common ancestor with Indic languages via Indo-Iranian) come from Shintashta/Central Asia. There may be pre-Iranian IE substrata in modern Iranian though.

 

[tyuiopman]

As for that list you provided, you’re selectively picking and choosing again to fit your prerogative. I see just as many similarities with Slavic, Celtic, Armenian, etc and Akkadian as I do with Germanic. Some of these others actually seem closer to Akkadian than the Germanic versions. Frankly, i’m getting really tired of you making sweeping, emphatic declarations like “it could only come from Proto-Germanic”. It’s one thing to pose a question, it’s another to put blinders up and to dig your feet further into the ground when you’re confronted with some of the serious flaws in your theory. It shows that you’re not involved in this conversation in good faith.

 

[Cyrus]

This is what I criticized you for before though—you’re creating new (i.e. your own) definitions for terms.
It’s very likely that some early form of Proto-IE was spoken in Iran. Maybe even other full-fledged IE languages (i.e. Steppe-derived). For example, as I said before, I think there were Proto-Armenian tribes around Urmia. I think there was an Indo-Iranian superstratum on the Kassites (which they could have picked up anywhere from the South Caucasus to Iran/Zagros to Mesopotamia). We know that there were Armenians, Anatolians, Greeks, and likely Indo-Iranians/Indics, as well as possibly Blakanic peoples that interacted with the Akkadians. Sometime around 800 BCE but maybe as early as 1400 BCE Iranians entered the picture in the region. There was also likely some other IE group(s) long before interacting with the Sumerians and (my theory) Hattians...could have been Anatolians, could have been very early Armenians, could have been Gutians, could have been some or all of these or somebody else entirely. In other words, a theory as radical as Germanic-speakers in Iran isn’t needed to explain these loans into Semitic and other neighboring non-IE Near Eastern languages.
As for IE in Iran, I believe that myself. But I think Iranian languages as we know them today (i.e. Iranian languages that share a common ancestor with Indic languages via Indo-Iranian) come from Shintashta/Central Asia. There may be pre-Iranian IE substrata in modern Iranian though.

It is certainly possible that different IE people lived near each other in the Middle East, South Asia and Southeastern Europe in the ancient times, one of the main reasons is that we see loanwords from Sumerian, Semitic or Hurrian languages in almost all of them but those who lived near Akkadians and Hurrians before 1700 BC seem to be just proto-Germanic people, after this date Hittites, Indo-Iranians and Greeks came close to these lands too.
When we talk about loanwords from another language, the most basic condition is that this word could exist in that language, for example it can't be said that the word China is from Ancient Greek, when we know /ch/ didn't exist in Greek phonology, for the same reason Semitic words with x,th,f,... couldn't be from IE languages that these sounds didn't exist in them.

 

[Cyrus]

As for that list you provided, you’re selectively picking and choosing again to fit your prerogative. I see just as many similarities with Slavic, Celtic, Armenian, etc and Akkadian as I do with Germanic. Some of these others actually seem closer to Akkadian than the Germanic versions. Frankly, i’m getting really tired of you making sweeping, emphatic declarations like “it could only come from Proto-Germanic”. It’s one thing to pose a question, it’s another to put blinders up and to dig your feet further into the ground when you’re confronted with some of the serious flaws in your theory. It shows that you’re not involved in this conversation in good faith.

Would you please tell me your own theory about the language of Gutians and other people who lived in the west of Iran? Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, Slavic, proto-Indo-European, Akkadian, Hurrian, or all languages except proto-Germanic?!

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

[QUOTE=Cyrus]
Avestan and Old Persian themselves were certainly not mutually intelligible but we see many similar words, for example personal pronouns in Avestan/Old Persian are: min "I, me" (Greek egw), tu"thou" (Greek su), hi/shi "he/she" (Greek autou), wae "we" (Greek hmei), yus "you" (Greek umei) and diy "they" (Greek autwn).[/QUOTE]

Yes. Because they were both early Iranian languages.

Incidentally, tu exists in Armenian and Latin languages. Mi exists in Latin languages and Germanic languages as "me." E is both he/she/it in Armenian and Spanish. Armenian and Spanish both have the en tense for "they."

@Cyrus
You are not familiar with the greek pronouns at all. Concerning the 3rd person pronouns, check the etymologies in each branch.

'tu' existed in Doric, and theoretically 'proto-Greek' too. It was 'su' in Attic (pronounced /sy/ according to mainstream linguists).
But some say it was ~'ti' in more Archaic PIE. It is ti in Albanian and some Slavic languages. (proto-Slavic reconstructed as ty)

The interesting but theoretically coincidental thing about second personal pronouns is that the thing we notice in Greek (tV~sV), exists also in Finnic (modern Finnish sina)

From *tinä:

• Samoyedic: *tən
  • Nganasan: тәнә (tənə)
  • Enets:
    • Tundra Enets: [Term?] (toďi)
  • Selkup: тан (tan), тат (tat)
  • Kamassian: тһан (tʰan)
  • Mator: [script needed] (танъ)
• Ugric:
  • Hungarian: te
• Permic:
  • Komi:
    • Komi-Permyak: те (te)
    • Komi-Zyrian: тэ (te)
  • Udmurt: тон (ton)
• Mari:
  • Hill Mari: тӹнь (tÿnʹ)
  • Meadow Mari: тый (tyj)
• Finnic: *cinä (stem *cinu-) (see there for further descendants)

From *tun:

• Mordvinic:
  • Erzya: тон (ton)
  • Moksha: тон (ton)
• Samic: *ton (see there for further descendants)

That shows to me that the vowel sound could trigger palatalization of the preceding consonant in some Indo-Uralic dialects, so most likely it wasn't exactly /i/ or /u/.

@tyuiopman
In that sense 'mi' exists almost everywhere, including Uralic, early Turkic.

Either way, in Avestan, Sanskrit and Homeric Greek we have Sanskrit ahám, Avestan azə̄m, Homeric Greek ἐγών egṓn. And from those they reconstruct eǵHóm.
But we see that Avestan and Saskrit have fricative sounds, and modern Greek (at least) has a fricative sound too, so I doubt the reconstruction is exactly correct.

But it is theoretically possible that prePIE was more like Celtic or some Iranian languages, concerning the first pronoun.

 

[nornosh]

Could this be relevant? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae#Germanic - an link between Germanic and Iranic peoples in Ukraine & Eastern Carpathians. In particular, described by Greco-Romans as Germanic-speaking, but with the proposition of Trubacev that their name derives from the ancient Persian/Avestani words bast- "bound, tied; slave" and *arna- "offspring",

Perhaps these people descended from freed Germanic slaves of Iranic Scythians, some of whom admixed in with the Iranics, and most of whom later returned to their Germanic brethren in the Eastern Baltic.

Small traces of DNA I've picked up in modern Iranians look a bit like an odd mixture of ancient populations from Sweden, Czech Republic and NW Ukraine, although there is insufficient data to have much confidence about this.

Could the Germanic Bastarnae and Iranic Scythians each have had some influence on each other's languages?

To tell you the truth I mistake it for Scythian tribe. This could be one of the link 'bridge'.

 

[spruithean]

Could this be relevant? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarnae#Germanic - an link between Germanic and Iranic peoples in Ukraine & Eastern Carpathians. In particular, described by Greco-Romans as Germanic-speaking, but with the proposition of Trubacev that their name derives from the ancient Persian/Avestani words bast- "bound, tied; slave" and *arna- "offspring",

Perhaps these people descended from freed Germanic slaves of Iranic Scythians, some of whom admixed in with the Iranics, and most of whom later returned to their Germanic brethren in the Eastern Baltic.

Small traces of DNA I've picked up in modern Iranians look a bit like an odd mixture of ancient populations from Sweden, Czech Republic and NW Ukraine, although there is insufficient data to have much confidence about this.

Could the Germanic Bastarnae and Iranic Scythians each have had some influence on each other's languages?

The Bastarnae are just one tribe and their ethnolinguistic affiliation isn't necessarily Germanic, there are indications they may have been an offshoot of the Gauls, or a branch of the Sarmatians, etc. They are sometimes referred to as Gauls or Germanic in their way of life (sedentary) or Sarmatian in some texts. I would be skeptical using them as a cornerstone or evidence for the theory presented in this thread.

To tell you the truth I mistake it for Schytian tribe. This could be one of the link 'bridge'.

A single tribe? A single tribe of obscure ethnolinguistic affiliation had such large influence that it can be considered a "bridge"?

In regards to U7, again, Cyrus you're ignoring the studies that cover U7 and the dispersal events of the haplogroup and the phylogeny of the haplogroups found in Europe vs elsewhere.

I'm still not sure why proto-Germanic must be from Iran when there is no evidence, or why the Gutians must be Germanic when we have zero evidence for such a thing.

 

[nornosh]

Eureka! I found it!
my finding will solve the problem with Germanic origin in Europe or Zagros? European posters you believe in Germanics origin in North Europe don't you, well your theory is right they originated in N.Europe as mainstream theory says, yet Cyrus is correct too in pointing numerous evidences of Germanic vocabulary in Semitic languages but how he could be correct too, well when Germanics settled N.Europe from Balkans area then several tribes of them journeyed east to Zagros region too, maybe even Danube delta region too to form future Getae, Thracian tribes too and they left these influences in Mesopotamian regions, east Balkan regions. For lack of Ydna evidences in Middle east of Germanic people my answer is they must have Germanized their surrounding neighbors then those tribes with Germanic language yet majority local genetics settled Zagros region to form today's Lurs for example. My theory has the potential to solve all your problems my friends.

Look ydna haplogroup Q one group of them went east to the Americas another journeyed west to C.Asia, ydna haplogroup N did the same one journeyed west to Europe another journeyed east to East Asia so did the Germanics.

 

[Pip]

Further analysis has given Slavs as the closest fit I could find for a population that admixed into Iranians during the first millennium BC, although I could not get it very close. From the autosomals, this population looks heavily descended from something like Polish Corded Ware.

I suspect this minority component was the major source of the Iranian language, probably having derived from North Eastern Europe and so could easily have been influenced by neighbouring populations speaking pre-Germanic languages. I feel that this is most likely to be where any cultural and linguistic links with Germanics may have originated. There must have been a degree of similarity between these peoples, as several early writers confused Germanics, Eastern Celts, Slavs, Sarmatians and Scythians with each other.

However, this doesn't look like it relates to the geographical Iran particularly, nor to the origin of Indo-European per se, although perhaps it suggests something about the roots of Proto-Indo-Iranian?

I believe it is still reasonably likely, however, that Iran-Armenia is close to the origins of Proto-Indo-European, a while further back.

 

[nornosh]

Or even some western tribes of Scythians could have been Germanics who then migrated to North Europe then Germanized the then local Celtic R1b-S21, Nordic I1 tribes, but its very speculative.

 

[Pip]

The Bastarnae are just one tribe and their ethnolinguistic affiliation isn't necessarily Germanic, there are indications they may have been an offshoot of the Gauls, or a branch of the Sarmatians, etc. They are sometimes referred to as Gauls or Germanic in their way of life (sedentary) or Sarmatian in some texts. I would be skeptical using them as a cornerstone or evidence for the theory presented in this thread.

I think you are sometimes a little too quick to write things off. As Wikipedia states, "Greco-Roman geographers of the 1st century AD are unanimous and specific that the Bastarnae were Germanic in language and culture. The Greek geographer Strabo (writing c. AD 5-20) says the Bastarnae are "of Germanic stock". The Roman geographer Pliny the Elder (c. AD 77), classifies the Bastarnae and Peucini as constituting one of the 5 main subdivisions of Germanic peoples. The Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 100) describes the Bastaenae as Germans with substantial Sarmatian influence, also stating that they are like the Germans in their language, way of life and types of dwelling."

I'm not using this as a cornerstone or evidence for any theory. I'm not debating or arguing or trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm just questioning whether this might potentially be a relevant association (geographical or otherwise) between the peoples who ended up as Germanics and those who ended up as Iranians.

 

[spruithean]

I think you are sometimes a little too quick to write things off. As Wikipedia states, "Greco-Roman geographers of the 1st century AD are unanimous and specific that the Bastarnae were Germanic in language and culture. The Greek geographer Strabo (writing c. AD 5-20) says the Bastarnae are "of Germanic stock". The Roman geographer Pliny the Elder (c. AD 77), classifies the Bastarnae and Peucini as constituting one of the 5 main subdivisions of Germanic peoples. The Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 100) describes the Bastaenae as Germans with substantial Sarmatian influence, also stating that they are like the Germans in their language, way of life and types of dwelling."

I'm not using this as a cornerstone or evidence for any theory. I'm not debating or arguing or trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm just questioning whether this might potentially be a relevant association (geographical or otherwise) between the peoples who ended up as Germanics and those who ended up as Iranians.

Maybe, but I'm just skeptical...

Also from the very same wikipedia page:

A leading reason to consider the Bastarnae as Celtic is that the regions they are documented to have occupied (northern and eastern slopes of the Carpathians) overlapped to a great extent with the locations of Celtic tribes attested in the northern Carpathians. Indeed, a large part of this region,

Galicia, may derive its name from its former Celtic inhabitants the Taurisci, Osi, Cotini and Anartes of Slovakia and northern Romania and the Britogalli of the Danubian Mouth region.^[26] In addition, archaeological cultures, which some scholars have linked to the Bastarnae (Poieneşti-Lukashevka and Zarubintsy), display pronounced Celtic affinities. Finally, the arrival of the Bastarnae in the Pontic-Danubian region, which can be dated to 233-216 BC according to two ancient sources,^[27] coincides with the latter phase of Celtic migration into the region (400-200 BC).

The earliest historians give a Celtic or Gallic origin to the Bastarnae. Roman historian Livy, writing in c. AD 10, attest that the Bastarnae spoke Celtic. Relating the Bastarnic invasion of the Balkans of 179 BC (see Conflict with Rome below), he describes them then as "they were not very different in either language or manners" to the Celtic tribe of the Scordisci, a tribe of Pannonia. The Scordisci are described as Celtic by Strabo (although he adds that they had mingled with Illyrians and Thracians).^[28] The Greeks historian Plutarch inform us that the Roman consul Hostilius "secretly stirred up the Gauls settled along the Danube, who are called Basternae".^[1]

I'm very much aware that the paragraph following this follows up with with the contradictions against a Celtic affiliation for the Bastarnae.

However, a Celtic identity for the Bastarnae is apparently contradicted by Polybius (writing ca. 150 BC), who was an actual contemporary of the events described, unlike Livy, who was writing some 200 years later. Polybius clearly distinguishes the Bastarnae from the "Galatae" (i.e. Celts): "an embassy from the Dardani arrived [at the Roman Senate], talking of the Bastarnae, their huge numbers, the strength and valour of their warriors, and also reporting that Perseus [king of Macedon] and the Galatae were in league with this tribe".^[29] In addition, inscription AE (1905) 14, recording a campaign on the Hungarian Plain by the Augustan-era general Marcus Vinucius (10 BC^[30] or 8 BC^[31]), also appears to distinguish the Bastarnae from neighbouring Celtic tribes: "Marcus Vinucius... governor of Illyricum, the first [Roman general] to advance across the river Danube, defeated in battle and routed an army of Dacians and Basternae, and subjugated the Cotini, Osi,...[missing tribal name] and Anartii to the power of the emperor Augustus and of the people of Rome."^[32]The names of three Bastarnae leaders are preserved in the ancient sources are of Celtic origin: Cotto,^[33] Clondicus,^[34] and Teutagonus^[35][36]

I wasn't implying you specifically, simply making a statement about it.

 

[torzio]

The Bastarnae are just one tribe and their ethnolinguistic affiliation isn't necessarily Germanic, there are indications they may have been an offshoot of the Gauls, or a branch of the Sarmatians, etc. They are sometimes referred to as Gauls or Germanic in their way of life (sedentary) or Sarmatian in some texts. I would be skeptical using them as a cornerstone or evidence for the theory presented in this thread.



A single tribe? A single tribe of obscure ethnolinguistic affiliation had such large influence that it can be considered a "bridge"?

In regards to U7, again, Cyrus you're ignoring the studies that cover U7 and the dispersal events of the haplogroup and the phylogeny of the haplogroups found in Europe vs elsewhere.

I'm still not sure why proto-Germanic must be from Iran when there is no evidence, or why the Gutians must be Germanic when we have zero evidence for such a thing.

Bastanae are a Gaul/celtic mix with west-baltic people ..........they have later germanic mix in them as well.............there is no slavic , but the sarmatians mixed with bastanae only after the gothic migration from the baltic sea to the black sea

The bastanae sent 80000 men, women and children also to aid Philip V of Macedon ............they never returned home, but settled between modern hungaria and serbia

Polybius contradiction is based on that......... he saw a difference between gaulish and celtic people ............other historians did not

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

I think you are sometimes a little too quick to write things off. As Wikipedia states, "Greco-Roman geographers of the 1st century AD are unanimous and specific that the Bastarnae were Germanic in language and culture. The Greek geographer Strabo (writing c. AD 5-20) says the Bastarnae are "of Germanic stock". The Roman geographer Pliny the Elder (c. AD 77), classifies the Bastarnae and Peucini as constituting one of the 5 main subdivisions of Germanic peoples. The Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 100) describes the Bastaenae as Germans with substantial Sarmatian influence, also stating that they are like the Germans in their language, way of life and types of dwelling."

I'm not using this as a cornerstone or evidence for any theory. I'm not debating or arguing or trying to prove or disprove anything. I'm just questioning whether this might potentially be a relevant association (geographical or otherwise) between the peoples who ended up as Germanics and those who ended up as Iranians.

The term didn't mean what it means today though. For Strabo the term Germani meant in essence something like 'Genuine Galatae' and he thought it was an exonym the Romans first used.
It seems possible to me that the people they labeled Germani were speaking a language ancestral to Old High German, but not necessarily correct.

 

[tyuiopman]

The link could actually be Cimmerian, which has been theorized to have been a language between Indo-Iranian and Thracian.

Additionally, Hamp connects the Phrygians with Italo-Celtics.

 

[tyuiopman]

It is certainly possible that different IE people lived near each other in the Middle East, South Asia and Southeastern Europe in the ancient times, one of the main reasons is that we see loanwords from Sumerian, Semitic or Hurrian languages in almost all of them but those who lived near Akkadians and Hurrians before 1700 BC seem to be just proto-Germanic people, after this date Hittites, Indo-Iranians and Greeks came close to these lands too.
When we talk about loanwords from another language, the most basic condition is that this word could exist in that language, for example it can't be said that the word China is from Ancient Greek, when we know /ch/ didn't exist in Greek phonology, for the same reason Semitic words with x,th,f,... couldn't be from IE languages that these sounds didn't exist in them.

But again, a) there are other languages that have many of these sounds and b) as others have pointed out here and in other threads to you, languages change and develop sounds or lose sounds.
Hurrians seem to be a proto-Germanic people? Are you serious, Cyrus? Give me a break! Hurrians were not even Indo-European! Hurians were a non-IE people likely from northern Syria who died out by 2000BCE...1500 years before the Proto-Germans (who were Indo-Euro and lived in Europe)! How could they be connected to Proto-German?! It’s far more likely it was Pre-Pre Proto German, which was Indo-Hittite/PPIE/PIE.

The Hurrians did have some IE loans, which likely came from Anatolian (or Indo-Hittite), Armenian, possibly Greek, and maybe Euphratic (if it even existed). No need for Germans to be in there.