Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

I was not responding directly to you. You are the one who cast the slur at the authors of the study, basically calling them "Nordicist" racists. How does that contribute to an open and fair discussion of the merits (and demerits) of the study? It doesn't, but is an attempt to poison and torpedo the discussion.

Did I say I was "personally attacked" by you? As I predicted, however, you have now directed the slur at me:

As if only a "Nordicist" racist could possibly object to your slurring the authors as "Nordicist" racists. Slur away. Personally, I don't give a damn.
It's rather interesting you think this because I have yet to directly call the authors either "Nordicists" or "Racists", as my knowledge on their background remains significantly less than that of Pax. Let's do away with vague descriptor words such as "basically" in some attempt to bend the truth here. Whatever leanings the authors may have, I have yet to personally confirm or reject such affiliations, but I do trust that Pax is providing reasonably well founded information as he usually does.

The fact that the mere usage of the word "Nordicist" in my post is interpreted by you to be an unfair slur comes with a lot of implications. Do you feel Nordicists, complete with their dictionary of slurs, racial slander, and fictional myths are some type of group that deserve social protections? Tell me exactly what your issue is with this term and why. Clearly this topic is hitting close to home.

So far the conversation has very much followed your principle of open and fair discussion because the topic of discussion that I had presented was erroneous information in at least one PCA of the study. A potential cause for this was theorized to possibly be the authors' personal Nordic Indo-europeanist bias (which I have so far interpreted as Nordicism). As far as whatever slur you feel to have incurred this still remains news to me and not something I was aware of so please go ahead and specify exactly what you feel insulted by and when it was specifically directed at you by myself. I have so far only attacked Nordicists thinkers, so if you feel this describes yourself then be clear in stating this so we can stop beating around the bush.
 
There are some Hittite loanwords in Gothic and other Germanic languages, like Hittite compound hulpant "humpback, camel", compare Gothic ulbandus and Old English olfend, Hittite was spoken in Anatolia and it became extinct by 1200 BC, logically Gothic language shouldn't be too far from this region.
The bulk of what is known about the Goths (and Vandales) languages seems eastern Germanic and the origin or first steps of these peoples on the continent lies surely around regions like the one where Wielbark culture existed in Poland. I 'm pushed to support the traditionnal view of an origin in Sweden.
Have you other loanwords of Hittite in Germanic?
 
Goths were originally Scndinavian but became more South Eur

Goths were originally Scandinavian but became much more South European by mixing with the Balkan population of pre-Slavic times.
The mixings are confirmed too in Crimea where Goths were more brachycephalic (typology/metrics) and showed some accretions of people more "southern" or "eastern" (helas not precise: South Caucasus and East-Asia???).
 
There are some Hittite loanwords in Gothic and other Germanic languages, like Hittite compound hulpant "humpback, camel", compare Gothic ulbandus and Old English olfend, Hittite was spoken in Anatolia and it became extinct by 1200 BC, logically Gothic language shouldn't be too far from this region.
According to actual linguists the Germanic word for camel comes from Latin. I guess that means Germanic languages originated in Italy.
 
According to actual linguists the Germanic word for camel comes from Latin. I guess that means Germanic languages originated in Italy.
I doubt. I think rather that Germanics didn't see any 'camel' before they met Romans and some of them became mercenaries for Rome. Then they could loan the word from Latin, even without seeing any camel at first. The reasoning is valuable for any loan of word.
 
Here under what Wiki says. Apparently there was in Old Germanic (Teutonic?) a word close to 'elephant' for 'camel'!!!

Kamel, n., ‘camel,’ from Lat. camêlus; in MidHG. kemmel, këmel, which point to the Byzantine and ModGr. pronunciation of Gr. κάμηλος, and hence to κάμιλος (the e of kemel is produced by i- mutation from a). The ModHG. word is a more recent scholarly term, borrowed anew from Lat. (comp. Fr. chameau, Ital. camello), while the MidHG. word was brought back from the Crusades, and hence is due to immediate contact with the East. Moreover, at San Rossore, near Pisa, a breed of camels has existed from the Crusades down to modern times, some of which are exhibited in Europe as curiosities. In the OTeut. period there was, curiously enough, a peculiar word for ‘camel’ current in most of the dialects, which corresponded to Gr. ἐλεφαντ-, Goth. ulbandus, AS. olfend, OHG. olbenta, MidHG. olbent; allied to OSlov. velĭbądŭ, ‘camel.’ The history of this word is quite obscure.
 
would be interesting if the e1b1b1b( x e-v13) cases
are real
pretty surprising to be honest :unsure:
i guess when the paper will be published pribislav or some other expert will need to look at the y calls
to confirm those cases location

P.s
I looked at the e3b project
It look like there are some testers of sweedish and danish direct paternal line who fall under e-m84
downstream branches:
e-pf6751 and e-y5435


here are the e-m123 cases from this future paper :


under e-m34>z841


CGG021918 Kiskundorozsma_1537 CentralEasternEurope Hungary Kiskundorozsma 1285 1176 1228 670 774 722 MigrationPeriod Sarmatian CGG021918 1.51285 E1b1b1b2a1a6d2~ NA NA

CGG105934 A16 F18 NorthernEurope Sweden Southern Sweden/ Skåne 1-400AD NA 1550 1750 1 400 201 IronAge Roman CGG105934 0.60016099999999994 E1b1b1b2a1a6d2~ NA NA

CGG106750 NM1 404/71, FHM 450/63, NorthernEurope Denmark_Baltic Bornholms Sønder 1-400 CE NA 1550 1750 1 400 201 IronAge Roman CGG106750 4.75293 E1b1b1b2a1a6d2~ NA NA



under e-m34>m84

CGG023722 Camp_du_Château_Sépulture_1922 WesternEurope France Bourgogne_Franche_Compt 400CE-700CE 1405 1292 1319 605 658 632 Medieval LateAntiquity CGG023722 9.68389 E1b1b1b2a1a1a1a1f1b1a1 NA NA



p.s

the late antiquity french sample should fall under e-m84>pf6751
all the rest e-m123 samples should be under e-z841
i only notice it after i read in forum molgen a post by user farroukh(y)
again when the paper will be out and bam files out we will see where exactly each sample fall in the e-m123 tree
 
Concerning more specifically Germanic people and moves, I noticed for the Netherlands:
- EIA: spite far enough (maybe input of SGC of LBA) that's to say: 0,034600898 to 0,04078435, thee "Dutch" people of the time were closer to, BA Netherlands, MBA Scotland, LBA England, EMBA Scotland, EMBA England - LIA: closer - 0,02394821 to 0,02800401, closer to Vikings Norway, MA Alemanni Germany), Vikings Iceland (pre-Christian), Saxons of England, Vikings Denmark.
So closer to Germanic in the late period. Could it be linked (partially) to th differences in Y-haplo R1b-U1O6 subclades, one denser todate in Belgium and then in Northwest Germany/the Netherlands, the other denser in Scandinavia?
I found Y-R1b-U106>Z156>Z304 opposed to Y-R1b6U106>Z156>L48 - maybe these subclades are not deep enough for recent surveys? The first subclade could be linked to SGC (Elp C. and Cy)???
 
Concerning more specifically Germanic people and moves, I noticed for the Netherlands:
- EIA: spite far enough (maybe input of SGC of LBA) that's to say: 0,034600898 to 0,04078435, thee "Dutch" people of the time were closer to, BA Netherlands, MBA Scotland, LBA England, EMBA Scotland, EMBA England - LIA: closer - 0,02394821 to 0,02800401, closer to Vikings Norway, MA Alemanni Germany), Vikings Iceland (pre-Christian), Saxons of England, Vikings Denmark.
So closer to Germanic in the late period. Could it be linked (partially) to th differences in Y-haplo R1b-U1O6 subclades, one denser todate in Belgium and then in Northwest Germany/the Netherlands, the other denser in Scandinavia?
I found Y-R1b-U106>Z156>Z304 opposed to Y-R1b6U106>Z156>L48 - maybe these subclades are not deep enough for recent surveys? The first subclade could be linked to SGC (Elp C. and Cy)???

Yes indeed. There is a kind of split in R1b U106. The Z18 line is clearly Scandic. And the subclade Z304 is clearly NW Block like, in which the Netherlands were a part. This is according to the paper belonging to the Eastern North Sea cluster, which is BB derived. So most probably a continuity from 2400 BC to 400 AD in the NW Block. The language is most probably in the "Italo-Celtic" range. See Kuhn et al (1962), see Kuzmenko (2011), see Schrijve (2017), with his North Sea Celtic.

With regard to R1b U106 and subclades, see: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1221068102
 
Yes indeed. There is a kind of split in R1b U106. The Z18 line is clearly Scandic. And the subclade Z304 is clearly NW Block like, in which the Netherlands were a part. This is according to the paper belonging to the Eastern North Sea cluster, which is BB derived. So most probably a continuity from 2400 BC to 400 AD in the NW Block. The language is most probably in the "Italo-Celtic" range. See Kuhn et al (1962), see Kuzmenko (2011), see Schrijve (2017), with his North Sea Celtic.

With regard to R1b U106 and subclades, see: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1221068102
Correction:
Yes indeed. There is a kind of split in R1b U106. The Z18 line is clearly Scandic. And the subclade Z304 is clearly NW Block like, in which the Netherlands were a part. This is according to the paper belonging to the Eastern North Sea cluster, which is BB derived. So most probably a continuity from 2400 BC to 400 AD in the NW Block. The language was most probably in the "Italo-Celtic" range. See Kuhn et al (1962), see Kuzmenko (2011), see Schrijver (2017), with his North Sea Celtic.

 
Yes indeed. There is a kind of split in R1b U106. The Z18 line is clearly Scandic. And the subclade Z304 is clearly NW Block like, in which the Netherlands were a part. This is according to the paper belonging to the Eastern North Sea cluster, which is BB derived. So most probably a continuity from 2400 BC to 400 AD in the NW Block. The language is most probably in the "Italo-Celtic" range. See Kuhn et al (1962), see Kuzmenko (2011), see Schrijve (2017), with his North Sea Celtic.

With regard to R1b U106 and subclades, see: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...7i1tLPV75ie_qS0iplwvvlVmQ/edit#gid=1221068102
Nice to read you again, Northerner! ATW it seems to me that U106's (!) were at first more linked to BBC than to CWC or maybe between them both in a previously small pop before expansion or male drift. For me it's them who transmitted the IE Centum part of proto-Germanic to more northern pop's, not the CWC people.
 
Southern Europeans are caught between two fires, precisely these northern Indo-Europeanists and the MENA globalist/fetishist Orientalists (well entrenched in large American universities such as Stanford, Harvard...).
Yes, remove indo-europeity from the northern mediterranean and all you're left with is a genetic grouping very close to those in "west Asia/Middle-East"

What were you expecting?
That MENA adjacent ancestry is a MAJORITY of southern "Europe"(whatever this means)

If they don't like MENA, chances are they don't like the southern part of the continent either
 
Yes, remove indo-europeity from the northern mediterranean and all you're left with is a genetic grouping very close to those in "west Asia/Middle-East"

What were you expecting?
That MENA adjacent ancestry is a MAJORITY of southern "Europe"(whatever this means)

If they don't like MENA, chances are they don't like the southern part of the continent either
Indo-europeity? What does that even mean genetically speaking?
 
Yes, remove indo-europeity from the northern mediterranean and all you're left with is a genetic grouping very close to those in "west Asia/Middle-East"

What were you expecting?
That MENA adjacent ancestry is a MAJORITY of southern "Europe"(whatever this means)

If they don't like MENA, chances are they don't like the southern part of the continent either

The Iron age, Bronze age and Neolithic Anatolian genetic profiles are not similar to any ancestries found in the Middle East or North Africa today and thus cannot be considered genetically "MENA" for that reason. Neolithic Anatolians are consistantly closest European Sardinians, where as Bronze/Iron age Anatolians are consistantly closest to European Greek Islanders and Caucasians. The latter are simply a two way admixture between neolithic anatolians and caucasian populations so this is not surprising.

To sum it up the types of ancestries you refer to are most accurately described as northern mediterranean and are most strongly represented in modern southern europe instead of the middle east.
 
The Iron age, Bronze age and Neolithic Anatolian genetic profiles are not similar to any ancestries found in the Middle East or North Africa today and thus cannot be considered genetically "MENA" for that reason. Neolithic Anatolians are consistantly closest European Sardinians, where as Bronze/Iron age Anatolians are consistantly closest to European Greek Islanders and Caucasians.
Bronze/Iron Age Anatolians are what I mean by MENA
 
Bronze/Iron Age Anatolians are what I mean by MENA

MENA is a modern acronym that refers to the current geopolitical situation, Turkey by the way is not always included in the definition of MENA, and in any case Bronze Age Anatolians are a Prehistoric-Protohistoric population. As for Iron Age Anatolians it is more complicated but the majority of them spoke IE languages. In any case, Bronze/Iron Age Anatolians have very little to do with MENA as we mean it today.
 

This thread has been viewed 4859 times.

Back
Top