# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  What does genetics say about the origin of Germanic people?

## Cyrus

It is widely believed that haplogroup I-M253 (I1) relates to the Germanic people, according to a study published in 2015, I-M253 originated between 3,180 and 3,760 years ago in Europe, but what do we know about the ancestral branch of this haplogroup? I think it can certainly help us to know Germanic people migrated from which land.

----------


## spruithean

New estimates for the time of origin of I1 are roughly 3,170–4,600 YBP with a maximum of 5,070 YBP (at most), this is relatively young compared to I2 and several other European haplogroups. We know that so far the oldest "I1" found in Europe was in the LBKT cultural area in Hungary, however I stress that defining I1 by a singular SNP of M253 is problematic as there are 300 or so defining phylogenetic equivalent SNPs that actually define I1 due to the bottleneck this lineage experienced. What caused this bottleneck? We know that there are several pre-I1 (meaning they carry some phyloequivalent SNPs but M253 was either not tested or the read qualities yielded no results) in Scandinavia prior to the Nordic Bronze Age.
Then the next oldest sample of I1 that appears is in the Early Nordic Bronze Age in Sweden, not much of a surprise. They've also found I1 or more accurately I1-DF29 (I1a) in Longobard graves, an Anglo-Saxon grave in Northern England, various graves throughout Iceland with various subclades of I1 such as I1-F2642, I1-L22, etc as well as I1 found in an Avar period grave in Hungary and I1 in a Conqueror period grave in Hungary (this Hungarian Conqueror individual was 67% East Asian and 33% European with a Northern European haplogroup, further testament to mixing of Germanic people with Steppe migrants into the Carpathians. 
Considering I1 is rarely found outside of Europe it is safe to say it is strictly European in origin. Haplogroup I-M170, the upstream parent haplogroup, is extremely old with estimates placing its time of origin anywhere from 31,000 to 35,000 years old. Where it originated is unclear it could be anywhere from the Caucasus, Europe or SW Asia. I2, the sibling clade of I1 has its time of origin anywhere from 28,000-33,000 years ago (obviously it can't originate before I-M170!)
I1 in Europe is likely part of a very early hunter-gatherer people who didn't have very large numbers who eventually made their way into Scandinavia where eventually the population rapidly expanded and diversified into the various subclades we see today with I1-DF29 being the most common. I1 is most likely not an Indo-European haplogroup. The origin of Germanic people is probably due to the fusion of Indo-European groups with these non-Indo-European groups in Northern Europe. We cannot say that if we are to figure out the origin of the Germanic people that we only need to solely look at I1. Germanic speaking Europe contains far more haplogroups and ancient Y-DNA samples show R-U106 as well as other haplogroups were present among Germanic peoples.

----------


## Cyrus

> New estimates for the time of origin of I1 are roughly 3,170–4,600 YBP with a maximum of 5,070 YBP (at most), this is relatively young compared to I2 and several other European haplogroups. We know that so far the oldest "I1" found in Europe was in the LBKT cultural area in Hungary, however I stress that defining I1 by a singular SNP of M253 is problematic as there are 300 or so defining phylogenetic equivalent SNPs that actually define I1 due to the bottleneck this lineage experienced. What caused this bottleneck? We know that there are several pre-I1 (meaning they carry some phyloequivalent SNPs but M253 was either not tested or the read qualities yielded no results) in Scandinavia prior to the Nordic Bronze Age.
> Then the next oldest sample of I1 that appears is in the Early Nordic Bronze Age in Sweden, not much of a surprise. They've also found I1 or more accurately I1-DF29 (I1a) in Longobard graves, an Anglo-Saxon grave in Northern England, various graves throughout Iceland with various subclades of I1 such as I1-F2642, I1-L22, etc as well as I1 found in an Avar period grave in Hungary and I1 in a Conqueror period grave in Hungary (this Hungarian Conqueror individual was 67% East Asian and 33% European with a Northern European haplogroup, further testament to mixing of Germanic people with Steppe migrants into the Carpathians. 
> Considering I1 is rarely found outside of Europe it is safe to say it is strictly European in origin. Haplogroup I-M170, the upstream parent haplogroup, is extremely old with estimates placing its time of origin anywhere from 31,000 to 35,000 years old. Where it originated is unclear it could be anywhere from the Caucasus, Europe or SW Asia. I2, the sibling clade of I1 has its time of origin anywhere from 28,000-33,000 years ago (obviously it can't originate before I-M170!)
> I1 in Europe is likely part of a very early hunter-gatherer people who didn't have very large numbers who eventually made their way into Scandinavia where eventually the population rapidly expanded and diversified into the various subclades we see today with I1-DF29 being the most common. I1 is most likely not an Indo-European haplogroup. The origin of Germanic people is probably due to the fusion of Indo-European groups with these non-Indo-European groups in Northern Europe. We cannot say that if we are to figure out the origin of the Germanic people that we only need to solely look at I1. Germanic speaking Europe contains far more haplogroups and ancient Y-DNA samples show R-U106 as well as other haplogroups were present among Germanic peoples.


We know two things:

1. Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European.
2. Haplogroup I-M253 (I1) is a direct descendant of I-M170 (I).

So it doesn't matter how old other descendants or parents are, we know for almost certain that Haplogroup IJ (parent of I-M170) has been found just in Iran and I-M170 has the highest frequency in the Middle East and Caucasus.

As you read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/s...-suggests.html Biologists believe that proto-Indo-Europan dates back to 9,000 years ago in Anatolia, it is certainly possible a group of them migrated to Iran where I-M170 existed and another group migrated to Balkan where I-M438 existed. Those who migrated to Iran created proto-Germanic language and then migrated to the north Europe.

----------


## Ygorcs

> We know two things:
> 
> 1. Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European.
> 2. Haplogroup I-M253 (I1) is a direct descendant of I-M170 (I).
> 
> So it doesn't matter how old other descendants or parents are, we know for almost certain that Haplogroup IJ (parent of I-M170) has been found just in Iran and I-M170 has the highest frequency in the Middle East and Caucasus.
> 
> As you read here: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/s...-suggests.html Biologists believe that proto-Indo-Europan dates back to 9,000 years ago in Anatolia, it is certainly possible a group of them migrated to Iran where I-M170 existed and another group migrated to Balkan where I-M438 existed. Those who migrated to Iran created proto-Germanic language and then migrated to the north Europe.


Biologists should have no business estimating the date of an ancient language, that's not their expertise, and no wonder this study was so harshly criticized by linguists due to its naive assumptions that linguistic evolution happens exactly like biological evolution.

Where did you take this information that I-M170 has a higher frequency in the Middle East than in Europe? IJ is just way too old for PIE or even pre-PIE. Look for more recent and specific clades instead.

----------


## spruithean

Oh so basically, everything is Iranian then?
Come on. Haplogroup IJ PREDATES any PIE languages. Haplogroup I2 also descends from I-M170. 
Also, your citation here is from 2012. That is quite old compared to what is known now, and it mentions nothing about Haplogroup I.
I'll repeat this ad nauseam, Germanic originated in Northern Europe as did Balto-Slavic this can be seen by the shared words between Finnic and Germanic, etc.

----------


## Cyrus

> Biologists should have no business estimating the date of an ancient language, that's not their expertise, and no wonder this study was so harshly criticized by linguists due to its naive assumptions that linguistic evolution happens exactly like biological evolution.
> 
> Where did you take this information that I-M170 has a higher frequency in the Middle East than in Europe? IJ is just way too old for PIE or even pre-PIE. Look for more recent and specific clades instead.


Who are these linguists that you talk about them? Do they still believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis, even after the discovery of Tocharian as a Centum language?!
About haplogroup I-M170, for example look at here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982206011390 "haplogroup I (M170) is found at high frequency in the Iranian groups from Tehran and Isfahan"

----------


## MOESAN

@Cyrus: 
always the same obsession?
the Y-I1 in cause is surely very recent and knowed a formidable "baby boom" I presume. We can suppose some of close but different subclades developped in two regions: one close to today Germany and Western Baltic, the other South Finland-Eastern Baltic. It deserves a detailed surveys about SNP's. ATW it was not THE proto-Germanic Y-haplo. I suppose the bearers of proto-Germanic were Y-R1b-U106 and an from North Central Europe reached Scandinavia; on the road and in it they coopted finally Y-I1 people and tail-CWC Y-R1a; maybe the Early-Germanic mix was firstable R-U106-I1a and it is only in the final stage of Germanic that thay had incorporated R1a? Uneasy to prove todate with so little Y-haplos for Scandinavia, but with more anDNA of LBA and IA? I think at these ages the mix of DNA in Northern Europe was already well settled and the changes send by new contacts were no more drastic compared to earlier periods.
at the autosomal level, they had absorbed a lot of CWC and BB DNA, more CWC than Celts did, I think.

----------


## Ygorcs

The high frequency of I1 in Germanic people probably derives from a strong founder event of what was once a very minor and reasonably isolated lineage, given the TMRCA of the haplogroup and its virtual absence of older splits and directly related clades in any other region. I1 split from ~27,500 years ago (yFull) - and, just to put things into perspective, I formed ~31-35 kya, IJ as much as ~44 kya, well before any "recent" West Eurasian genetic structure. Thus we should expect to find related clades in West Asia (not the same much more recent lineage that boomed in North Europ). Besides, it's more probable, considering the patterns observed in other PIE languages, that the arrival of a PIE-derived language in Germanic populations was mediated mainly by R1b-P312, U106 in particular, and absorbed by other lineages along the expansion of IE languages. It's not like I1 is _the_ one and only Germanic haplogroup. Even where it's found in highest frequency it's rivaled by R1b and R1a (Scandinavia).

----------


## Ygorcs

> Who are these linguists that you talk about them? Do they still believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis, even after the discovery of Tocharian as a Centum language?!
> About haplogroup I-M170, for example look at here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982206011390 "haplogroup I (M170) is found at high frequency in the Iranian groups from Tehran and Isfahan"


Almost all mainstream linguists. The use of Bayesian biological methods to infer the splits of yielded results that were very criticized by countless linguists. The methodology itself had many flaws caused by incorrect premises and assumptions that do not fit the evolution of languages as they do to biological processes. Some of the results are clearly suspicious even for amateurs who understand a modicum of historical linguistics and the history of attested languages. Sorry, but I won't make that research for you. I can just inform you that that highly PR-ed study is very controversial and not well accepted by most professional linguists, whether they "believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis" or not.

By the way, Tocharian being Centum language is no recent discovery, and it has no bearing at all in the Kurgan hypothesis, because Tocharian is supposed to derive from an early branching off from the Pontic-Caspian LCA/EBA cultures, probably Afanasievo, so it's believed to date from _before_ the gradual split of the PIE dialect continuum led to satem languages.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Who are these linguists that you talk about them? Do they still believe in ancient Kurgan hypothesis, even after the discovery of Tocharian as a Centum language?!
> About haplogroup I-M170, for example look at here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982206011390 "haplogroup I (M170) is found at high frequency in the Iranian groups from Tehran and Isfahan"


What specific (and preferably recent) subclades? I1, what subclases of I1? Are they the same found in highest frequency in Germmanic people? I haplogroup alone is more than 20,000 years old, it's like saying that Greeks are Black Africans because E1b1b is found in high frequency in many parts of East Africa. Come on... I think you're a bit too obsessed about one only topic, or at least I have been unlucky to only find messages from you about this supposed Germanic-Iran connection 100% of the times (of course that must have nothing to do with the fact you're Iranian).

----------


## Cyrus

> @Cyrus:
> always the same obsession?
> the Y-I1 in cause is surely very recent and knowed a formidable "baby boom" I presume. We can suppose some of close but different subclades developped in two regions: one close to today Germany and Western Baltic, the other South Finland-Eastern Baltic. It deserves a detailed surveys about SNP's. ATW it was not THE proto-Germanic Y-haplo. I suppose the bearers of proto-Germanic were Y-R1b-U106 and an from North Central Europe reached Scandinavia; on the road and in it they coopted finally Y-I1 people and tail-CWC Y-R1a; maybe the Early-Germanic mix was firstable R-U106-I1a and it is only in the final stage of Germanic that thay had incorporated R1a? Uneasy to prove todate with so little Y-haplos for Scandinavia, but with more anDNA of LBA and IA? I think at these ages the mix of DNA in Northern Europe was already well settled and the changes send by new contacts were no more drastic compared to earlier periods.
> at the autosomal level, they had absorbed a lot of CWC and BB DNA, more CWC than Celts did, I think.


Ok, lets talk about *R1b-U106*, as you probably know, my main topic of research is about the ancient land of *Guti and Suedin* (modern *Luristan*) in the west of Iran.

Primitive Civilizations, page 265:


As you read about modern Lurs: "Considering their NRY variation, the Lurs are distinguished from other Iranian groups by their relatively elevated frequency of Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b (specifically, of subclade *R1b1a2a*)"

Now look at Eupedia page about R1b: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1b_Y-DNA.shtml



As you see R1b-U106 is a subclade of haplogroup *R1b1a2a1a* and it happened after the Middle Bronze Age.

Look at my post in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...onology)/page2

There are many archaeological evidences which show there was a migration from the west of Iran (modern Luristan) to the north of Europe in the late Nordic Bronze Age (between 800 BC and 500 BC), just look at the works of Scandinavian archaeologists, for example look at the English summary of this book by Birger Nerman: *The Late Bronze Age*: http://samla.raa.se/xmlui/handle/raa/1709

"During the late Bronze Age a fairly rapid development takes place, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in the Mälar-Hjälmar district and in Gotland; the finds are still most numerous, however, in the soutliernmost parts of the Scandinavian cultural area. Each of the first-mentioned localities creates its own special types, but at the same time there is evidence of a combined Central Sweden-Gotland cultural area. ... Influences are observable from Luristan in west Persia, e. g. the bronze bowl in Fig. 21 from Västmanland from per. 5 (cf. Fig. 22)."

You can read more about it in the works of Dr. T. J. Arne who says this large amount of influences is impossible without a migration from Luristan: http://samla.raa.se/xmlui/handle/raa/1044



These similarties have been mentioned by several other archaeologists and artists too, for example English artist Lawrence Gowing in *A History of art*, says "In Sweden and Denmark human and animal figures appear as knife-handles and heads of pins, or as scepter-ornaments, some of them having an odd likeness to the bronzes from Luristan (Persia)".

As you read in Iranica: http://www.iranicaonline.org/article...ssions-to-iran "*The Luristan Bronze* In Sweden there was an early debate on the similarity of bronzes or perhaps even direct contact between Scandinavia and Iran."

----------


## Ygorcs

Well, R1b1a2a can technically refer both to R1b1a2a1a (the ancestor of U106 and others) _and also_ *R1b1a2a2 a.k.a Z2103*, which is famously found in high frequencies in the highlands of East Anatolia (Armenian Highlands), South Caucasus and the Zagros, roughly in and around Kurdistan. Are you really sure that higher than average proportion of R1b1a2a refers to a sizeable proportion of U106 or its immediate ancestor L11, and not to Z2103, which is a very plausible hypothesis given that Luristan neighbors those hotspots of Z2103? Conversely U106 hasn't been found in significant proportions in that region. Look the maps of Eupedia, compre the one for Z2103 and the one for U106: 



Also, U106 and P312 certainly date to the Middle Bronze Age, that is, some time before ~1500 B.C., and not as late as the first millennium B.C. Therefore we should expect to find non-negligible U106 in Iran if it really came from there, it certainly did not come from Iran and only acquired the U106 defining mutations in North Europe.

What do more recent archaeological findings and research tell us about those supposed connections? Is there more updated research confirming that hypothesis? The Encyclopedia Iranica talks about an "early debate" about those connections. What happened later? The scientific hypothesis you linked date to 1934 and 1954. Aren't there more recent works supporting your position?

----------


## Cyrus

> What do more recent archaeological findings and research tell us about those supposed connections? Is there more updated research confirming that hypothesis? The Encyclopedia Iranica talks about an "early debate" about those connections. What happened later? The scientific hypothesis you linked date to 1934 and 1954. Aren't there more recent works supporting your position?


What happened after 1934, in fact in 1935, is the establishment of the Nuremberg Laws (racial purity laws), we see all researches about the Germanic migration from Luristan were stopped and researchers focused on just the racial purity of the Germanic people. In fact a pro-Semitic hypothesis was changed to an anti-Semitic hypothesis. We can still see this type of ultra-nationalism in the Germanic lands, they actually don't want to research about these issues, I sent an email to one of these Germanologists and asked about the history of Germanic culture before 800 BC and mentioned my own hypothesis and he replied "I don't know and I don't want know!"

----------


## Cyrus

> Well, R1b1a2a can technically refer both to R1b1a2a1a (the ancestor of U106 and others) _and also_ *R1b1a2a2 a.k.a Z2103*, which is famously found in high frequencies in the highlands of East Anatolia (Armenian Highlands), South Caucasus and the Zagros, roughly in and around Kurdistan. Are you really sure that higher than average proportion of R1b1a2a refers to a sizeable proportion of U106 or its immediate ancestor L11, and not to Z2103, which is a very plausible hypothesis given that Luristan neighbors those hotspots of Z2103? Conversely U106 hasn't been found in significant proportions in that region. Look the maps of Eupedia, compre the one for Z2103 and the one for U106: 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, U106 and P312 certainly date to the Middle Bronze Age, that is, some time before ~1500 B.C., and not as late as the first millennium B.C. Therefore we should expect to find non-negligible U106 in Iran if it really came from there, it certainly did not come from Iran and only acquired the U106 defining mutations in North Europe.


Proto-Germanic as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, certainly existed in the 6th millennium BC and even eralier, a haplogroup in the north of Europe which dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, couldn't be certainly the original Germanic one, especially because we can't find it in high frequency in the lands where Eastern Germanic people, like Goths and Vandals, lived.

Let's begin from the basic, please answer this question: What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?

----------


## hrvclv

> Proto-Germanic as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, certainly existed in the 6th millennium BC and even eralier, a haplogroup in the north of Europe which dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, couldn't be certainly the original Germanic one, especially because we can't find it in high frequency in the lands where Eastern Germanic people, like Goths and Vandals, lived.
> 
> Let's begin from the basic, please answer this question: What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?



Nobody "spoke Germanic" in the 6th millenium BC.
Germanic didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
Germanic people didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
Those people and their language came to existence when Bell Beaker folks (R1b) mixed with Corded Ware people (R1a) and with a local substrate (I1) in the north of Europe some time after 2500 BC. Given the time it took for the ensuing Germanic culture to become distinct as such, you can't refer to anything Germanic before, probably, the first millenium BC.

Nobody spoke French in the 6th millenium BC, nor even Latin, nor Persian. The French didn't exist yet, nor did the Romans, the Celts, the Scythians, the Persians...

I've been wondering for some time whether you really have a problem with chronology, ot are just t-rolling this forum.

----------


## Cyrus

> Nobody "spoke Germanic" in the 6th millenium BC.
> Germanic didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
> Germanic people didn't exist in the 6th millenium BC.
> Those people and their language came to existence when Bell Beaker folks (R1b) mixed with Corded Ware people (R1a) and with a local substrate (I1) in the north of Europe some time after 2500 BC. Given the time it took for the ensuing Germanic culture to become distinct as such, you can't refer to anything Germanic before, probably, the first millenium BC.
> Nobody spoke French in the 6th millenium BC, nor even Latin, nor Persian. The French didn't exist yet, nor did the Romans, the Celts, the Scythians, the Persians...
> I've been wondering for some time whether you really have a problem with chronology, ot are just t-rolling this forum.


Haplogroups don't relate to languages, Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, it is impossible that the Germanic sound shifts from the Proto-Indo-European language happened after the 6th millennium BC because proto-IE became extinct before this date.
Persian which was spoken in the 1st millennium BC or earlier was a southwestern Iranian, centuries before Persian, all southwestern Iranian languages were the same, and centuries before it, all western languages were them, in the 4th millennium BC Iranian was a single language, and the 6th millennium BC Indo-Iranian, like Germanic, existed as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, if you say Germanic is an Indo-Iranian or Hellenic language, then it can be possible that it didn't exist in the 6th millennium BC but we can't talk about Germanic sound shifts from the Proto-Indo-European and consider it as a young language.

----------


## spruithean

Cyrus, we actually have haplogroup evidence from these cultural areas that hrvclv mentions. We have samples of Bell Beaker Y-DNA (majority R1b), Corded Ware Y-DNA (R1a), etc. Haplogroups don't necessarily relate to languages nor ethnicities, but a haplogroups predominance within certain ethno-linguistic areas can say a lot about how that haplogroup moved throughout an area. 

I'm all for someone proving that the new _status quo_ is incorrect, but it needs to be done with sources and data that is recent and well supported by documented evidence. 

Now in regards to Iranian influences on the Germanic languages: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro..._Germanic-.htm




> From East Iranian, probably through *steppe-related contacts*, words were adopted into late Proto-Germanic. Examples include:





> Gmc. *_keppǭ_, _skēpą_ ‘sheep’ ~ Pers. _čapiš_ ‘yearling kid’,
>  Gmc. *_kurtilaz_ ‘tunic’ ~ Ossetian _kwəræt_ ‘shirt’.
>  Gmc. *_kutą_ ‘cottage’~ Pers- _kad_ ‘house’
>  Gmc. *_paidō_ ‘cloak’ ~ Thrac. _baít__ē_ ‘coat made of pelt’.
>  Gmc. *_pa__ϑaz_ ‘path’ ~ Av. _pantā_, gen. _pathō_.
>  Gmc. *_u̯urst__u̯a_ ‘work’ ~ Av. _vərəštuua_.
> - A Song of Sheep and Horses by Carlos Quiles


Note he mentions Steppe-related contacts, these would be the nomadic Iranic people such as Sarmatians, Scythians, etc. while this shows there was some contact with Iranian languages is does not consider the rather significant influences on proto-Germanic from Finnic and Sami.

Finno-Samic influence: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_11_1
Sami influence: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_11_2
Celtic and Iranian influence: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_11_3

And finally, this section on Germanic culture and haplogroups from yet another work of Carlos Quiles: https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_10_6_5 - worth the read. You may also find in his work here entire sections dedicated to Tocharians, Indo-Iranians and various others. It is all worth a read as it takes into account genetic evidence, linguistic evidence and archaeological evidence. Combining these fields provides a wider picture that isn't as narrow as basing theories off of linguistic coincidences.

----------


## Cyrus

> Cyrus, we actually have haplogroup evidence from these cultural areas that hrvclv mentions. We have samples of Bell Beaker Y-DNA (majority R1b), Corded Ware Y-DNA (R1a), etc. Haplogroups don't necessarily relate to languages nor ethnicities, but a haplogroups predominance within certain ethno-linguistic areas can say a lot about how that haplogroup moved throughout an area.


As you read about Lurs: "Together with its other clades, the R1 group comprises the single most common haplogroup among the Lurs", in fact they are also a R1a-R1b hybrid, but Indo-Iranian R1a (R1a-Z93 or R1a1a1b2) is zero among the Lurs, they have just R1a1a. 

I think R1a1a was the main haplogroup of the eastern neighbors of Gutians, namely Kassites, we see some elements of Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic cultures (probably the original Satem culture) in the Kassite culture, of course their orginal name Kashubu is similar to the Kashubs of Poland. Look at this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kassite_deities (Slavic word for god is also _bog_)

More about this haplogroup: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1a_Y-DNA.shtml

----------


## Megalophias

> As you read about Lurs: "Together with its other clades, the R1 group comprises the single most common haplogroup among the Lurs", in fact they are also a R1a-R1b hybrid, but Indo-Iranian R1a (R1a-Z93 or R1a1a1b2) is zero among the Lurs, they have just R1a1a.


Where did you get the information about R1a subclades in Lurs? Sounds interesting.

----------


## Cyrus

> Where did you get the information about R1a subclades in Lurs? Sounds interesting.


It is not just Lurs but other Iranian people too, this is the source of wiki page: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854

I strongly believe that Indo-Iranian migration to Iran is a big lie, you can't find R1a-Z93 or R1a-Z94 in even low frequency among the people of Iran except those ones who have migrated from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan and etc in the recent centuries. Iranian culture in Iran just relates to Cimmerians who came from the southeast of Europe and haplogroup R1b-Z2103.

----------


## Megalophias

That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.

----------


## Cyrus

> That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.


As you read it says: "All the R1a Y chromosomes belong to the M198* paragroup with frequencies ranging from 0% to 25%. Indeed neither the “European” M458 nor the “Pakistani” M434 have been observed in our samples."

----------


## Megalophias

What does that have to do with Z93?

----------


## Cyrus

> What does that have to do with Z93?


It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.

----------


## Megalophias

> It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.


You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.

----------


## spruithean

> That study doesn't have Z93 on the list of tested SNPs, and the wiki page for Lurs doesn't say that either.


This. It isn't one of the tested SNPs, which could imply it wasn't even tested at all.




> As you read it says: "All the R1a Y chromosomes belong to the M198* paragroup with frequencies ranging from 0% to 25%. Indeed neither the “European” M458 nor the “Pakistani” M434 have been observed in our samples."


So you're just going to ignore this little piece right here... "have been observed in our samples" That's their samples, that doesn't represent the entire population and we need to consider the rates at which Y-lines die off (which is actually quite high).




> What does that have to do with Z93?


Not much.




> It says subclades of haplogroup R1a1a don't exist in Iran and R1a1a1b2 (Z93) is one of them, there is no reason that it mentions all subclades.


It doesn't say "does not exist in Iran" it says "not observed" that's like saying I don't see Canadian lynx in Canada therefore they don't exist, when in reality I'm just too far south of their territory. 




> You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.


Precisely. If the SNP is not in the list of those that were tested it was not part of the testing process and assumptions should not be made about its presence or lack thereof.

----------


## Cyrus

> You certainly cannot assume that a certain subclade is excluded. You have to look at the SNPs that were actually tested, and Z93 is not one of them.


Let's suppose that R1a-Z93 was not really tested and the remaining two percent of haplogroups is just Z93, what does it prove?!

----------


## Ygorcs

> Proto-Germanic as a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, certainly existed in the 6th millennium BC and even eralier, a haplogroup in the north of Europe which dates back to the Middle Bronze Age, couldn't be certainly the original Germanic one, especially because we can't find it in high frequency in the lands where Eastern Germanic people, like Goths and Vandals, lived.
> 
> Let's begin from the basic, please answer this question: What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?


That's nothing but wishful thinking. "Certainly"? No way. Haploroups do not carry languages, males who have a certain haplogroup speak a language and may spread it. All languages of the entire world "exist since ever" because they all derive from earlier stages of the linguistic evolution of a given language branch, so that invalidates any claim that a haplogroup cannot be associated with a certain language's expansion because it's "too recent". You're not drawing scientifically plausible conclusions about linguistics from the genetic evidence, they're all based on false premises. Besides, most linguists estimate Proto-Indo-European, even Early PIE, at 5,000-6,000 years ago. Its descendants branches date, with almost absolute certainty, to the Bronze Age, because each of them has descendants sharing words that only make sense if they came from a language spoken in the technological and economical stage of a post-BA society. Besides, PIE languages are just not diverged enough to date from the early Neolithic. Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years, even the first inscriptions in early Proto-Norse are still very close to Proto-Germanic, indicating a recent split. Even Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Germanic wouldn't have been much older than 4000 years.

I won't answer a question that is based on a false premise that has absolutely no scientific support. Even PIE in the 6th millennium BC is a very controversial claim, let alone Proto-Germanic, which is so unlikely as to be impossible. You're basically setting what you _wish to be true_ and then going after evidences that back it up while neglecting anything that people say (and people have said many things to you in this and other threads) that might contradict or maybe even negate some of your ad hoc hypothesis (for instance, you just decided that Germanic-speaking people _should_ exist as early as the 6th millennium BC). You're hell bent on proving you're right, but the problem is that you want us to present evidences that negate your conclusions, but the fact is that even where you're coming from to draw conclusions is extremely fringe and very probably incorrect.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Haplogroups don't relate to languages, Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European, it is impossible that the Germanic sound shifts from the Proto-Indo-European language happened after the 6th millennium BC because proto-IE became extinct before this date.


Sorry, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. You're missing some basic knowledge about what PIE is. PIE didn't become "extinct". It evolved into its several daughter languages. There's no such a thing as an "older IE language" or a "more recent one", though some may have been attested earlier than others. If all of them came from the same common ancestor, they have by definition the same age, and some may have just been more innovative than others.

The Germanic sound shifts obviously did happen, _by definition_, after PIE split into several distinct dialect groups or distinct language subgroups. They couldn't have happened before, because then that language wouldn't be PIE, but already distinct languages derived from PIE. It's exactly the contrary: the sound shifts of Proto-Germanic can only have happened AFTER PIE diverged into several distinct proto-languages. When we say "PIE was spoken in this and that period", it refers to a common stage of that language _before_ the *start* of the particular lexical, grammatical and sound shifts that characterize each of its descendant branches. 

Besides, you're incorrectly assuming that Proto-Germanic appeared from scratch suddenly, with all its characteristic sound shifts and other particularities in place, but what happened was clearly a continuous evolution that saw successive sound shifts changing the language more and more from its former Common PIE stage (as it happens with all languages of the world, or do you think Modern English's or Portuguese's sound laws happened all at once in just a few centuries, and they remained static, totally unchanged after that?). Proto-Germanic is an Iron Age language, and it's absolutely certain that it kept evolving, with a succession of changes, from the moment it branched off from an earlier PIE (remembe, PIE means *last common stage of unified dialect continuum that gave birth to all IE subgroups)* to the moment it was spoken. That meant *millennia* of sound shifts and lexical and grammatical changes. 

Germanic is no "direct descendant of PIE". At all. You're unquestionably wrong about that. It's not because we don't have any attestation of earlier stages of the linguistic evolution that gave birth to Proto-Germanic that it means that it arose directly from PIE in fully evolved form many millennia before the Common Era (and you push the PIE dating even further back than most linguists do nowadays. Do you still believe in the Renfrew hypothesis that he himself had to "refine" because the evidences were mounting against his cherished theory?).

----------


## Megalophias

> Let's suppose that R1a-Z93 was not really tested and the remaining two percent of haplogroups is just Z93, what does it prove?!


I have no idea what you were trying to prove in the first place, but next time read the paper instead of jumping to conclusions. If they had tested Z93 they would have said so. This is a scientific paper, not Grandma's cookie recipe.

Underhill et al 2014 _did_ test for Z93 and subclades, and in their sample of Iranians 77% of R1a (n=259) was Z93, and 15% of total (n=1765) was R1a.

In Myres et al sample of Iranians (n=150) they had 5% R1b-L23(xM412), which is bound to be R1b-Z2103, and 0% R1b-U106. 

I1 reaches a grand total of 0.2% in Grugni et al's sample (n=938).

----------


## Cyrus

> That's nothing but wishful thinking. "Certainly"? No way. Haploroups do not carry languages, males who have a certain haplogroup speak a language and may spread it. All languages of the entire world "exist since ever" because they all derive from earlier stages of the linguistic evolution of a given language branch, so that invalidates any claim that a haplogroup cannot be associated with a certain language's expansion because it's "too recent". You're not drawing scientifically plausible conclusions about linguistics from the genetic evidence, they're all based on false premises. Besides, most linguists estimate Proto-Indo-European, even Early PIE, at 5,000-6,000 years ago. Its descendants branches date, with almost absolute certainty, to the Bronze Age, because each of them has descendants sharing words that only make sense if they came from a language spoken in the technological and economical stage of a post-BA society. Besides, PIE languages are just not diverged enough to date from the early Neolithic. Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years, even the first inscriptions in early Proto-Norse are still very close to Proto-Germanic, indicating a recent split. Even Pre-Pre-Pre-Proto-Germanic wouldn't have been much older than 4000 years.
> I won't answer a question that is based on a false premise that has absolutely no scientific support. Even PIE in the 6th millennium BC is a very controversial claim, let alone Proto-Germanic, which is so unlikely as to be impossible. You're basically setting what you wish to be true and then going after evidences that back it up while neglecting anything that people say (and people have said many things to you in this and other threads) that might contradict or maybe even negate some of your ad hoc hypothesis (for instance, you just decided that Germanic-speaking people should exist as early as the 6th millennium BC). You're hell bent on proving you're right, but the problem is that you want us to present evidences that negate your conclusions, but the fact is that even where you're coming from to draw conclusions is extremely fringe and very probably incorrect.





> Sorry, but what you wrote is utter nonsense. You're missing some basic knowledge about what PIE is. PIE didn't become "extinct". It evolved into its several daughter languages. There's no such a thing as an "older IE language" or a "more recent one", though some may have been attested earlier than others. If all of them came from the same common ancestor, they have by definition the same age, and some may have just been more innovative than others.
> The Germanic sound shifts obviously did happen, by definition, after PIE split into several distinct dialect groups or distinct language subgroups. They couldn't have happened before, because then that language wouldn't be PIE, but already distinct languages derived from PIE. It's exactly the contrary: the sound shifts of Proto-Germanic can only have happened AFTER PIE diverged into several distinct proto-languages. When we say "PIE was spoken in this and that period", it refers to a common stage of that language before the start of the particular lexical, grammatical and sound shifts that characterize each of its descendant branches.
> Besides, you're incorrectly assuming that Proto-Germanic appeared from scratch suddenly, with all its characteristic sound shifts and other particularities in place, but what happened was clearly a continuous evolution that saw successive sound shifts changing the language more and more from its former Common PIE stage (as it happens with all languages of the world, or do you think Modern English's or Portuguese's sound laws happened all at once in just a few centuries, and they remained static, totally unchanged after that?). Proto-Germanic is an Iron Age language, and it's absolutely certain that it kept evolving, with a succession of changes, from the moment it branched off from an earlier PIE (remembe, PIE means last common stage of unified dialect continuum that gave birth to all IE subgroups) to the moment it was spoken. That meant millennia of sound shifts and lexical and grammatical changes.
> Germanic is no "direct descendant of PIE". At all. You're unquestionably wrong about that. It's not because we don't have any attestation of earlier stages of the linguistic evolution that gave birth to Proto-Germanic that it means that it arose directly from PIE in fully evolved form many millennia before the Common Era (and you push the PIE dating even further back than most linguists do nowadays. Do you still believe in the Renfrew hypothesis that he himself had to "refine" because the evidences were mounting against his cherished theory?).


I really can't understand this sentence: "*Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years*", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
bʰ > b > p > ɸ
dʰ > d > t > θ
gʰ > g > k > x
gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally [s], but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
As you probably know ancient Greek _basis_ is cognate with English _come_, both of them are from proto-IE *_gʷem-_, the English word is from proto-Germanic _kʷem_ (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek _basis_.
Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek _boûs_, Latin _bōs_ and Celtic _bāus_ were from the same origin, how English _cow_ could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian _kow_ or Tocharian _kewa_!

----------


## Cyrus

> I have no idea what you were trying to prove in the first place, but next time read the paper instead of jumping to conclusions. If they had tested Z93 they would have said so. This is a scientific paper, not Grandma's cookie recipe.
> Underhill et al 2014 _did_ test for Z93 and subclades, and in their sample of Iranians 77% of R1a (n=259) was Z93, and 15% of total (n=1765) was R1a.
> In Myres et al sample of Iranians (n=150) they had 5% R1b-L23(xM412), which is bound to be R1b-Z2103, and 0% R1b-U106. 
> I1 reaches a grand total of 0.2% in Grugni et al's sample (n=938).


Please mention your sources, who were these Iranians (more than 3 million Afghans live in Iran), where they lived?

----------


## hrvclv

> I really can't understand this sentence: "*Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years*", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
> bʰ > b > p > ɸ
> dʰ > d > t > θ
> gʰ > g > k > x
> gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
> About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally [s], but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
> As you probably know ancient Greek _basis_ is cognate with English _come_, both of them are from proto-IE *_gʷem-_, the English word is from proto-Germanic _kʷem_ (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek _basis_.
> Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
> Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek _boûs_, Latin _bōs_ and Celtic _bāus_ were from the same origin, how English _cow_ could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian _kow_ or Tocharian _kewa_!


You keep piling *nonsense* over *nonsense* !! Never seen such a compilation of absurdities. 

Read a few basic things about linguistics and genetics before you post here. Your theories are conceptual quagmires. 

You'd better give it up, buddy. You are ridiculing yourself.

(By the way: Good luck, Ygorcs!! )

----------


## Cyrus

I found Underhill's work about Haplogroup R1a: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...C4266736/#sup1

He says nothing about the high frequency of haplogroup R1a-Z93 in Iran, in fact he says the same things that Grugni says, it also supports Anatolian hypothesis of Proto-Indo-European origin: "Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ∼5800 years ago."

Both Indo-European haplogroups of *R1b1a2a* and *R1a1a1* have been found just in Iran and Eastern Turkey.

----------


## spruithean

Oldest examples of R-Z93 found in Yamnaya territory range (Indo-European)...
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...roups.html?m=1

Ancient samples of haplogroups are far more important than the modern samples. They are far more telling.

----------


## Megalophias

> Please mention your sources, who were these Iranians (more than 3 million Afghans live in Iran), where they lived?


Myres et al (2011), "A major Y chromosome haplogroup R1b founder effect in Central and Western Europe". The Iranian samples are from Regueiro et al (2006), "Iran: tricontinental nexus for Y-chromosome driven migration".

----------


## Cyrus

> Oldest examples of R-Z93 found in Yamnaya territory range (Indo-European)...
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...roups.html?m=1
> 
> Ancient samples of haplogroups are far more important than the modern samples. They are far more telling.


You yourself say Z93, not M417, so it couldn't be related to Indo-European but Indo-Iranian.

----------


## spruithean

I just said it was found in the Steppes, I'm not debating the possibility that it is Indo-Iranian (which is an offshoot of PIE anyway). R-M417 IS the ancestor of Z93, oldest sample of M417 is found in the Pontic Steppe, again supporting an origin in territory where Indo-European people originated.

----------


## Cyrus

> I just said it was found in the Steppes, I'm not debating the possibility that it is Indo-Iranian (which is an offshoot of PIE anyway). R-M417 IS the ancestor of Z93, oldest sample of M417 is found in the Pontic Steppe, again supporting an origin in territory where Indo-European people originated.


Please mention your source about M417, Underhill says M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/

----------


## spruithean

Mathieson et. al. (2017)
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/0...stern.html?m=1

Author of Eurogenes blog provides data table of ALL samples of this study, if a study focuses primarily on autosomal DNA raw data files of the DNA can be analysed to acquire information on uniparental haplogroups.

Here is the sample in question:
*Analysis*: Ukraine_Eneolithic 
*Culture*: Ukraine_Eneolithic
*ID*: I6561
*Y-DNA*: R1a1a1 (*M417*)
*mtDNA*: H2a1a
*Avg date*: 6200 BCE
*Date*: 5000-3500 BCE
*Location*: Alexandria
*Country*: Ukraine
*Gender*: M
*Coverage*: 1.422
*SNPs*: 738661

By the way, Underhill et. al. (2014/2015) had highlighted two branches of R-M417, an Eastern European group and a Central South Asian group (Z93) this is congruent with the ancient sample of Z93 being more to the east of the Steppes, which fits with a migration to central Asia and beyond.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I really can't understand this sentence: "*Proto-Germanic is not any older than 2500 years*", you yourself confirmed that PIE didn't exist some thousands years before this date but we see one of the most regular sound shifts (in fact chain shifts) from PIE among all IE languages in proto-Germanic:
> bʰ > b > p > ɸ
> dʰ > d > t > θ
> gʰ > g > k > x
> gʷʰ > gʷ > kʷ > xʷ
> About the Satem languages, it can be said that prot-IE [k], first changed to [kʲ] then [c], [tʃ], [ts], [ʃ], and finally [s], but proto-IE [k] could be changed to what other than [x] after spirantization?!
> As you probably know ancient Greek _basis_ is cognate with English _come_, both of them are from proto-IE *_gʷem-_, the English word is from proto-Germanic _kʷem_ (gʷ > kʷ) but it seems to be clear that the PIE word was not changed directly to ancient Greek _basis_.
> Is it possible that the direct ancestor of Proto-Germanic could be something other than proto-IE?
> Let's suppose that there was a common European language which even existed in 500 BC, for example Ancient Greek _boûs_, Latin _bōs_ and Celtic _bāus_ were from the same origin, how English _cow_ could be related to them? Of course no one should talk about Old Armenian _kow_ or Tocharian _kewa_!


It's very clear to me that you just didn't understand anything I wrote, because your rebuttal makes no sense in relation to what I said in my comment. You sound confused in your concepts of linguistics, maybe you should first learn basic things about historical linguistics, learn what professional linguists have already studied and published and then try to devise your own hypothesis about PIE and other topics of historical linguistics. It's humbler and wiser, because you're saying a load of nonsense as anyone who understands a modicum of historical linguistis has noticed.

I have not said PIE "didn't exist some thousands years before this date". I said mainstream linguistics, since decades ago, and with increasing confirmation by archaeological and genetic evidences, postulates 5000-6000 years ago as the dating for PIE. Do you know what PIE means? PIE means "the last stage of linguistic evolution in which all the earliest forms of the known IE subgroups are supposed to have been so similar that they were just very close dialects of the same language". There's a "subtle" chronological difference between ~2500 and ~5000 years ago.

Proto-Germanic is NOT proto-IE because it's comparable to Latin, not to the earliest proto-languages that stemmed directly from Late PIE. You talk as if we had written attestation of all IE languages and all stages of their linguistic evolution that have ever existed. That's a huge mistake. Just like Latin became the sole survivor of the Italic language family, but that obviously does not mean that Latin derives directly from PIE and never had sister languages, as well as that all the sound shifts and other characteristics that set Latin apart from other IE subfamilies happened right after its earliest Pre-Proto-Italic (or maybe a Proto-Northwest-Indo-European) language. Ditto for Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic means just, like any proto-language, "the earliest common stage of the linguistic evolution of all extant Germanic languages in which they are supposed to have been just very similar dialects of the same language". That's it. It happened between 2000 and 2500 years ago, not any further back than that, because we actually have inscriptions in early North Germanic (and a sole but fascinating inscription in a Slovenian helmet in an early Germanic/late Proto-Germanic dialect) that are very similar to reconstructed Proto-Germanic. It's obvious that Proto-Germanic wouldn't have evolved suddenly from PIE, let alone in the 6th millennium B.C., and it would then remained untouched by any later changes for almost 5000 years. Utter nonsense and lack of understanding of historical linguistics. As for sound shifts, Germanic is not defined solely by that chain of regular sound shifts (you probably know that already, or you should at least), and in fact you and nobody has any evidence AT ALL that that chain of sound shifts happened right after the earliest pre-Proto-Germanic split off from PIE (it's actually probable that pre-PGM split off not from PIE, but from an intermediary daughter language of PIE that was actually its immediate descendant). We just don't know. Proto-Germanic is defined by a series of sound shifts that happened successively and cumulatively from the period PIE was spoken as a common dialect continuum (circa 3500 B.C.) to the period Proto-Germanic was spoken as a reasonably homogeneous dialect continuum (circa 500 B.C.). That's a lot of time, and those changes may have happened at any time, though they probably happened pretty early.

----------


## Ygorcs

> You yourself say Z93, not M417, so it couldn't be related to Indo-European but Indo-Iranian.


The oldest M417 in the ancient DNA record is also found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Ukraine) and not long after in the CWC culture of North Europe. The origins of R1a are irrelevant to the PIE question. PIE is the last common stage of a language before it started to split into different languages, some 5000-6000 years ago. The first R1a, which is more than 20,000 years old, has nothing to with that history. R1a-M417 may be associated with its spread, but everything about it points to Northeastern Europe, not to the Iranian plateau.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Please mention your source about M417, Underhill says M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266736/



No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the _rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now -_ are found in Iran. Besides, this study is entirely about *MODERN samples*. What does that say about the Y-DNA makeup of people 5000 or 6000 years ago? Nothing. More than Mt-DNA and autosomal admixtures, Y-DNA haploroups are extremely subject to profound changes (founder events, social/sexual selection, genetic drift as a whole etc.). No wonder R1a-M417 is found there, we know that Iran and the Caucasus have steppe ancestry. By the way, Z93 IS M417 (and other clades, too, obviously). 

The authors of this study say M417 is estimated to have been born ~5800 years ago. About ~5500 years ago it was already found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe north of the Black Sea, but nowhere in the ancient DNA record of the Iranian Plateau or West Asia as a whole. Honestly one's got to be hell bent on proving one's hypothesis to not see the patterns here.

----------


## spruithean

> No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the _rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now -_ are found in Iran. Besides, this study is entirely about *MODERN samples*. What does that say about the Y-DNA makeup of people 5000 or 6000 years ago? Nothing. More than Mt-DNA and autosomal admixtures, Y-DNA haploroups are extremely subject to profound changes (founder events, social/sexual selection, genetic drift as a whole etc.). No wonder R1a-M417 is found there, we know that Iran and the Caucasus have steppe ancestry. By the way, Z93 IS M417 (and other clades, too, obviously). 
> 
> The authors of this study say M417 is estimated to have been born ~5800 years ago. About ~5500 years ago it was already found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe north of the Black Sea, but nowhere in the ancient DNA record of the Iranian Plateau or West Asia as a whole. Honestly one's got to be hell bent on proving one's hypothesis to not see the patterns here.


Thank you! I can't echo this enough. The evidence for Pontic-Steppe origin is quite strong, denying this in order to prove some other theory is just wild.

----------


## Cyrus

> It's very clear to me that you just didn't understand anything I wrote, because your rebuttal makes no sense in relation to what I said in my comment. You sound confused in your concepts of linguistics, maybe you should first learn basic things about historical linguistics, learn what professional linguists have already studied and published and then try to devise your own hypothesis about PIE and other topics of historical linguistics. It's humbler and wiser, because you're saying a load of nonsense as anyone who understands a modicum of historical linguistis has noticed.
> 
> I have not said PIE "didn't exist some thousands years before this date". I said mainstream linguistics, since decades ago, and with increasing confirmation by archaeological and genetic evidences, postulates 5000-6000 years ago as the dating for PIE. Do you know what PIE means? PIE means "the last stage of linguistic evolution in which all the earliest forms of the known IE subgroups are supposed to have been so similar that they were just very close dialects of the same language". There's a "subtle" chronological difference between ~2500 and ~5000 years ago.
> 
> Proto-Germanic is NOT proto-IE because it's comparable to Latin, not to the earliest proto-languages that stemmed directly from Late PIE. You talk as if we had written attestation of all IE languages and all stages of their linguistic evolution that have ever existed. That's a huge mistake. Just like Latin became the sole survivor of the Italic language family, but that obviously does not mean that Latin derives directly from PIE and never had sister languages, as well as that all the sound shifts and other characteristics that set Latin apart from other IE subfamilies happened right after its earliest Pre-Proto-Italic (or maybe a Proto-Northwest-Indo-European) language. Ditto for Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic means just, like any proto-language, "the earliest common stage of the linguistic evolution of all extant Germanic languages in which they are supposed to have been just very similar dialects of the same language". That's it. It happened between 2000 and 2500 years ago, not any further back than that, because we actually have inscriptions in early North Germanic (and a sole but fascinating inscription in a Slovenian helmet in an early Germanic/late Proto-Germanic dialect) that are very similar to reconstructed Proto-Germanic. It's obvious that Proto-Germanic wouldn't have evolved suddenly from PIE, let alone in the 6th millennium B.C., and it would then remained untouched by any later changes for almost 5000 years. Utter nonsense and lack of understanding of historical linguistics. As for sound shifts, Germanic is not defined solely by that chain of regular sound shifts (you probably know that already, or you should at least), and in fact you and nobody has any evidence AT ALL that that chain of sound shifts happened right after the earliest pre-Proto-Germanic split off from PIE (it's actually probable that pre-PGM split off not from PIE, but from an intermediary daughter language of PIE that was actually its immediate descendant). We just don't know. Proto-Germanic is defined by a series of sound shifts that happened successively and cumulatively from the period PIE was spoken as a common dialect continuum (circa 3500 B.C.) to the period Proto-Germanic was spoken as a reasonably homogeneous dialect continuum (circa 500 B.C.). That's a lot of time, and those changes may have happened at any time, though they probably happened pretty early.


I think you yourself don't know what you want to say, you just know "We just don't know"!!!
Talking about the existence of proto-IE in 500 is absolute nonsense, in 500 BC or even hundreds years earlier Persians needed to use translators for talking with other southwestern-Iraninan-speaking people, and you say an ancestral language, not southwestern Iranian, not western Iranian, not even proto-Iranian, and not even proto-Indo-Iranian but proto-Indo-European was still spoken in the north of Europe, in 500 BC Persians had conquered some parts of Europe, it seems to be possible that Proto-Indo-Europeans borrowed some words from Persian, by this logic it is also possible that proto-Germanic borrowed some words from English!
The only thing that we know is that Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC or earlier, in fact there is no evidence that an Indo-European language was spoken there, so an Indo-European people, even if you consider them as proto-Indo-Europeans, migrated there, I believe they were from Iran.
Parents of both Germanic R1a and R1b haplogroups have been found in the west of Iran, so it is certainly possible that they migrated from this land.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think you yourself don't know what you want to say, you just know "We just don't know"!!!
> Talking about the existence of proto-IE in 500 is absolute nonsense, in 500 BC or even hundreds years earlier Persians needed to use translators for talking with other southwestern-Iraninan-speaking people, and you say an ancestral language, not southwestern Iranian, not western Iranian, not even proto-Iranian, and not even proto-Indo-Iranian but proto-Indo-European was still spoken in the north of Europe, in 500 BC Persians had conquered some parts of Europe, it seems to be possible that Proto-Indo-Europeans borrowed some words from Persian, by this logic it is also possible that proto-Germanic borrowed some words from English!
> The only thing that we know is that Germanic didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC or earlier, in fact there is no evidence that an Indo-European language was spoken there, so an Indo-European people, even if you consider them as proto-Indo-Europeans, migrated there, I believe they were from Iran.
> Parents of both Germanic R1a and R1b haplogroups have been found in the west of Iran, so it is certainly possible that they migrated from this land.


Haha oh my God, you _still_ understood nothing. Honestly, I give up. Some day you will get it and understand the nonsense of believing that because Proto-Germanic was certainly spoken around 500 B.C. then PIE would've been spoken right before that date, because the IE subgroups that exist do not necessarily derive from a common language that branched off directly from PIE (perhaps you think Latin _always_ existed since PIE split in many languages, because all Italic languages that exist now are Romance languages derived from Latin dialects spoken around 100 B.C., right? lol. Think again, my dear. Do you really think we know _all_ languages that were spoken in the continuous evolution from PIE to Latin or from PIE to Proto-Germanic? The answer is so obvious). What you're arguing against is basic understanding of linguistics, which you still seem to lack, but one day you will notice what bunch of nonsense you're insisting on due to the excessive confidence that ignorance encourages.

P.S.: Oh there are plenty of evidences of _very_ early PGM or even pre-PGM borrowings in Finno-Ugric languages of Northeastern Europe, so you're wrong about that too.

----------


## Cyrus

> Haha oh my God, you _still_ understood nothing. Honestly, I give up. Some day you will get it and understand the nonsense of believing that because Proto-Germanic was certainly spoken around 500 B.C. then PIE would've been spoken right before that date, because the IE subgroups that exist do not necessarily derive from a common language that branched off directly from PIE (perhaps you think Latin _always_ existed since PIE split in many languages, because all Italic languages that exist now are Romance languages derived from Latin dialects spoken around 100 B.C., right? lol. Think again, my dear. Do you really think we know _all_ languages that were spoken in the continuous evolution from PIE to Latin or from PIE to Proto-Germanic? The answer is so obvious). What you're arguing against is basic understanding of linguistics, which you still seem to lack, but one day you will notice what bunch of nonsense you're insisting on due to the excessive confidence that ignorance encourages.
> 
> P.S.: Oh there are plenty of evidences of _very_ early PGM or even pre-PGM borrowings in Finno-Ugric languages of Northeastern Europe, so you're wrong about that too.


Don't play with words, the direct ancestor of Germanic language which was spoken in the north of Europe, was spoken in the west of Iran, whether you want to call it proto-Germanic or proto-Indo-European or anything else, if you believe that proto-Germanic originated in the north of Europe, even as early as 500 BC, you should find loanwords from other northern European languages in proto-Germanic with Germanic sound shifts, it is clear that some early Germanic words can be found in Finno-Ugric languages, however most of early Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Iranian but is certainly doesn't mean proto-Iranian originated in the north of Europe.

It is clear you just don't want to believe the facts, you say "No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the _rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now -_ are found in Iran." but we read "five of the six observed M417 chromosomes were from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."

----------


## hrvclv

Iranian languages come FROM what is now Germanic land (but wasn't yet when the proto-Iranian languages departed from it). Not the other way round.

Read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture

and this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

Then, maybe, you'll have a faint idea what you are talking about. Maybe...

----------


## Ygorcs

> Don't play with words, the direct ancestor of Germanic language which was spoken in the north of Europe, was spoken in the west of Iran, whether you want to call it proto-Germanic or proto-Indo-European or anything else, if you believe that proto-Germanic originated in the north of Europe, even as early as 500 BC, you should find loanwords from other northern European languages in proto-Germanic with Germanic sound shifts, it is clear that some early Germanic words can be found in Finno-Ugric languages, however most of early Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Iranian but is certainly doesn't mean proto-Iranian originated in the north of Europe.
> 
> It is clear you just don't want to believe the facts, you say "No, the study does not say M417 has been found just in Iran and Caucasus. It says the _rarest branches of R1a - i.e. not M417, which accounts for ~99% of people with R1a haplogroup living now -_ are found in Iran." but we read "five of the six observed M417 chromosomes were from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."


Oh, mate, you're really lost in this hobby, aren't you? The study says textually: "*Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."
*Are you sure you have enough understanding of the basic stuff to understand these genetic and linguistic studies? Or do you think they're all irrelevant "playing with words", too? When a study writes _haplogroup (xSubclade)_, it is referring to *all subclades of that haplogroup EXCEPT the one marked with an "x".* That's the terminology used by geneticists. R1b-M269 (xL51,Z2103) means _all males with R1b-M269 except those who belong to L51 and Z2103 subclades_. In other words, the study is clearly referring to the *rare branches of R1a, not including the much more common M417, which are found now mostly in MODERN Iran and Caucasus, but are far removed from R1a-M417, which is about 5800 years old, was found in aDNA of the Pontic-Caspian steppe more than 5500 years ago and is the only subclade of R1a associated with the spread of IE languages.* Why do you think the authors of the study say, right after that statement, _"Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a"_? It's obvious: because they're referring to rare basal lineages, not to M417. 

Think twice before correcting someone for something you don't even understand clearly to be really sure of it. You just wrote more nonsense, but this time it's worse, because it reveals you're deriving conclusions from _misinterpretations_ of the scientific evidences caused by lack of basic knowledge on the subject. Nobody can reach right conclusions if they're confused about the premises even. You're - once again - completely wrong, even clueless, and showing how confident and even arrogant those who don't know they just don't know enough can be.

_P.S.: Of course most Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Proto-Indo-Iranian, not (Pre-)Proto-Germanic. The reason? One you will probably refuse to accept, too, but is most logical: Finno-Ugric, like Proto-Uralic, probably expanded from somewhere in the Lower Volga-Oka region, adjacent to the probable homeland of Proto-Indo-Iranian in the Sintashta culture, by its turn profoundly influenced by the Abashevo, which neighbored the Uralic/Finno-Ugric homeland. The proto-language Pre-Proto-Germanic seems to have derived from was most probably spoken much to the west of that region near the Urals, given that all Germanic populations seem to have much more Bell Beaker genetic impact._

----------


## Cyrus

> Oh, mate, you're really lost in this hobby, aren't you? The study says textually: "*Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus."
> *Are you sure you have enough understanding of the basic stuff to understand these genetic and linguistic studies? Or do you think they're all irrelevant "playing with words", too? When a study writes _haplogroup (xSubclade)_, it is referring to *all subclades of that haplogroup EXCEPT the one marked with an "x".* That's the terminology used by geneticists. R1b-M269 (xL51,Z2103) means _all males with R1b-M269 except those who belong to L51 and Z2103 subclades_. In other words, the study is clearly referring to the *rare branches of R1a, not including the much more common M417, which are found now mostly in MODERN Iran and Caucasus, but are far removed from R1a-M417, which is about 5800 years old, was found in aDNA of the Pontic-Caspian steppe more than 5500 years ago and is the only subclade of R1a associated with the spread of IE languages.* Why do you think the authors of the study say, right after that statement, _"Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a"_? It's obvious: because they're referring to rare basal lineages, not to M417. 
> 
> Think twice before correcting someone for something you don't even understand clearly to be really sure of it. You just wrote more nonsense, but this time it's worse, because it reveals you're deriving conclusions from _misinterpretations_ of the scientific evidences caused by lack of basic knowledge on the subject. Nobody can reach right conclusions if they're confused about the premises even. You're - once again - completely wrong, even clueless, and showing how confident and even arrogant those who don't know they just don't know enough can be.
> 
> _P.S.: Of course most Finno-Ugric loanwords are from Proto-Indo-Iranian, not (Pre-)Proto-Germanic. The reason? One you will probably refuse to accept, too, but is most logical: Finno-Ugric, like Proto-Uralic, probably expanded from somewhere in the Lower Volga-Oka region, adjacent to the probable homeland of Proto-Indo-Iranian in the Sintashta culture, by its turn profoundly influenced by the Abashevo, which neighbored the Uralic/Finno-Ugric homeland. The proto-language Pre-Proto-Germanic seems to have derived from was most probably spoken much to the west of that region near the Urals, given that all Germanic populations seem to have much more Bell Beaker genetic impact._


I am really newbie in genetics and for this reason I'm here, as you read here : "The Iranian DNA Project has 3 ethnically Persian R1a1a1, 2 from Iran and 1 from Kuwait": http://www.familytreedna.com/public/...ction=yresults What does it mean?

But about linguistics, you have actually nothing to say, you can't find even one word from a northern European language with Germanic sound shift in proto-Germanic, as I mentioned in another thread, linguists talk about thousands Germanic loanwords with Germanic sound shifts from Akkadian language, such as proto-Germanic *hanap- "hemp" from Akkadian _kanabu_ "hemp", proto-Germanic _ertho_ "earth" from Akkadian _eretu_ "earth", proto-Germanic *_silubra_ "silver" from Akkadian _salapu_ "silver", ... 

There are also many Akkadian loanwords from Proto-Germanic, Julius Pokorny in "Proto-Indo-European Etymological Dictionary" says that the Semitic words for cardinal numbers "six" and "seven" are from an early Indo-European langauge, compare Akkadian _šeš_ "six" and proto-Germanic *_sehs_ "six" and Akkadian _sebe_ "seven" and proto-Germanic *_sebun_ "seven". We see Akkadian chief god _Anšur_ "Ashur" is also from proto-Germanic *_Ansuz_ "Aesir" (proto-Germanic apical _z_ is almost the same _r_), the proto-Germanic word for God and Semitic Gad (god of fortune) probably relate to each other too.

We also see many Germanic loanwords from Hurro-Urartian, for example Proto-Germanic *_saiwa_ "sea" is from Hurro-Urartian _sewa_ "sea, lake", the name of Sevan, the largest body of water in Armenia and the Caucasus region, is from this Hurro-Urartian word, the Armenian word for sea is also from the same origin.

And also Germanic loanwords from Hittite, Elamite, ... proto-Germanic *_ulpanduz_ "camel" (Gothic _ulbandus_, Old Saxon _olbundeo_, Old Norse _úlfaldi_, ...) is from Hittite _hulpant_ "humpback, camel".

----------


## spruithean

The R-M417 individual in that FTDNA project is NOT only R-M417, he is https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z29137/, as you can see this branch is DOWNSTREAM of Z93, which again the oldest sample of which was found in Russia, NW of Kazakhstan. Z93 is considered the Central & South Asian branch. Specifically according to YFulls tree the individual from the FTDNA project is R-Z29137* which means he is so far negative for any known downstream SNPs of Z29137, others on this branch can be found with ancestry from Pakistan, Yemen, and India.
That linked molgen post is from 2012 and specific downstream testing hadn't been ordered by the kit-holders at FTDNA. In 2012 my own haplogroup wasn't labelled what it is now.


Just a heads up, we should be referring to haplogroups in their shorthand form for simplicity, so instead of the various letters and numbers we simply take the main part of the haplogroup like R and then attach the SNP in discussion or the terminal SNP. So instead of some giant term we get a simplistic term like R-Z29137, however you can modify this for clarity if need be to R1a-Z29137.

----------


## Cyrus

I think it is better that we focus on haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 which has the highest frequency in the west of Iran, if you prove that it couldn't be related to the Germanic people then it can be said that Germanic people didn't migrate directly from the west of Iran to the north Europe.

----------


## spruithean

Haak et. al. (2015) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/013433v1.full

Eupedia: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yam...ml#Y-DNA_mtDNA

We already have an ancient sample of L23 in the Samara region within Yamnaya dominated cultural area. Modern distribution does not necessarily line up with ancient information, example being R1b was not the earliest haplogroup in Europe, yet it is the most dominant, yet the earliest haplogroups within Europe are the least dominant. On top of that the downstream clade, Z2103 is also found in the same area within the same era, Z2103 is fairly prominent in Asian populations, however ancient samples of it place it in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, again...

----------


## Ygorcs

> But about linguistics, you have actually nothing to say, you can't find even one word from a northern European language with Germanic sound shift in proto-Germanic, as I mentioned in another thread, linguists talk about thousands Germanic loanwords with Germanic sound shifts from Akkadian language, such as proto-Germanic *hanap- "hemp" from Akkadian _kanabu_ "hemp", proto-Germanic _ertho_ "earth" from Akkadian _eretu_ "earth", proto-Germanic *_silubra_ "silver" from Akkadian _salapu_ "silver", ...


Well, that can be easily explained considering that the only Northern European languages that might have been in close contact with Proto-Germanic and Pre-Proto-Germanic are perhaps Baltic languages (doubtful, because toponyms and genetics indicate that the present Balts might have come from further east in Belarus and Russia) and a few Finno-Ugric languages (and not for a very long time, because the Finno-Ugric languages seem to have spread to the Baltic/North Sea area only in the early Iron Age, replacing other arguably IE and non-IE languages; see the very recent paper on the spread of Siberian ancestry and N1c in Northeastern Europe). The other North European languages were simply superseded by Proto-Germanic and its Germanic descendants, so we will never know if and how much those languages had borrowed words from the Germanic group of languages. Celtic languages south of the North Sea also vanished without written attestation. It's actually pretty amazing that we still have so many clearly Proto-Germanic loanwords in Baltic Finno-Ugric languages and in Baltic IE languages.

Most of the supposedly certain borrowings from and to Proto-Germanic that you mention are entirely based on sound similarity, which is basically the most amateur and primitive way of doing historical linguistics. Sound-alikes and semantic connections between similar-sounding words is just not enough if you can't derive regular sound rules from them which would apply to several other suppposed borrowings in the same positions in the word. For example, how exactly Proto-Germanic _*saiwiz_ (not _*saiwa_) derives from _*sewa_, what explains the appearance of an original diphthong /aj/ instead of a simple /e/ that of course existed as a phoneme in PGM? Why the _*-iz_ ending instead of _*-a_? Why are you comparing Semitic _Gad_ with the Proto-Germanic word for God, which was clearly different, _*gudhan_ from earlier _*guthóm_? Will you claim a borrowing based on such vague and weak similarities?

Besides, you're being extremely anachronistic when you compare Bronze Age Akkadian with _reconstructed_ Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic represents a stage of the language evolution of the Germanic language group that was spoken around 2500-2000 years ago. It was of course not the same language (a pre-PGM one) that was spoken 3500 or 4000 years ago. If attributing words of a language to another language based on sound similarity alone is already problematic, let alone if you compare languages that are many centuries apart from each other, so that obviously the sound similarity may be much more deceiving than you think. Some of your reconstructed forms are also based on wishful thinking to make the word more similar to, and you neglect the very plausible _(and also attested in other IE subgroups)_ PIE roots of some woerds, like _*Ansuz_, which is clearly based on the same root as Proto-Indo-European _*nsura-_ and can be directly derived from the PIE root _*h2ens-_ "spirit, vital force, spiritual energy", with no need for an "exotic borrowing".

Other implausible and even fanciful connections can be noticed. Who are those linguists you're basing yourself on? Why would Proto-Germanic _*ertho_ come from Akkadian _*eretu_ when the latter meant "underworld" and the former "earth, our world"? Would Germanic people think they live in the abode of the dead, that earth is the dreary underworld? Nonsense. It obviously makes much more sense that it comes from PIE _*h1er-_ with a suffix attached, since _*h1er-_ also meant "earth, ground, land"

The Akkadian-Germanic "connection" you assume on what refers to cardinal numbers makes no sense when you consider that _all_ Semitic languages have those same numbers, and they can be reconstructed as_ *shb-, shab-_ and clearly connected with Egyptian _*sfhw-_, which is millennia apart from Proto-Semitic in the Afro-Asiatic tree. So, it's clearly a native word, and even if it weren't it has only a vague similarity to Proto-Germanic (an how do you know how PGM _sebun_ sounded like when Proto-Semitic was still spoken? It didn't even exist, probably Late PIE dialects were still spoken). Why on earth would Akkadian _shesh_ come from IA Proto-Germanic if that same word already existed in Proto-Semitic and PIE had _*swek's__/sek's_, which is just a similar to _shesh_ and _*sehs_. You're perhaps too personally invested in this one hypothesis you're clinging to. If anything it's a borrowing from PIE, not from Proto-Germanic, which would be ridiculous considering Proto-Semitic was spoken much before reconstructed PGM existed with all its peculiar phonetic features.

Honestly, if genetics don't make your case any stronger (and it definitely doesn't), your linguistic assertions are also very doubtful and in some cases fanciful.

----------


## Cyrus

> Well, that can be easily explained considering that the only Northern European languages that might have been in close contact with Proto-Germanic and Pre-Proto-Germanic are perhaps Baltic languages (doubtful, because toponyms and genetics indicate that the present Balts might have come from further east in Belarus and Russia) and a few Finno-Ugric languages (and not for a very long time, because the Finno-Ugric languages seem to have spread to the Baltic/North Sea area only in the early Iron Age, replacing other arguably IE and non-IE languages; see the very recent paper on the spread of Siberian ancestry and N1c in Northeastern Europe). The other North European languages were simply superseded by Proto-Germanic and its Germanic descendants, so we will never know if and how much those languages had borrowed words from the Germanic group of languages. Celtic languages south of the North Sea also vanished without written attestation. It's actually pretty amazing that we still have so many clearly Proto-Germanic loanwords in Baltic Finno-Ugric languages and in Baltic IE languages.
> 
> Most of the supposedly certain borrowings from and to Proto-Germanic that you mention are entirely based on sound similarity, which is basically the most amateur and primitive way of doing historical linguistics. Sound-alikes and semantic connections between similar-sounding words is just not enough if you can't derive regular sound rules from them which would apply to several other suppposed borrowings in the same positions in the word. For example, how exactly Proto-Germanic _*saiwiz_ (not _*saiwa_) derives from _*sewa_, what explains the appearance of an original diphthong /aj/ instead of a simple /e/ that of course existed as a phoneme in PGM? Why the _*-iz_ ending instead of _*-a_? Why are you comparing Semitic _Gad_ with the Proto-Germanic word for God, which was clearly different, _*gudhan_ from earlier _*guthóm_? Will you claim a borrowing based on such vague and weak similarities?
> 
> Besides, you're being extremely anachronistic when you compare Bronze Age Akkadian with _reconstructed_ Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic represents a stage of the language evolution of the Germanic language group that was spoken around 2500-2000 years ago. It was of course not the same language (a pre-PGM one) that was spoken 3500 or 4000 years ago. If attributing words of a language to another language based on sound similarity alone is already problematic, let alone if you compare languages that are many centuries apart from each other, so that obviously the sound similarity may be much more deceiving than you think. Some of your reconstructed forms are also based on wishful thinking to make the word more similar to, and you neglect the very plausible _(and also attested in other IE subgroups)_ PIE roots of some woerds, like _*Ansuz_, which is clearly based on the same root as Proto-Indo-European _*nsura-_ and can be directly derived from the PIE root _*h2ens-_ "spirit, vital force, spiritual energy", with no need for an "exotic borrowing".
> 
> Other implausible and even fanciful connections can be noticed. Who are those linguists you're basing yourself on? Why would Proto-Germanic _*ertho_ come from Akkadian _*eretu_ when the latter meant "underworld" and the former "earth, our world"? Would Germanic people think they live in the abode of the dead, that earth is the dreary underworld? Nonsense. It obviously makes much more sense that it comes from PIE _*h1er-_ with a suffix attached, since _*h1er-_ also meant "earth, ground, land"
> 
> The Akkadian-Germanic "connection" you assume on what refers to cardinal numbers makes no sense when you consider that _all_ Semitic languages have those same numbers, and they can be reconstructed as_ *shb-, shab-_ and clearly connected with Egyptian _*sfhw-_, which is millennia apart from Proto-Semitic in the Afro-Asiatic tree. So, it's clearly a native word, and even if it weren't it has only a vague similarity to Proto-Germanic (an how do you know how PGM _sebun_ sounded like when Proto-Semitic was still spoken? It didn't even exist, probably Late PIE dialects were still spoken). Why on earth would Akkadian _shesh_ come from IA Proto-Germanic if that same word already existed in Proto-Semitic and PIE had _*swek's__/sek's_, which is just a similar to _shesh_ and _*sehs_. You're perhaps too personally invested in this one hypothesis you're clinging to. If anything it's a borrowing from PIE, not from Proto-Germanic, which would be ridiculous considering Proto-Semitic was spoken much before reconstructed PGM existed with all its peculiar phonetic features.
> ...


I don't really see any difference between you and those who claim Iranian language originated in Iran, Turkish language originated in Turkey, ... All of you use the same logic, there are many Turkish words in Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, Albanian, ... but we can't any word from those languages in Proto-Turkic, pan-Turks say it is clear because they didn't exist in this region when just proto-Turkic and Sumerian existed (as you probably know they believe Turkic and Sumerian have the same origin), and when I talk about several Iranian words in Turkic, they say this word has a different meaning, another one has a different vowel, so all of them are not from Iranian and just have Turkic origin, Turkish seems to have numerous prefixes and suffixes too, like what you said about the Germanic word for "earth", "er" means "ground" and we add a "th" then it means "earth", so it doesn't relate to Semitic words, like Hebrew _erets_ or Arabic _ardh_ with exact the same meaning of "earth".

----------


## Ygorcs

> I don't really see any difference between you and those who claim Iranian language originated in Iran, Turkish language originated in Turkey, ... All of you use the same logic, there are many Turkish words in Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, Albanian, ... but we can't any word from those languages in Proto-Turkic, pan-Turks say it is clear because they didn't exist in this region when just proto-Turkic and Sumerian existed (as you probably know they believe Turkic and Sumerian have the same origin), and when I talk about several Iranian words in Turkic, they say this word has a different meaning, another one has a different vowel, so all of them are not from Iranian and just have Turkic origin, Turkish seems to have numerous prefixes and suffixes too, like what you said about the Germanic word for "earth", "er" means "ground" and we add a "th" then it means "earth", so it doesn't relate to Semitic words, like Hebrew _erets_ or Arabic _ardh_ with exact the same meaning of "earth".


Nonsense again. If this situation were comparable to Turkic nationalists who claim Turkic has always been spoken in the Near East, we'd be claiming that Germanic's earlist language form (Proto-Indo-European) arose in Germanic countries, like some 19th century and early 20th century scholars from Germanic countries once asserted. We'd not be stating, based on _loads_ of genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidences, that Germanic ultimately comes from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga rivers, which are not Germanic at all. By the way, many of the Finno-Ugric loanwords are clearly from reconstructed PROTO-Germanic, not from later Germanic languages. Why do you think I, a Brazilian of Portuguese, African and Native American descent, would favor "Germanic nationalism"? Come on. Conversely, I think we all have our reasons to find something suspicious about the fact that you neglect by definition any evidence against your _Germanic = Iran_ hypothesis and cling to it fiercely when _you are actually_ Iranian. But it's not my intention to make things that personal as you're trying to do.

----------


## spruithean

Cyrus, whenever you are proven wrong you resort to accusing people of nationalism, this is seen time and time again in various threads. The evidence for Germanic NOT originating in Iran is solid and stacked against your theory, what is so wrong with accepting the fact that modern genetic testing, archaeological evidence, professional work done by professional linguistics/comparative linguistics has consistently proven your theory wrong. It begins to look very suspect when you repeatedly ignore evidence presented to you that proves you are wrong. I don't understand this constant argument you have where you are trying to prove that Germanic is a subset of Indo-Iranian, it's fanciful...

----------


## matty74

I don't get the motivation behind this I guess....

----------


## Cyrus

> Cyrus, whenever you are proven wrong you resort to accusing people of nationalism, this is seen time and time again in various threads. The evidence for Germanic NOT originating in Iran is solid and stacked against your theory, what is so wrong with accepting the fact that modern genetic testing, archaeological evidence, professional work done by professional linguistics/comparative linguistics has consistently proven your theory wrong. It begins to look very suspect when you repeatedly ignore evidence presented to you that proves you are wrong. I don't understand this constant argument you have where you are trying to prove that Germanic is a subset of Indo-Iranian, it's fanciful...


You even don't know what my theory is, there is absolutely no relation between Germanic (R1a-R1b hybrid) and Indo-Iranian (Z95), there is also no relation between Iran and Indo-Iranian, I say people who live in the west of Iran (also R1a-R1b hybrid an no Z95) relate to the Germanic people.

----------


## Cyrus

> Nonsense again. If this situation were comparable to Turkic nationalists who claim Turkic has always been spoken in the Near East, we'd be claiming that Germanic's earlist language form (Proto-Indo-European) arose in Germanic countries, like some 19th century and early 20th century scholars from Germanic countries once asserted. We'd not be stating, based on _loads_ of genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidences, that Germanic ultimately comes from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga rivers, which are not Germanic at all. By the way, many of the Finno-Ugric loanwords are clearly from reconstructed PROTO-Germanic, not from later Germanic languages. Why do you think I, a Brazilian of Portuguese, African and Native American descent, would favor "Germanic nationalism"? Come on. Conversely, I think we all have our reasons to find something suspicious about the fact that you neglect by definition any evidence against your _Germanic = Iran_ hypothesis and cling to it fiercely when _you are actually_ Iranian. But it's not my intention to make things that personal as you're trying to do.


I also certainly believe that in 500 BC after Persian and Scythian conquests "Germanic came from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga", Germanic people didn't fly from Iran to Scandinavia, we see some sound changes in Germanic, like x>h, in Europe too, but the problem is that you believe these people who lived near Dniester (a Scythian name which dates back to 500 BC) were proto-Indo-European (or had a language almost the same as PIE) and Germanic sound shifts in 500 BC were from this language!

----------


## hrvclv

Poll :

Is Cyrus... 1) a very stupid pseudo-historian... or... 2) a very clever t-roll ?

My vote : #2

----------


## Ygorcs

> I also certainly believe that in 500 BC after Persian and Scythian conquests "Germanic came from the steppes between the Dniester and the Volga", Germanic people didn't fly from Iran to Scandinavia, we see some sound changes in Germanic, like x>h, in Europe too, but the problem is that you believe these people who lived near Dniester (a Scythian name which dates back to 500 BC) were proto-Indo-European (or had a language almost the same as PIE) and Germanic sound shifts in 500 BC were from this language!


Hahaha, it's almost unbelievable that you still don't seem to have understood what I wrote in a very detailed and patient way more than once in this thread. I give up now. You're either ********, or you lack so much basic knowledge about this subject that you're incapable of interpreting even the simplest texts about historical linguistics and ancient genetics (e.g. what does it matter if Dniester is a Scythian name? We're talking about a geographical location where people lived in the Copper Age, the place obviously predates the toponym! And do you really still believe that Proto-Germanic appeared fully formed right from PIE instead of evolving through many intermediary languages from PIE until Proto-Germanic? Didn't you get even the very simple Latin analogy I made? You must be kidding, dude! lol). I won't keep circling around your proud ignorance and evident interpretation issues.

----------


## Cyrus

> Hahaha, it's almost unbelievable that you still don't seem to have understood what I wrote in a very detailed and patient way more than once in this thread. I give up now. You're either ********, or you lack so much basic knowledge about this subject that you're incapable of interpreting even the simplest texts about historical linguistics and ancient genetics (e.g. what does it matter if Dniester is a Scythian name? We're talking about a geographical location where people lived in the Copper Age, the place obviously predates the toponym! And do you really still believe that Proto-Germanic appeared fully formed right from PIE instead of evolving through many intermediary languages from PIE until Proto-Germanic? Didn't you get even the very simple Latin analogy I made? You must be kidding, dude! lol). I won't keep circling around your proud ignorance and evident interpretation issues.


I think you also believe almost the same thing that I believe, we have sound shifts directly from proto-IE to proto-Germanic, like k>x, which didn't happen in 500 BC in the north of Europe, but some other sound changes, like x>h, which happened there. There is actually a huge difference between what you say and German nationalists say.

----------


## spruithean

> Poll :
> Is Cyrus... 1) a very stupid pseudo-historian... or... 2) a very clever t-roll ?
> My vote : #2


I don't know, but he certainly has persistence.




> Hahaha, it's almost unbelievable that you still don't seem to have understood what I wrote in a very detailed and patient way more than once in this thread. I give up now. You're either ********, or you lack so much basic knowledge about this subject that you're incapable of interpreting even the simplest texts about historical linguistics and ancient genetics (e.g. what does it matter if Dniester is a Scythian name? We're talking about a geographical location where people lived in the Copper Age, the place obviously predates the toponym! And do you really still believe that Proto-Germanic appeared fully formed right from PIE instead of evolving through many intermediary languages from PIE until Proto-Germanic? Didn't you get even the very simple Latin analogy I made? You must be kidding, dude! lol). I won't keep circling around your proud ignorance and evident interpretation issues.


Being provided genetic evidence, linguistic evidence, etc apparently isn't convincing enough. Oh well.

----------


## Cyrus

I wish instead of Germanic people, they were an African or east Asian people who lived in the west of Iran in the ancient times, it would be even possible that some of them help me in my research.

----------


## spruithean

> I wish instead of Germanic people, they were an African or east Asian people who lived in the west of Iran in the ancient times, it would be even possible that some of them help me in my research.


What are you even saying? So because people on this forum are showing evidence that the theory you have been discussing in several threads is incorrect that you wish that instead of Germanic people they were other people who would help you in your research, because they would be less inclined to refute your theories with scientific evidence? What are you saying exactly? 

None of us in this thread seem to define ourselves as "Germanic", we are simply providing evidence that the ancestors of Germanic people did not originate in Western Iran and they originated in the western steppes of Eurasia and they eventually migrated to Northern Europe and fused with several peoples to develop what would become Germanic culture. 

I don't know how many more times it needs to be laid out in front of you be it through genetic, archaeological, linguistic or other evidence (not restricted to this thread), but the Germanic people or their language did not originate in Western Iran or among the various tribes you mention in this area.

You've mentioned various areas in Iran (Kerman, etc) where you believe Germanic populations to have dwelled and you have even said that the Romans were talking about Iran when discussing Germanic tribes when in reality the Romans were very pointedly discussing an area east of Gaul across the river Rhine (can be seen in Latin terms such as _Germani cisrhenani, Germani transrhenani_). You accuse people who deny your claims of "nationalism" when the very Iran-centric theory you propose seems suspect of the very thing you are accusing others of. I don't mean to make this a personal thing, but all of these threads are devolving into the same circular discussion: _theory presented, evidence supplied, evidence ignored or passed over, resurrect theory with the same incorrect argument, repeat

_I'm not sure what the motivation is exactly to try and propose an Indo-Iranian or Iranian origin for the Germanic people is, but the evidence just isn't there, isn't it far easier to come to the same conclusions as all the other researchers who've looked over the current evidence and come to the same conclusions? (see Ygorcs various posts!)

----------


## MOESAN

@Spruithean
Thanks for very worthful links.

Aside, is not your pseudo a gaelic one (spite the 'p')?

----------


## Cyrus

> What are you even saying? So because people on this forum are showing evidence that the theory you have been discussing in several threads is incorrect that you wish that instead of Germanic people they were other people who would help you in your research, because they would be less inclined to refute your theories with scientific evidence? What are you saying exactly? 
> 
> None of us in this thread seem to define ourselves as "Germanic", we are simply providing evidence that the ancestors of Germanic people did not originate in Western Iran and they originated in the western steppes of Eurasia and they eventually migrated to Northern Europe and fused with several peoples to develop what would become Germanic culture. 
> 
> I don't know how many more times it needs to be laid out in front of you be it through genetic, archaeological, linguistic or other evidence (not restricted to this thread), but the Germanic people or their language did not originate in Western Iran or among the various tribes you mention in this area.
> 
> You've mentioned various areas in Iran (Kerman, etc) where you believe Germanic populations to have dwelled and you have even said that the Romans were talking about Iran when discussing Germanic tribes when in reality the Romans were very pointedly discussing an area east of Gaul across the river Rhine (can be seen in Latin terms such as _Germani cisrhenani, Germani transrhenani_). You accuse people who deny your claims of "nationalism" when the very Iran-centric theory you propose seems suspect of the very thing you are accusing others of. I don't mean to make this a personal thing, but all of these threads are devolving into the same circular discussion: _theory presented, evidence supplied, evidence ignored or passed over, resurrect theory with the same incorrect argument, repeat
> 
> _I'm not sure what the motivation is exactly to try and propose an Indo-Iranian or Iranian origin for the Germanic people is, but the evidence just isn't there, isn't it far easier to come to the same conclusions as all the other researchers who've looked over the current evidence and come to the same conclusions? (see Ygorcs various posts!)


The problem is that, as Ygorcs has said several times, you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW anything about the Germanic culture before 500 BC, this is your only evidence, for example when I say Asgard in the Germanic sources (which according to the same Germanic sources, was in Asia) was the same land of Asagarta in Iran, you don't say that this land was in Sweden or Germany but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW where it was, or when I say what we read about Adon in ancient Babylonian sources is almost the same as Odin, you don't say we have these evidences that Odin was the chief god in Sweden or Denmark before 500 BC but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW ... In fact your only evidence about the existence of Germanic culture in the north of Europe before 500 BC is that you have no evidence!

----------


## spruithean

> The problem is that, as Ygorcs has said several times, you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW anything about the Germanic culture before 500 BC, this is your only evidence, for example when I say Asgard in the Germanic sources (which according to the same Germanic sources, was in Asia) was the same land of Asagarta in Iran, you don't say that this land was in Sweden or Germany but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW where it was, or when I say what we read about Adon in ancient Babylonian sources is almost the same as Odin, you don't say we have these evidences that Odin was the chief god in Sweden or Denmark before 500 BC but you say WE JUST DON'T KNOW ... In fact your only evidence about the existence of Germanic culture in the north of Europe before 500 BC is that you have no evidence!


The "Germanic source" you reference is the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturlusson written in the 13th century. Much of what he wrote was euphemism, conjecture and mythology. Relying on such an unreliable literary work as evidence for Germanic people coming from Asia is pushing it a bit far don't you think? There are other scholars who have different opinions stating that Odin/Thor were imported along with runes via Southern Europe (Elder & Younger Futhark have their roots in Cumae variant Greek alphabet, which in turn has its roots in the Phoenician alphabet), however that is again, conjecture at best.

There is no archaeological evidence for such a migration out of Persia, and no coincidental spellings and shady etymology does not cut it here. We need verifiable evidence with fact. 

I have seen your other threads where you have shared images of various sculptures or other works from Northern Europe which look similar to those in parts of Iran, however whose to say that these are not the results of cultural diffusion? Cultural diffusion and trade with Scandinavia/North Germany's southern neighbours makes more sense than some great trek. We already know that Mediterranean based civilizations acquired various items from the civilizations outside their borders.

I should add that archaeological evidence for a Northern European origin of Germanic can be seen in the continuity of Nordic Bronze Age cultures in southern Scandinavia and Schleswig-Holstein, this is also supported by Ancient DNA evidence.

Cyrus, would you be willing to lay out all evidence for your Germanic "Out of Persia" theory. I'm not against your theory or any new theory ever becoming a verified fact, in fact I encourage that these subjects be researched, however we can't base our theories off of things that just don't have enough weight behind them. That is why I and others challenge you on this.

----------


## Cyrus

> The "Germanic source" you reference is the Prose Edda by Snorri Sturlusson written in the 13th century. Much of what he wrote was euphemism, conjecture and mythology. Relying on such an unreliable literary work as evidence for Germanic people coming from Asia is pushing it a bit far don't you think? There are other scholars who have different opinions stating that Odin/Thor were imported along with runes via Southern Europe (Elder & Younger Futhark have their roots in Cumae variant Greek alphabet, which in turn has its roots in the Phoenician alphabet), however that is again, conjecture at best.
> 
> There is no archaeological evidence for such a migration out of Persia, and no coincidental spellings and shady etymology does not cut it here. We need verifiable evidence with fact. 
> 
> I have seen your other threads where you have shared images of various sculptures or other works from Northern Europe which look similar to those in parts of Iran, however whose to say that these are not the results of cultural diffusion? Cultural diffusion and trade with Scandinavia/North Germany's southern neighbours makes more sense than some great trek. We already know that Mediterranean based civilizations acquired various items from the civilizations outside their borders.
> 
> I should add that archaeological evidence for a Northern European origin of Germanic can be seen in the continuity of Nordic Bronze Age cultures in southern Scandinavia and Schleswig-Holstein, this is also supported by Ancient DNA evidence.
> 
> Cyrus, would you be willing to lay out all evidence for your Germanic "Out of Persia" theory. I'm not against your theory or any new theory ever becoming a verified fact, in fact I encourage that these subjects be researched, however we can't base our theories off of things that just don't have enough weight behind them. That is why I and others challenge you on this.


Ok, in 500 BC some people from Gothland (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the north of Europe came to Gotvand (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the southwest of Iran, bought many objects and came back!

It is not my fault that Europeans are not interested to research about the origin of Germanic people, of course we see some incomplete works, like "In Search of the Gods, Scandinavian Ancestry" by Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl:

"We learn of the line of royal families in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. But we didn't take these stories about our beginnings seriously because they were so ancient. We thought it was just imagination, just mythology. The actual years for the lineage of historic kings began around the year 800 AD. So we learned all the kings in the 1,000 years that followed and did not interest ourselves in earlier names.

But I remember from my childhood that the mythology started with the god named Odin. From Odin it took 31 generations to reach the first historic king. The record of Odin says that he came to Northern Europe from the land of Aser. I started reading these pages again and saw that this was not mythology at all, but actual history and geography.

Snorre, who recorded these stories, started by describing Europe, Asia and Africa, all with their correct names, Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea with their old Norse names, the Black Sea with the names we use today again, and the river Don with its old Greek name, Tanais. So, I realized that this has nothing to do with the gods who lived with the Thunder god Thor among the clouds.

Snorre said that the homeland of the Asers was east of the Black Sea. He said this was the land that chief Odin had, a big country. He gave the exact description: it was east of the Black Sea, south of a large mountain range on the border between Europe and Asia, and extended southward towards the land of the Turks. This had nothing to do with mythology, it was on this planet, on Earth. 

..."


Thor Heyerdahl in 1994 at the Gobustan caves in Azerbaijan. He believed these rock carvings of boats which date back to the 3rd millennium BC were created by the Germanic people.

----------


## Cyrus

I have a genetic question: Why we see a large number of blonde people in the west of Iran, especially around Gotvand/Dezful? One of the most famous people who was born in this region is *Mohammad-Ali Ramin*, Iran's former Vice Minister of Culture and a presidential advisor:


You have probably read about the physical appearance of ancient Gutians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian...cal_appearance

Some photos of rural people in Gotvand/Dezful area in the north of Khuzistan: http://www.khouznews.ir/fa/news/17227/%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1

----------


## Cyrus

I asked about this person in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...his-famous-man


Halfalp replied: "It's Ragnar Lodbrok (Norse Viking hero and legendary king of Denmark and Sweden)! I mean't Hassan Khomeini (the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic Republic)". His mother Fatemeh Tabatabai is also a Lur from the west of Iran.

----------


## spruithean

> @Spruithean
> Thanks for very worthful links.
> 
> Aside, is not your pseudo a gaelic one (spite the 'p')?


My username is a combo of an obscure Gaelic word and a Dutch word. 




> Ok, in 500 BC some people from Gothland (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the north of Europe came to Gotvand (R1a-R1b hybrid) in the southwest of Iran, bought many objects and came back!
> 
> It is not my fault that Europeans are not interested to research about the origin of Germanic people, of course we see some incomplete works, like "In Search of the Gods, Scandinavian Ancestry" by Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl:
> 
> "We learn of the line of royal families in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. But we didn't take these stories about our beginnings seriously because they were so ancient. We thought it was just imagination, just mythology. The actual years for the lineage of historic kings began around the year 800 AD. So we learned all the kings in the 1,000 years that followed and did not interest ourselves in earlier names.
> 
> But I remember from my childhood that the mythology started with the god named Odin. From Odin it took 31 generations to reach the first historic king. The record of Odin says that he came to Northern Europe from the land of Aser. I started reading these pages again and saw that this was not mythology at all, but actual history and geography.
> 
> Snorre, who recorded these stories, started by describing Europe, Asia and Africa, all with their correct names, Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea with their old Norse names, the Black Sea with the names we use today again, and the river Don with its old Greek name, Tanais. So, I realized that this has nothing to do with the gods who lived with the Thunder god Thor among the clouds.
> ...


Heyerdahl's theory was met and is still met with fierce criticism. They cited that he relied on pseudo-archaeology, selective sourcing and improper and even blatant disregard for linguistic theory. I know he claimed that the _Azeri_ peoples demonym was similar to _Æsir,_ or that the city of Azov got its name from "as-hof" meaning Temple of the Æsir, however this is flawed as the name as perfectly reasonable explanations in Turkic languages. Instead of relying on old texts and coincidental linguistic similarities (between unrelated language families) we instead have turned to archaeological genetics (archaeogenetics) because it is now giving us a very good view of how each Bronze Age culture fit together. Heyerdahl also didn't seem to accept that individual cultures can stumble upon the same technological advancements, artwork, architecture, etc completely independently of anyone else, this is extremely flawed as we know many cultures FAR from Egypt built pyramids, many cultures built boats, etc.

We need to be very careful when consulting old kings lists of nations that had Germanic kings, especially when the names of deities are in the list. Many kings claimed descent from a god to legitimize their claim on the throne, examples being Anglo-Saxon kings, Swedish kings, Danish kings, etc. To provide an example from Anglo-Saxon England in the kingdom of Bernicia the royal genealogy featured a female ancestor with the name Bearnoch, this queen was most likely fictional and simply used as a way to legitimize the royal families placement on the throne of a former Brythonic kingdom. These ancient genealogies need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Thank you for sharing, Cyrus.

Now in regards to the images of the phenotypes you shared, these can be easily explained and they do not have to be the influence of a "Germanic" presence in Iran or related lands. We know Indo-European migrations took place and a light complexion was present in the Indo-European groups who migrated into what would become Iran and parts of India. I don't see why it needs to be a result of an extremely earlier migration of Germanic groups. It could even be better explained by the Kievan Rus' expeditions in the Caspian sea, especially in the Caspian sea port cities of Iran and neighbouring places.

----------


## Cyrus

> Heyerdahl's theory was met and is still met with fierce criticism. They cited that he relied on pseudo-archaeology, selective sourcing and improper and even blatant disregard for linguistic theory. I know he claimed that the _Azeri_ peoples demonym was similar to _Æsir,_ or that the city of Azov got its name from "as-hof" meaning Temple of the Æsir, however this is flawed as the name as perfectly reasonable explanations in Turkic languages. Instead of relying on old texts and coincidental linguistic similarities (between unrelated language families) we instead have turned to archaeological genetics (archaeogenetics) because it is now giving us a very good view of how each Bronze Age culture fit together. Heyerdahl also didn't seem to accept that individual cultures can stumble upon the same technological advancements, artwork, architecture, etc completely independently of anyone else, this is extremely flawed as we know many cultures FAR from Egypt built pyramids, many cultures built boats, etc.
> 
> We need to be very careful when consulting old kings lists of nations that had Germanic kings, especially when the names of deities are in the list. Many kings claimed descent from a god to legitimize their claim on the throne, examples being Anglo-Saxon kings, Swedish kings, Danish kings, etc. To provide an example from Anglo-Saxon England in the kingdom of Bernicia the royal genealogy featured a female ancestor with the name Bearnoch, this queen was most likely fictional and simply used as a way to legitimize the royal families placement on the throne of a former Brythonic kingdom. These ancient genealogies need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.
> 
> Thank you for sharing, Cyrus.
> 
> Now in regards to the images of the phenotypes you shared, these can be easily explained and they do not have to be the influence of a "Germanic" presence in Iran or related lands. We know Indo-European migrations took place and a light complexion was present in the Indo-European groups who migrated into what would become Iran and parts of India. I don't see why it needs to be a result of an extremely earlier migration of Germanic groups. It could even be better explained by the Kievan Rus' expeditions in the Caspian sea, especially in the Caspian sea port cities of Iran and neighbouring places.


The only important thing about Thor Heyerdahl is that he tried to find some historical facts but he was not accurate in finding the original land and for this reason his work is incomplete and has many errors.
About Egyptian and pyramids, if you find a far culture very similar to the Egyptian culture with the same name of Egyptian and with genetic similarities, who also built similar pyramids, I say they certainly relate to each other.
I think you didn't get what I meant about those photos, I just wanted to compare them to ancient Gutians who lived in the same region with the same physical appearance from at least 3rd millennium BC, of course it is possible that they also migrated to this land in older times, but in all probability they were neither Germanic nor Iranian, but an original Indo-European people with haplogroup R1b.

----------


## Cyrus

However I see there are enough linguistic evidences but language is just one of elements of a culture, when I say Germanic culture originated in the small land of Luristan in the west of Iran, there should be certainly other cultural evidences too.

It can be said that all those Luristan style objects (1300-650 BC) in Gotland and other parts of Scandinavia are the result of trade (when? how? we don't know), it is at least shows there were contacts between these two lands before 500 BC, but what about cultural similarities?

For example about *Horse Sacrifice at Eketorp Fort, Sweden* (500 BC), we read:

----------


## Cyrus

I asked in this thread: Is there any linguistic evidence to prove Goths came from Scandinavia? and as you see there is almsot no linguistic evidence, now what about genetic evidences?

We know Gothic culture existed in the Crimea until the 17th century but why the frequency of Germanic haplogroups is very low in the Gothic land?

----------


## Ygorcs

Because we know that Gothic _language_ (language is not necessarily tied to DNA) survivedjust in an isolated mountainous corner of Crimea (it was really a remote remnant, not a thriving language there), and we also know from countless ancient documents as well as archaeological evidence that Goths had a _massive_ emigration from their Eastern European homeland into the Balkans and later to Western Europe (an in their Eastern European homeland they were almost certainly already heavily mixed with local non-Germanic people - you know, people's language is not dependant on people's genetics, people can keep their language even if they mix with and absorb others). Besides, it's always a mistake to assume that present-day Y-DNA haplogroups in any area are representative of the Y-DNA makeup ~1,700 years ago. It's not just that people move, mix or are displaced or replaced genetically. It's also that due to many random factors some lineages are successful here, but not there, some boom and some bust (or boom and then bust), and we all know how _incredibly tumultuous_ the history of the former homeland of Goths has been in the last 1500 years. Even in the absence of any major genetic change (autosomally), the Y-DNA distribution may change completely just due to genetic drift. Modern Y-DNA distributions can and often are very deceiving, especially when we know for a fact that large-scale emigrations and immigrations happened.

EDIT: Also, of course, one needs to be reminded that the Goths were not "Proto-Germanic" nor some sort of "archaic Germanic" museum pieces. They were highly mobile people that together with other Eastern Germanic peoples formed a _later_ branch descended from Proto-Germanic speakers. When we first know about them, they are contemporary to West Germanic people in Germany and North Germanic people in Scandinavia, they aren't some sort of "older people". It's useless to use them as some sort of proxies for what the earliest ancestors of those who would much later become Germanic speakers were like.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I have a genetic question: Why we see a large number of blonde people in the west of Iran, especially around Gotvand/Dezful? One of the most famous people who was born in this region is *Mohammad-Ali Ramin*, Iran's former Vice Minister of Culture and a presidential advisor:
> 
> 
> You have probably read about the physical appearance of ancient Gutians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian...cal_appearance
> 
> Some photos of rural people in Gotvand/Dezful area in the north of Khuzistan: http://www.khouznews.ir/fa/news/17227/%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AE%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%AA-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1


Oh my God, are you - you, the one complaining about Germanic racism and nationalism a few messages earlier - getting into this ludicrous _blonde = Germanic = Indo-European_ thing? Now this is just too much, because you previously had baseless claims, but at least they were purported to sound minimally scientific. Blonde hair and light eyes are not "Germanic", far less "Indo-European", and they certainly predate any PIE-speaking people's migration. Come on... Besides, these blonde-haired people of Iran and other parts of the Middle East (and we all know they're a minority even in the hotspots of blondeness in that region, let's be honest, ok?) do not look "Germanic", their features are different. There are more things about one's phenotype than the hair or eye color. And, of course, none of those visual traits say _anything_ about the actual ancestry of the populatioin. Is that just a desperate "curiosity" because of the obvious fact that there is virtually no connection between Germanic-speaking populations and (ancient or modern) Iranian populationsin the last 4,000 years when you consider actual genetic ancestry? _(and even parental markers, it's just disingenuous from you to portray Germanic and Iranian people as R1b+R1a hybrids, because first Iranian people are NOT just R1b+R1a, secondly there is no such a thing as 'R1b' or 'R1a' people at all, those are just paternal markers and not reliable indicators of a people's full genetic structure, and thirdly because obviously the main subclades of R1b and R1a found in higher frequency in Iran are NOT the same found in higher frequency in Germanic nations)_

----------


## Cyrus

> Because we know that Gothic _language_ (language is not necessarily tied to DNA) survivedjust in an isolated mountainous corner of Crimea (it was really a remote remnant, not a thriving language there), and we also know from countless ancient documents as well as archaeological evidence that Goths had a _massive_ emigration from their Eastern European homeland into the Balkans and later to Western Europe (an in their Eastern European homeland they were almost certainly already heavily mixed with local non-Germanic people - you know, people's language is not dependant on people's genetics, people can keep their language even if they mix with and absorb others). Besides, it's always a mistake to assume that present-day Y-DNA haplogroups in any area are representative of the Y-DNA makeup ~1,700 years ago. It's not just that people move, mix or are displaced or replaced genetically. It's also that due to many random factors some lineages are successful here, but not there, some boom and some bust (or boom and then bust), and we all know how _incredibly tumultuous_ the history of the former homeland of Goths has been in the last 1500 years. Even in the absence of any major genetic change (autosomally), the Y-DNA distribution may change completely just due to genetic drift. Modern Y-DNA distributions can and often are very deceiving, especially when we know for a fact that large-scale emigrations and immigrations happened.
> EDIT: Also, of course, one needs to be reminded that the Goths were not "Proto-Germanic" nor some sort of "archaic Germanic" museum pieces. They were highly mobile people that together with other Eastern Germanic peoples formed a _later_ branch descended from Proto-Germanic speakers. When we first know about them, they are contemporary to West Germanic people in Germany and North Germanic people in Scandinavia, they aren't some sort of "older people". It's useless to use them as some sort of proxies for what the earliest ancestors of those who would much later become Germanic speakers were like.


I hope you don't say again that I didn't understand what you meant, do you mean the mass migration of Goths from Scandinavia to the southeast of Europe is a myth, yes? I think if there were genetic evidences from the ancient skeletons, you would certainly mention them.
And is it possible that we consider a real migration from the west of Iran (land of Gutians) to the southeast of Europe (land of Goths) and finally Scandinavia (Gotland)?

Haplogroup I:


Haplogroup R1b:


New migration map of R1a:

----------


## Cyrus

> Oh my God, are you - you, the one complaining about Germanic racism and nationalism a few messages earlier - getting into this ludicrous _blonde = Germanic = Indo-European_ thing? Now this is just too much, because you previously had baseless claims, but at least they were purported to sound minimally scientific. Blonde hair and light eyes are not "Germanic", far less "Indo-European", and they certainly predate any PIE-speaking people's migration. Come on... Besides, these blonde-haired people of Iran and other parts of the Middle East (and we all know they're a minority even in the hotspots of blondeness in that region, let's be honest, ok?) do not look "Germanic", their features are different. There are more things about one's phenotype than the hair or eye color. And, of course, none of those visual traits say _anything_ about the actual ancestry of the populatioin. Is that just a desperate "curiosity" because of the obvious fact that there is virtually no connection between Germanic-speaking populations and (ancient or modern) Iranian populationsin the last 4,000 years when you consider actual genetic ancestry? _(and even parental markers, it's just disingenuous from you to portray Germanic and Iranian people as R1b+R1a hybrids, because first Iranian people are NOT just R1b+R1a, secondly there is no such a thing as 'R1b' or 'R1a' people at all, those are just paternal markers and not reliable indicators of a people's full genetic structure, and thirdly because obviously the main subclades of R1b and R1a found in higher frequency in Iran are NOT the same found in higher frequency in Germanic nations)_


The fact is that the first thing that I read about Gutians in the ancient Akkadian sources and for this reason I researched about the possibility of their Germanic origin, was this historical fact that they were blonde. As you mentioned blonde people are a small minority in Iran, so it seems to be obvious that in the ancient times they left Iran and migrated to another land.
Of course blond hair dates back to at least 11,000 years ago, so it couldn't be related to neither Germanic, nor even Proto-Indo-European people but it can't be denied in the last thousand years it has been most common in the north of Europe where Germanic people live.

----------


## Cyrus

Other than blond hair, another important physical feature of ancient Gutians which made them different from other people who lived in Iran and closer to Goths and other Germanic people was their physical height, people of Luristan have still the highest average height in Iran and probably the whole Middle East, but we know in the ancient times they were much taller.

For example as you read about an ancient skeleton which was found in Luristan two years ago: https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/...found-in-iran/ "The skeleton measured over two meters (6 feet 6 inches) in height, making him a tall man today but a giant among his peers who averaged 160 cm (5 feet 3 inches)."

----------


## Cyrus

Ygorcs, do you really think that you are rejecting my theory by just saying "WE JUST DON'T KNOW"?!! If you know then you should say that for example these evidences show that the Germanic culture existed in this land before 500 BC or earlier, this thing that you don't know anything about it, doesn't mean that you can reject other theories.

----------


## spruithean

> I asked in this thread: Is there any linguistic evidence to prove Goths came from Scandinavia? and as you see there is almsot no linguistic evidence, now what about genetic evidences?
> 
> We know Gothic culture existed in the Crimea until the 17th century but why the frequency of Germanic haplogroups is very low in the Gothic land?



Y-DNA is not the lone DNA remnant of a population, we have seen countless times autosomal remnants of a population in various regions and this is not Germanic specific. Germanic populations are also not R1b+R1a, they are far more than that and the R1b and R1a clades in Europe are quite distant from those found in Iran.




> Oh my God, are you - you, the one complaining about Germanic racism and nationalism a few messages earlier - getting into this ludicrous _blonde = Germanic = Indo-European_ thing? Now this is just too much, because you previously had baseless claims, but at least they were purported to sound minimally scientific. Blonde hair and light eyes are not "Germanic", far less "Indo-European", and they certainly predate any PIE-speaking people's migration. Come on... Besides, these blonde-haired people of Iran and other parts of the Middle East (and we all know they're a minority even in the hotspots of blondeness in that region, let's be honest, ok?) do not look "Germanic", their features are different. There are more things about one's phenotype than the hair or eye color. And, of course, none of those visual traits say _anything_ about the actual ancestry of the populatioin. Is that just a desperate "curiosity" because of the obvious fact that there is virtually no connection between Germanic-speaking populations and (ancient or modern) Iranian populationsin the last 4,000 years when you consider actual genetic ancestry? _(and even parental markers, it's just disingenuous from you to portray Germanic and Iranian people as R1b+R1a hybrids, because first Iranian people are NOT just R1b+R1a, secondly there is no such a thing as 'R1b' or 'R1a' people at all, those are just paternal markers and not reliable indicators of a people's full genetic structure, and thirdly because obviously the main subclades of R1b and R1a found in higher frequency in Iran are NOT the same found in higher frequency in Germanic nations)_


There is but one summary for OP's logic, a special kind of mental gymnastics.




> I hope you don't say again that I didn't understand what you meant, do you mean the mass migration of Goths from Scandinavia to the southeast of Europe is a myth, yes? I think if there were genetic evidences from the ancient skeletons, you would certainly mention them.
> And is it possible that we consider a real migration from the west of Iran (land of Gutians) to the southeast of Europe (land of Goths) and finally Scandinavia (Gotland)?
> 
> Haplogroup I:
> 
> 
> Haplogroup R1b:
> 
> 
> New migration map of R1a:


https://www.academia.edu/20106155/ON...OF_THEIR_POWER

For fun, something dating from the Wielbark culture, which contained Germanic tribes... notably Goths, Rugii, Gepids to name a few, all of whom are Eastern Germanic tribes that spoke an Eastern branch of the Germanic language family.

Also for fun, from a Wielbark era ancient DNA sample:




> Ancient DNA sample: *KO_55* 100-300 AD Kowalewko Poland Wielbark_Culture *I1a3a1a1a-M253>DF29>Z63>BY151>S2078>S2077>Y2245>L1237* Zenczak 2017


Real neat.




> The fact is that the first thing that I read about Gutians in the ancient Akkadian sources and for this reason I researched about the possibility of their Germanic origin, was this historical fact that they were blonde. *As you mentioned blonde people are a small minority in Iran, so it seems to be obvious that in the ancient times they left Iran and migrated to another land.
> Of course blond hair dates back to at least 11,000 years ago, so it couldn't be related to neither Germanic, nor even Proto-Indo-European people but it can't be denied in the last thousand years it has been most common in the north of Europe where Germanic people live.*


Couldn't possibly be the nature of dominant over recessive genes. You know the whole dark hair, dark eyes being dominant over the recessive blue and blond.




> Other than blond hair, another important physical feature of ancient Gutians which made them different from other people who lived in Iran and closer to Goths and other Germanic people was their physical height, people of Luristan have still the highest average height in Iran and probably the whole Middle East, but we know in the ancient times they were much taller.
> 
> For example as you read about an ancient skeleton which was found in Luristan two years ago: https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/...found-in-iran/ "The skeleton measured over two meters (6 feet 6 inches) in height, making him a tall man today but a giant among his peers who averaged 160 cm (5 feet 3 inches)."


Various African populations are quite tall, are they also descended from Germanic Goths?




> Ygorcs, do you really think that you are rejecting my theory by just saying "WE JUST DON'T KNOW"?!! If you know then you should say that for example these evidences show that the Germanic culture existed in this land before 500 BC or earlier, this thing that you don't know anything about it, doesn't mean that you can reject other theories.


Ah yes the old argument "because it's not there and isn't attested right when I want it to be means it didn't exist". We see cultural continuation in the period leading up to the Germanic era, we also see a very interesting genetic aspect both autosomally and an expansion of haplogroups in Scandinavia (that are still there to this day). 

This thread is like walking into a revolving door and not getting out.

----------


## Cyrus

> Y-DNA is not the lone DNA remnant of a population, we have seen countless times autosomal remnants of a population in various regions and this is not Germanic specific. Germanic populations are also not R1b+R1a, they are far more than that and the R1b and R1a clades in Europe are quite distant from those found in Iran.


When you want to connect a people to modern Germanic people, it doesn't matter that they have Germanic haplogroups or not, but when I talk about the opposite thing, the same haplogroups can't be related to each other!!
It is just in your own imagination that R1a and R1b clades in Europe are quite distant from those found in Iran, genealogists have just found R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 in Iran, and we know 99℅ of R1a and R1b haplogroups in Europe are either the same or descend from these clades.
I don't know why you don't want to use any type of logic!

----------


## spruithean

No, I think you have a clear lack of understanding of phylogeny and how haplogroups "work". You just need to take a look at YFulls tree of the Y-chromosome.
Cyrus, you are also aware that it is expensive to do deep clade tests on samples, right? You are aware that ancient samples may not be high enough quality to do a deep analysis, yes? The samples you reference in Iran are from older studies which predate the technology we now have to do deep haplogroup analyses. I'm not going to begin to explain these concepts because I encourage you study them on your own without bias to confirm your own preconceived notions.

And the OLDEST SAMPLES we have found from ancient times for various R1b and R1a haplogroups you refer to have been found in the Pontic Steppe. We can keep beating this argument to death and we will clearly get absolutely nowhere because you are hellbent on proving that everything came from Iran or has some connection to Iran. Again, you refer to your naysayers as "nationalists" when your own behaviour is suspect.


I would love to actually keep reading these discussions and maybe see some well known scholars with legitimate credentials report what you report, but you keep posting conjecture and sources from obscure documents as "sources" when they are at best secondary sources or completely filled with holes, or entirely pseudoarchaeological (like Heyerdahl). Heyerdahl and those like him make conclusions based on coincidences and through the impression that something can't be discovered or created in two different populations far removed from each other. I refer to your response about Egyptians, the Mesoamerican cultures never once encountered Egyptians, these people both independently designed pyramids. That does not make them a related people. It's a geometric shape that all humans can see and think up in their mind. Heyerdahl made fantastical claims and sought out to prove if various voyages were possible, yet he didn't confirm if they were plausible or feasible. Just because you can float a raft somewhere far away does not mean ancient people did or even would bother, let alone have the technology to do so. I'm referencing is ridiculous voyages of Kon-Tiki (which was an insult to Polynesians) and the Ra voyage.


Your argument is tired, this discussion is tired. It's obvious you aren't willing to actually take a look at what people have provided you on this forum and I'm assuming elsewhere as well.

----------


## Cyrus

> No, I think you have a clear lack of understanding of phylogeny and how haplogroups "work". You just need to take a look at YFulls tree of the Y-chromosome.
> Cyrus, you are also aware that it is expensive to do deep clade tests on samples, right? You are aware that ancient samples may not be high enough quality to do a deep analysis, yes? The samples you reference in Iran are from older studies which predate the technology we now have to do deep haplogroup analyses. I'm not going to begin to explain these concepts because I encourage you study them on your own without bias to confirm your own preconceived notions.
> And the OLDEST SAMPLES we have found from ancient times for various R1b and R1a haplogroups you refer to have been found in the Pontic Steppe. We can keep beating this argument to death and we will clearly get absolutely nowhere because you are hellbent on proving that everything came from Iran or has some connection to Iran. Again, you refer to your naysayers as "nationalists" when your own behaviour is suspect.
> I would love to actually keep reading these discussions and maybe see some well known scholars with legitimate credentials report what you report, but you keep posting conjecture and sources from obscure documents as "sources" when they are at best secondary sources or completely filled with holes, or entirely pseudoarchaeological (like Heyerdahl). Heyerdahl and those like him make conclusions based on coincidences and through the impression that something can't be discovered or created in two different populations far removed from each other. I refer to your response about Egyptians, the Mesoamerican cultures never once encountered Egyptians, these people both independently designed pyramids. That does not make them a related people. It's a geometric shape that all humans can see and think up in their mind. Heyerdahl made fantastical claims and sought out to prove if various voyages were possible, yet he didn't confirm if they were plausible or feasible. Just because you can float a raft somewhere far away does not mean ancient people did or even would bother, let alone have the technology to do so. I'm referencing is ridiculous voyages of Kon-Tiki (which was an insult to Polynesians) and the Ra voyage.
> Your argument is tired, this discussion is tired. It's obvious you aren't willing to actually take a look at what people have provided you on this forum and I'm assuming elsewhere as well.


OK, I don't know how haplogroups work, if you know please answer this question: Haplogroup *R1b1a2a1a* has been found in Khuzistan (Gotvand/Dezful area that I mentioned), what does it mean?
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...4/#!po=2.13675

----------


## spruithean

> OK, I don't know how haplogroups work, if you know please answer this question: Haplogroup *R1b1a2a1a* has been found in Khuzistan (Gotvand/Dezful area that I mentioned), what does it mean?
> Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/#!po=2.13675


Thankfully this study actually listed the SNP in question so we don't need to figure out which ISOGG tree they used, so we don't need to pursue the endless alphabet soup that is the ISOGG tree. The SNP they reference is M412, which is phyloequivalent to L51, S167, PF6536, MF39636, etc. The study you reference is about modern distribution, which is very different from ancient distribution, this can be seen in more than just haplogroup R1b, for example certain clades of haplogroup I2 were found in paleolithic samples in Scandinavia, yet I2 is relatively uncommon in Scandinavia, it is overshadowed by R1b, R1a and I1. I2 was really quite abundant in the very ancient samples across Europe, yet it was clearly replaced by other lineages during a very obvious rapid growth of R1b, R1a and I1 in the Bronze Age timeframe. 

R-L51 (aka M412) was found in the Samara region with the Khvalynsk (5th millennium BC) https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/hap...-4250-4000-bc/ 
Again, this is found in a culture that is contemporaneous/subsequent to cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe such as Repin, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya. The samples they have found an related L23 clades in the Samara region and Pontic-Steppe related cultures is very telling. As this is quite some time before the testing of modern Y-chromosome distribution in modern Iranians that you cite. These ancient samples fit with the timing of the eventual rise of Proto-Indo-Europeans who eventually spread westward and eastward (with the Indo-Iranian group branching off toward Iran and India). 

https://indo-european.eu/2018/04/ear...ng-migrations/

If we look at YFull, they list that R-L51 formed 6100 years before present and diversified 5700 ybp. It's descending branches notably R-L52 and R-S1200, R-U106 and R-Z2118 have wide ranges due to proliferation of these lineages. What are the modern terminal SNPs of these Iranian R-L51/M412s? Were they tested for anything further than M412? Are they M412*? An ancient sample is quite a bit more telling than the modern distribution. 
The paper you cite even states_ 



"Proto-Iranians tribes from Central Asian steppes arrived in the Iranian plateau in the fifth and fourth millennium BP, settled as nomads and further separated in different groups."


_ and the go on to say 


> "_By the third millennium BP, Cimmerians, Sarmatians and Alans populated the steppes North of the Black Sea, while Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Parthians occupied the western part of the Iranian plateau. Other tribes began to settle on the eastern edge, as far East as on the mountainous frontier of north-western Indian subcontinent and into the area which is now Baluchistan. The nowadays Iranian territory had been occupied by Medes (Maad) in the central and north-western regions, Persians (Paars) in the south-western region and by Parthians (Parthav) in the north-eastern and eastern regions of the country. In the 6th century BC Cyrus the Great founded the Achaemenid Empire (the first Persian Empire), which started in South Iran and spread from Libya to Anatolia and Macedonia, encompassing an extraordinary ethno-cultural diversity_"


It would seem logical that Proto-Iranians carrying various R haplogroups, namely clades belonging to the L51 branch and various R1a branches would have spread this lineage in various directions with the migrations and movements of Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Scythians, Alans, Medes, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, etc. and more specifically the Iranian-speaking populations who moved into the Iranian plateau would be responsible for introducing R-L51/M412 into the area introducing it as a lineage from which a portion of the modern Iranian population descends from.

----------


## Cyrus

> Thankfully this study actually listed the SNP in question so we don't need to figure out which ISOGG tree they used, so we don't need to pursue the endless alphabet soup that is the ISOGG tree. The SNP they reference is M412, which is phyloequivalent to L51, S167, PF6536, MF39636, etc. The study you reference is about modern distribution, which is very different from ancient distribution, this can be seen in more than just haplogroup R1b, for example certain clades of haplogroup I2 were found in paleolithic samples in Scandinavia, yet I2 is relatively uncommon in Scandinavia, it is overshadowed by R1b, R1a and I1. I2 was really quite abundant in the very ancient samples across Europe, yet it was clearly replaced by other lineages during a very obvious rapid growth of R1b, R1a and I1 in the Bronze Age timeframe. 
> R-L51 (aka M412) was found in the Samara region with the Khvalynsk (5th millennium BC) https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/hap...-4250-4000-bc/ 
> Again, this is found in a culture that is contemporaneous/subsequent to cultures of the Pontic-Caspian steppe such as Repin, Khvalynsk and Yamnaya. The samples they have found an related L23 clades in the Samara region and Pontic-Steppe related cultures is very telling. As this is quite some time before the testing of modern Y-chromosome distribution in modern Iranians that you cite. These ancient samples fit with the timing of the eventual rise of Proto-Indo-Europeans who eventually spread westward and eastward (with the Indo-Iranian group branching off toward Iran and India). 
> https://indo-european.eu/2018/04/ear...ng-migrations/
> If we look at YFull, they list that R-L51 formed 6100 years before present and diversified 5700 ybp. It's descending branches notably R-L52 and R-S1200, R-U106 and R-Z2118 have wide ranges due to proliferation of these lineages. What are the modern terminal SNPs of these Iranian R-L51/M412s? Were they tested for anything further than M412? Are they M412*? An ancient sample is quite a bit more telling than the modern distribution. 
> The paper you cite even states and the go on to say 
> It would seem logical that Proto-Iranians carrying various R haplogroups, namely clades belonging to the L51 branch and various R1a branches would have spread this lineage in various directions with the migrations and movements of Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Scythians, Alans, Medes, Persians, Bactrians, Parthians, etc. and more specifically the Iranian-speaking populations who moved into the Iranian plateau would be responsible for introducing R-L51/M412 into the area introducing it as a lineage from which a portion of the modern Iranian population descends from.


Thanks for your reply, as you see in Table 1, these haplogroups have the highest frequency in Iran:
1. R1a-M198
2. R1b-L23
3. J2a-M530
4. J1c3
Is it true that J1 and J2 relate to Semitic, Elamite, Hurrian, ... people but R1a and R1b relate to Indo-Europeans? Who were these Indo-European people? Were they Indo-Iranians? Or Celtic people? Or proto-Indo-Europeans?
The interesting point is that Iranian Assyrians have the highest frequency of R1b-L23 (55.6℅).

----------


## Ygorcs

> I hope you don't say again that I didn't understand what you meant, do you mean the mass migration of Goths from Scandinavia to the southeast of Europe is a myth, yes? I think if there were genetic evidences from the ancient skeletons, you would certainly mention them.
> And is it possible that we consider a real migration from the west of Iran (land of Gutians) to the southeast of Europe (land of Goths) and finally Scandinavia (Gotland)?


No, I'm clearly referring to the unquestionably and vastly documented migration of Goths and other East Germanic peoples into the territory of the Roman Empire, with part of them going as far west as Iberia. They migrated en masse and dispersed through several different parts of the territory of the Roman Empire, and subsequently their former homeland in Eastern Europe was subject to profound transformations and intense population movements not just during the Migration Period (with Slavs, Turks, Magyars etc.), but even in recent centuries with the expansion of the East Slavic borders southward.

The R1a map you posted is not exactly "new", you know... And it's "controversial" to say the least.

Autosomally the evidences for a reasonably recent (as in after the divergence of PIE into several distinct language families) migration from Iran to North Europe is virtually null, and the Y-DNA evidences, especially if you consider aDNA (modern Y-DNA distributions are often misleading, as I said), don't seem to back that hypothesis up much better.

----------


## spruithean

> Thanks for your reply, as you see in Table 1, these haplogroups have the highest frequency in Iran:
> 
> 1. R1a-M198
> 2. R1b-L23
> 3. J2a-M530
> 4. J1c3
> 
> Is it true that J1 and J2 relate to Semitic, Elamite, Hurrian, ... people but R1a and R1b relate to Indo-Europeans? Who were these Indo-European people? Were they Indo-Iranians? Or Celtic people?


Haplogroup J1 and J2 are interesting haplogroups. 

The oldest finding of J1 comes from the Satsurblia Cave in Georgia, which is estimated to date to 13,200 BCE. Certain J1 branches are associated with Semitic groups, notably J-P58 (J1c3 in the Iranian Y-chromosome study you cited, the SNP at that time was referred to as PAGE08). Right now the theory for J-P58 appears to to be that it expanded from the more southerly portions of the Levant across the Arabian peninsula in the Bronze Age, some specific clades of J-P58 such as J-Z18297 and J-ZS227 (this one includes the haplotype most commonly believed to be Cohanim), there is another SNP known as FGC12, which seems to be linked to the expansion of Arabic populations in medieval period. There are some haplogroups which are suspected to be linked with Phoenicians, however we don't quite have enough evidence to solidify these links. Now a haplogroup can't exactly be Semitic, Celtic, Slavic, etc. it can merely be associated with these various ethnolinguistic groups. J1 haplogroups do show up in Europe in lower frequencies.

J2 is a much more seemingly widespread haplogroup with an estimated origin somewhere in the Middle East sometime 15,000-22,000 years ago. The oldest sample of J2 belongs to J2a in remains in the Hotu Cave in Iran, this sample dates to 9100-8600 BC (Lazaridis et al reported this in 2016) and another sample found Georgia in Kotias Klde dates from 7940-7600 BC (Broushaki et al reported this in 2016). J2 has an obviously strong presence in Western Asia, however it is also found in Europe and is the most commonly associated lineage with the spread of cereal farming from the Fertile Crescent through to Anatolia and eventually Europe. However this lineage isn't the only likely farmer lineage. Other farmer lineages include G2a, E1b1b and T1a.

However, surprisingly, in 2015, Mathieson et al tested 13 Early Neolithic farmers, specifically their Y-DNA in NW Anatolia these samples were dated to 6500-6200 BC) and only 1 sample belonged to J2a. Lazaridis in 2016 tested 44 ancient NE samples only 2 belonged to J2, same goes for 100 samples tested in Neolithic European sites and yet again only two J2 samples were found. J2 is seemingly absent from Chalcolithic and Bronze Age Indo-European cultures. Interestingly J2 samples have been found if I recall correctly, Minoan sites, which is quite fascinating.

Are you referring to R1b and R1a in Western Asia and specifically Iran? Haplogroups of R1b such as R-PF7562 (estimated to have formed in the Early Bronze Age) are found in the Balkans, Turkey and Armenia, a branch of R-L23 (EBA in Pontic Steppe), specifically R-Z2103 (Bronze Age) is found in Eastern Europe and West Asia. We have to remember that R1b is a HUGE haplogroup, infact we would more accurately refer to it as a paragroup. We have to realize that R1b split into many different haplogroups, one very early branch of R1b, R-V88 is found more commonly in Africa. We can only attach certain haplogroups and their dispersion to PIEans, others are explained by different independent lineages that parted ways with their relatives who would later go on to the PIE homeland. 

The map for R1b from the Paleolithic to the Bronze Age may be of interest to you as it places M343 somewhat north in the Iranian region, which then a descending branch of P25 heads further west where it splits into P297 and V88, the former heading north and the latter heading south through the Levant. The branch that heads north splits into M269 (which heads to the Pontic Caspian steppe) and M73 heads east. M269 eventually migrates toward the Balkans and a descending clade of L23 fans out in multiple directions, with a migration into Anatolia (this branch is labelled R-Z2103), obviously some very old lineages of R1b that may be very private (meaning not widespread) may exist in Iran or the Iranian diaspora.

Attachment 11088

The same thing can be said of the R1a paragroup, it has a WIDE dispersion and it has many branches to its tree, again showing that some branches are of different geographic origins. I recommend you take a look at the R1a haplogroup page here on Eupedia's mainpage, and more specifically the Indo-Iranian section of the page. It explains that the Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers seemed to have originated in the Sintashta-Petrovka culture (from 2100-1750 BC) east of the Ural Mountains, with an ancient sample of R-Z93 being found quite east in the range of the most likely PIE homeland it lines up with this proposed theory. The lineages which appear in Iranian locations are extremely old, with M343 estimated to have formed 22,800 years before present with a TMRCA (diversification) of 20,400 years before present.

An interesting read that mentions some ancient R1b Y-DNA from the Iranian Neolithic as well as basal R-M343* finds in Kazakhstan and Iran, all of which support a southern migration route through Iran https://indo-european.info/ie/R1b-M3...nter-Gatherers 

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...l#Indo-Iranian, there is even an interesting entry for both the Tarim mummies and Turkic speakers and their connection to R1a.

The people who brought R-Z93 (and associated, notably the descending branch of Z94) lineages to Iran would obviously be the Proto-Indo-Iranian people in the case of Iran, other IE groups made their way elsewhere. This is why the map on Eupedia's R1a page for the Neolithic to Bronze Age migration is the "most accurate" we have (at least on this site) right now because it takes into account the ancient samples and the timing of the formation of the branches. Obviously some branches of R1a could have trickled in to Iran through entirely different routes. We need ancient DNA from Iran to better build up the information and help improve things. Now, referring to the R1a map again, obviously it isn't a hardline map, obviously various lineage groups can go off in their own direction, so groups in the Balkans could have jumped across to Anatolia, Caucasus populations with R1a could have had minor migrations into the Middle East and elsewhere. Certain branches of R1b (excluding the old basal ones) may have hitched a ride with the Iranian speakers as they made their way into Iran (which on the R1b map would look like they took a U-turn.)

In regards to these maps, they are not set in stone, they are subject to change and they will change with time as more data comes in. As Ygorcs says aDNA is proving to be a bit more solid than Y-DNA, obviously so as Y-DNA is uniparental and all it takes is one merchant, soldier of fortune, refugee, etc for a lineage to end up somewhere and expand. So far the aDNA that supports the more current accepted theories.

The Celtic end of the Indo-European tree is more likely nestled in central Europe in terms of its origin, this is seen in archaeological record of Bronze Age Europe. Obviously there was a later migration of Celts into Anatolia after some of these Gaulish tribes had been exhausted from warring with Greek kingdoms.

----------


## Yetos

> Thanks for your reply, as you see in Table 1, these haplogroups have the highest frequency in Iran:
> 1. R1a-M198
> 2. R1b-L23
> 3. J2a-M530
> 4. J1c3
> Is it true that J1 and J2 relate to Semitic, Elamite, Hurrian, ... people but R1a and R1b relate to Indo-Europeans? Who were these Indo-European people? Were they Indo-Iranians? Or Celtic people? Or proto-Indo-Europeans?
> The interesting point is that Iranian Assyrians have the highest frequency of R1b-L23 (55.6℅).


about J2a and J2b don't be so sure, 
The Lazarides 2016 and 2017 pappers were a surprise.
and maybe in future will find more surprises about these 2,
S Caucasos have more to tell us, and surprise us.

for example, why most of J2b is connected with East and asian populations, 
there is a seperated, isolated, high peak pool, in Dalmatia.
or what common have Aegean with Urals?

link 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...o-major-clades

----------


## Ygorcs

> Thanks for your reply, as you see in Table 1, these haplogroups have the highest frequency in Iran:
> 1. R1a-M198
> 2. R1b-L23
> 3. J2a-M530
> 4. J1c3
> Is it true that J1 and J2 relate to Semitic, Elamite, Hurrian, ... people but R1a and R1b relate to Indo-Europeans? Who were these Indo-European people? Were they Indo-Iranians? Or Celtic people? Or proto-Indo-Europeans?
> The interesting point is that Iranian Assyrians have the highest frequency of R1b-L23 (55.6℅).


There's no such a thing as a categorical association of any more basal clade of a haplogroup, let alone basal ones like R1a and R1b (both of which have at least 20,000 years old), with one and only language family. Y-DNA haplogroups don't "speak languages", and most of them are too old and too dispersed to be associated with just one language group. 

R1b and R1a most certainly do not relate to Indo-Europeans as a whole. Some specific and more recent subclades of them may have expanded together with Indo-European languages (and I don't think generic R1b-L23 has a lot to do with that process, but rather specifically R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51), but even that is just a correlation, not a necessary link between one and the other, and correlations aren't necessarily causation of course (people may shift their language, become assimilated into other society and so on - even without major genetic changes, see e.g. the case of Hungarians). There was no "R1b people" or "R1a people", but just people who carried much more of this or that haplogroup, and two peoples carrying much of the very same haplogroup can be and often are in fact very different from each other genetically. 

The fact that modern Iranian Assyrians have the highest frequency of R1b-L23 also demonstrates another caveat: Y-DNA frequencies are _extremely_ subject to genetic drift due to many things (genetic bottleneck, drift by relative isolation, random ascendancy of some lineages at the detriment of others i.e. social/sexual selection etc.). A former minor lineage may rise to very big frequencies in just a few centuries, but it won't change the fact that that lineage was not particularly related to that population in its origin. Without aDNA that caveat becomes even more problematic. Be careful when dealing with Y-DNA haplogroups, all sorts of wrong conclusions have been drawn from naive understandings of what they mean and how they work.

----------


## spruithean

Thank you including this, I didn't think to include this as a caveat. It is an excellent post.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Ygorcs, do you really think that you are rejecting my theory by just saying "WE JUST DON'T KNOW"?!! If you know then you should say that for example these evidences show that the Germanic culture existed in this land before 500 BC or earlier, this thing that you don't know anything about it, doesn't mean that you can reject other theories.


You're splitting hairs. Firstly, it's not "we just don't know": it's "we don't have evidences for your claims, period". If you don't have enough evidence for a very unusual claim, then wait and search for evidences, and only after you find them create a fancy hypothesis to explain the evidences. That's how science works. If you think science is only about positing hypothesis no matter how unsubstantiated and fanciful they are, and not also about rejecting hypotheses based on thin air when in fact there is *no* evidence available, then you know nothing about science, man. Do you think scientists only make hypotheses, they don't equally reject possible hypotheses based on the fact that there's not enough evidence for those claims? Think again. You should first be a bit humble and read and learn, and then devise your own hypotheses when you can at least interpret the genetic and archaeological data correctly (for we have seen multiple times in these threads that you don't get even some very basic concepts and you sound confused and mistaken about many topics). 

By the way, there is a _lot_ of archaeological evidence of continuit from the Nordic Bronze Age to the early unquestionably (attested) Germanic cultures.

Where did you take this dating 500 B.C.? From the fact I told you Proto-Germanic is dated to roughly between 500 B.C.-1 A.D.? Really? That only proves once again to me how little you understand of the scientific matters you're trying to usein an _ad hoc_ way to prove your "pet theory", while it's obvious that you aren't _really_ interested in the history of those peoples as a whole, just as an instrument to prove that you're right (of course it must have nothing do with your being from Iran, but okay...). When we say Old Latin is dated to roughly between ~750 B.C. and ~200 B.C. we are obviously not claiming that before 750 B.C. no Latin-like language was spoken around Rome, and Old Latin can only have come from a place far away, or that Old Latin just "appeared" out of the blue. It's just an approximate period where a language with all the characteristics, because languages don't ever stop evolving, the transition from one language to the other is smooth and slow, with no clear rupture. Similarly, it is obvious that when Proto-Germanic is dated to ~500 B.C. at the earliest it does not mean that its earlier linguistic forms (pre-PGM) were not spoken and could not be found in the same territory or somewhere nearby. Portuguese came from Latin, but the evolution was _in situ_, and there was obviously linguistic and (partially) cultural continuity from the Latin-speaking times to the Portuguese-speaking times. Ditto for what must've happened from a pre-PGM language to a Proto-Germanic language: languages evolve gradually, Proto-Germanic appearing in ~500 B.C. does not mean that the Proto-Germanic-speaking culture and people also appeared in ~500 B.C. You're confusing everything, and these are really basic concepts.

----------


## Ygorcs

> When you want to connect a people to modern Germanic people, it doesn't matter that they have Germanic haplogroups or not, but when I talk about the opposite thing, the same haplogroups can't be related to each other!!
> It is just in your own imagination that R1a and R1b clades in Europe are quite distant from those found in Iran, genealogists have just found R1a-M17 and R1b-L23 in Iran, and we know 99℅ of R1a and R1b haplogroups in Europe are either the same or descend from these clades.
> I don't know why you don't want to use any type of logic!


That's maybe because Spruithean understands Y-DNA phylogeny and ancient population genetics better than you and knows fully well that it isn't R1a-M17 (by the way R1a-M17 is not the same as R1a-M417, okay? R1a-M17 is _basal_ R1a) and R1b-L23 are not particularly to Germanic people at all, but only specific and obviously more recent subclades: R1b-U106, R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664. And even that is just a correlation, not necessarily a categorical link, because Germanic people obviously neighbored other peoples and exchanged genes with them. What are the frequencies of those Y-DNA clades in Iran? I doubt they exist in non-negligible frequencies.

----------


## spruithean

In response to the the frequencies of those haplogroups in Iran, here is the table provided by the 2012 study cited earlier:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...-0041252-t001/
Upon further inspection of these, just for the fun of it I see I-M253 listed in the chart in somewhat low frequencies, in populations which are close to the Caspian sea, which did see a Kievan Rus' expedition. Just a fun bit of information, for me at least.

Lets discuss the continuity of the Nordic Bronze Age and its successors...

We see sites in the plains of Denmark and southern Sweden where the population had been quite stable, and this stability dates back to the Neolithic period, and this stability sort of plays into the arrival of the Corded Ware culture which probably brought the precursors to the Germanic languages. In the 2nd millennium BC we see an expansion of the Nordic BA as it spread toward the Elbe and Oder river estuaries, around 750 BC evidence shows that the culture in the area was shifting towards a more uniform state with the people in this cultural sphere inhabiting areas from southern Scandinavia, North Sea coast and the Baltic coast, in short from the Netherlands to the Vistula in Poland. 

I would like to add to this that it has been shared on a genetics oriented blog where the autosomal DNA shows a stability from the Nordic Late Neolithic to the Nordic Bronze Age, and that it seems quite likely that Scandinavia did not experience a major population shift in either the Nordic LN or Nordic BA periods. 

Around 250 BC it is understood that there was a probable expansion southwards that introduced five groups of "Germanic" dialects ranging from North, North Sea, Rhine-Weser, Elbe and East Germanic dialects. At the same time the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures were active, so there would have definitely been some interaction between these "Germanic" groups and their more Celtic neighbours. I recall that we find Celtic loanwords in proto-Germanic, at least along the Rhine, which was the natural border and the border the Romans used to attempt to delineate Celt from Germani.

It's not clear what Caesar first meant by _Germani_ as the origin is unclear, however the border zones of the Celtic and Germanic cultures is fuzzy with each group sharing blatantly obvious similarities, and isn't exactly easy to differentiate Celt from Germani here simply based on archaeology alone (examples being the Gundestrup cauldron). It is theorized that these various blurred groups became fully Germanized through an elite-dominance system (which has parallels in England or the Oksywie transition to Wielbark in Poland, etc.). The Germanic tribes in the better documented Roman period were rather transitory, Eastern Germanic groups were the most migratory.

Western Germanic groups eventually settled down and adopted a more "stationary" lifestyle, while their Eastern counterparts stayed on the move. We know this because the Romans were very detail oriented in their organizations of various tribes as a method they could use for exploitation of differences and pick out certain leaders for their own benefit (the Roman Empire's benefit that is).

To add to the Gothic migrations and a lack of "their" DNA being left behind is easily explained as Ygorcs previously outlined, I would also like to add that we see a greater amount of tribal mixing in Central-East to East Europe with successive waves of incoming migratory tribal confederations, namely Huns, Avars, Alans, Magyars, etc. Interestingly enough, in a recently published paper we see a Hun with R-U106 Y-DNA, an Avar period individual with the Y-DNA haplogroup of I1 and a Magyar era individual with the Y-DNA haplogroup of I1 (however his autosomal DNA shows he was 67% East Asian and 33% European). Y-DNA isn't entirely reliable when searching for the remains of an ancient population as these lines can be replaced by other lineages and clearly one can be entirely autosomally different from their original Y-DNA forebear. Here is the study on the Huns, Avars and Conquerors in Hungary: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/597997v1.full

We actually have a Gepid-era sample from the Balkans that shows a distinct autosomal affinity towards Scythian populations as well as Germanic populations. This is reasonable as the Gepids were one of the important vassals of Attila the Hun. With some of the Gepid chiefs (after their most notable king Ardaric) had names of Turkic origin, namely Giesmus and Mundus. The Huns being a steppe confederation likely contained Scytho-Sarmatian elements which can account for the Gepid admixture of that sample. The Gepids also show in some burials Germanic clothing and Turko-Avar armour, which agrees with them being a vassal of the Huns and later subjugated by the Pannonian Avars.

I think I should add that it is easy to make the mistake of assuming that these cultures were set in stone in terms of the origins of the people, when we should be looking at it from a more fluid sense in that you can have an ethnic core of a group from which the group gets its name, but as you move out to the "periphery" we find more of a mixture of different groups living within a confederation of people, who have been assimilated fully or partially. This is obvious in the Huns and Magyars, Magyars especially who as they moved west from their homeland in the east they incorporated several different groups of people into their ranks, yet the Hungarian language persisted through what seems to be an elite-dominance system. Again this is seen in Anglo-Saxon England, Scandinavian settlement of Normandy (although the resident language was dominant), Kievan Rus' (Scandinavian elite initially)

EDIT: I would like to add the following link which shows the original East Germanic population is linked to Jutland Iron Age and Bell Beaker: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20705-6 , this is an mtDNA based study, however there is an instance of a Y-DNA I-L1237 (subclade of I-Z63) found in this location, and I know of at least one Longobard sample in Collegno (CL63), which the BAM file was analyzed through an independent curious mind who determined that this Collegno Longobard was I-Y2245, which is upstream of L1237. I will note that a decent amount of I1 was found in this Polish study which found the I-L1237, they also found several other branches of I1 in other archaeological periods. The I-L1237 sample stands out most for his dating in the Wielbark culture.

----------


## Cyrus

> The R1a map you posted is not exactly "new", you know... And it's "controversial" to say the least.


What is controversial about it? As you read about haplogroup R1a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a "A large, 2014 study by Peter A. Underhill et al., using 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluded that there was compelling evidence that "the initial episodes of haplogroup *R1a diversification* likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day *Iran*."



As you see it show a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia, before talking about other things, first you should show me a new study which fundamentally rejects Underhill's theory by of course using valid evidences. As I said in another thread we have also valid genetic evidences that haplogroup R1a-M17 existed in different parts of Iran from at least 6,000 years ago and it has still the highest frequency in this country.

----------


## Cyrus

As I see almost all researches in the recent years say the same thing about *R1a*, for example Dr. Csaba Barnabas Horvath says "Present day microsatellite variance would suggest the origin of European R1a somewhere around present day Turkey and Iran. This, according to its’ present distribution in Europe, with higher microsatellite variance in Central Europe than in Eastern Europe or Central Asia, would clearly suggest a route through Anatolia and the Balkans."

----------


## markod

> Around 250 BC it is understood that there was a probable expansion southwards that introduced five groups of "Germanic" dialects ranging from North, North Sea, Rhine-Weser, Elbe and East Germanic dialects. At the same time the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures were active, so there would have definitely been some interaction between these "Germanic" groups and their more Celtic neighbours. I recall that we find Celtic loanwords in proto-Germanic, at least along the Rhine, which was the natural border and the border the Romans used to attempt to delineate Celt from Germani.


The Celtic loans are found in Norse as well. That's why continuity doesn't work, imho. There must have been massive language replacement by a group that had contacts with the Celts. The Jastorf model explains this better.

----------


## nornosh

Could you meet in the middle regarding the origin of Germanic peoples I mean not Scandinavia not Luristan but maybe Northern Caucasia(Pontic Steppe). The Akkadian vocabulary too could have entered Proto Germanic language by Semitic peoples of Caucasus in bronze age not directly by the Akkadian people.

----------


## Cyrus

I think there should be a map for R1a-M17, I created it:

----------


## spruithean

> What is controversial about it? As you read about haplogroup R1a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a "A large, 2014 study by Peter A. Underhill et al., using 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia, concluded that there was compelling evidence that "the initial episodes of haplogroup *R1a diversification* likely occurred in the vicinity of present-day *Iran*."
> 
> 
> 
> As you see it show a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia, before talking about other things, first you should show me a new study which fundamentally rejects Underhill's theory by of course using valid evidences. As I said in another thread we have also valid genetic evidences that haplogroup R1a-M17 existed in different parts of Iran from at least 6,000 years ago and it has still the highest frequency in this country.


I believe you've misunderstood Ygorcs. He stated that the map that Eupedia provides on their R1a page is not exactly updated and it is "controversial" for many. However your map is also controversial, you do not take into account the oldest samples of M417 and Z93, which have been found in the Pontic Steppe with another Z93 individual found in Bronze Age Mongolia. Our oldest example of M417 comes from the Eneolithic period in the Ukraine like I had just previously mentioned. Mathieson et al data has been organized into a chart which can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...gid=1261376483, Individual ID I6561 is R-M417, this is in the Sredny Stog cultural area.




> As I see almost all researches in the recent years say the same thing about *R1a*, for example Dr. Csaba Barnabas Horvath says "Present day microsatellite variance would suggest the origin of European R1a somewhere around present day Turkey and Iran. This, according to its’ present distribution in Europe, with higher microsatellite variance in Central Europe than in Eastern Europe or Central Asia, would clearly suggest a route through Anatolia and the Balkans."


To expand on your quote from that paper by Dr. Horvath:

_"The problem is the hitherto absence of R1a even in samples from prehistoric cultures where data is relatively abundant, and where its’ present day microsatellite variance would suggest its’ origins. Present day microsatellite variance would suggest the origin of European R1a somewhere around present day Turkey and Iran.114 This, according to its’ present distribution in Europe, with higher microsatellite variance in Central Europe than in Eastern Europe or Central Asia, would clearly suggest a route through Anatolia and the Balkans. However among ancient YNDA [sic] data gained from 26 samples of the Anatolian Neolithic, R1a (as well as R1b) is entirely absent,115 and it is also absent from Neolithic cultures ofthe Balkans, such as the Stračevo,116 Vinča,117 and Lengyel118119 cultures."

_He then goes on to say: 

_"Even if the number of samples is relatively few from these cultures, the fact that R1a is missing from all of them seems to be too much for a mere coincidence. The only other possible geographic route could be through Central Asia and Eastern Europe, a scenario of which the presence of the four R1a1 samples from the Kunda and Narva cultures may be signs. This scenario is however also contradicted by some ancient DNA data, as the Comb Ware Culture seems to have been dominated by haplogroup N1c, that likely arrived from Siberia or Central Asia the same time when that culture appeared in the region,120 and autosomal DNA data also defines the population of Corded Ware originating from Yamna,121 and not from Comb Ware. Although R1a1 samples from the Narva and Kunda cultures suggest R1a1 presence in the region from before the arrival of N1c, it seems that by the height of Comb Ware Culture, N1c was already predominant in the region, and therefore, Comb Ware Culture seems to be a highly unlikely candidate to be the source of R1a1a predominance in the Corded Ware and Andronovo Cultures. R1a is also absent from the Funnelbeaker culture,122123that geographically was the direct predecessor of the Corded Ware in its’ own region, so not only Comb Ware, but also Funnelbeaker seems to be anunlikely candidate for that role."

_He proceeds:

_"Since R1a is not only absent from Neolithic Balkan cultures, but it is also absent from all cultures in Central Europe before Rössen, and Cucuteni ie. before 4800 BC, (most notably from western LBK124125) little space seem to remain in Early Neolithic Europe for the role of the original homeland of R1a1a. So while R1a1a is predominant in ancient DNA samples from the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, in accordance to its’ present day geographical distribution, it seems to have been almost entirely absent from everywhere from before that. To put it sharply, it seems to have arrived from nowhere, to dominate Bronze Age Eastern Europe and Central Asia.If our approach is to find cultures with R1a abundance, the only space that remains for R1a are cultures from which ancient YDNA samples are as of now unavailable, and that are at the same time the direct predecessors of the Corded Ware and Andronovo cultures, where R1a1a is already proven to have been predominant."_

He doesn't even agree with you due to the lack of R1a clades found in Neolithic cultures in central Europe and the Balkans so he proceeds to say that the Anatolia route is not viable. He then says that a route through Central Asia and Eastern Europe is more plausible. We now have evidence that supports that early important R1a clades were present in important periods in the Steppes when we would have expected them to be found in the Neolithic cultures of Anatolia or the Balkans, if we were to rely on the microsatellite variance. Why did you cut out parts of your quote? 

For those who want the full read:
https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/...view/6837/6563





> The Celtic loans are found in Norse as well. That's why continuity doesn't work, imho. There must have been massive language replacement by a group that had contacts with the Celts. The Jastorf model explains this better.


Honestly I agree with you, but I was more referring to a continuity of the people, right now the genetic evidence, especially through Eurogenes calculations show that it is unlikely that Scandinavia experienced a population shift. Perhaps a cultural shift, Culture doesn't necessarily need a mass amount of people to come in, just an elite-dominance. However, we'll have a better idea when we acquire more samples, it doesn't help that the parts of Scandinavian soil do not lend themselves to the preservation of genetic material.




> Could you meet in the middle regarding the origin of Germanic peoples I mean not Scandinavia not Luristan but maybe Northern Caucasia(Pontic Steppe). The Akkadian vocabulary too could have entered Proto Germanic language by Semitic peoples of Caucasus in bronze age not directly by the Akkadian people.


No, because the evidence doesn't really lend itself to it, however Northern Caucasus being close to the Pontic Steppe fits better in terms of the evidence that we have now for the origin of PIEans. As for Semitic vocabulary in Proto-Germanic, there really isn't any, and sound shifts don't line up as PIE would have to borrow certain sounds, it is more likely that pre-Germanic acquired non-IE traits from the cultures it neighboured, such as Balto-Finnic speakers or the population that already was present in Scandinavia before the arrival of the people who would bring the ancestor of proto-Germanic to the area.

There are some abstract ideas online which try to tie Haplogroup I (only because of the common root of HG IJ for both I and J haplogroups) to the introduction of an Afroasiatic language in the area... but we have no evidence for the languages of which the people who first entered Europe spoke.




> I think there should be a map for R1a-M17, I created it:


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

----------


## nornosh

> There are some abstract ideas online which try to tie Haplogroup I (only because of the common root of HG IJ for both I and J haplogroups) to the introduction of an Afroasiatic language in the area... but we have no evidence for the languages of which the people who first entered Europe spoke.


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.

----------


## Cyrus

> To expand on your quote from that paper by Dr. Horvath:
> 
> [I]"The problem is the hitherto absence of R1a even in samples from prehistoric cultures where data is relatively abundant, and where its’ present day microsatellite variance would suggest its’ origins. Present day microsatellite variance would suggest the origin of European R1a somewhere around present day Turkey and Iran.114 This, according to its’ present distribution in Europe, with higher microsatellite variance in Central Europe than in Eastern Europe or Central Asia, would clearly suggest a route through Anatolia and the Balkans. However among ancient YNDA *[sic]* data gained from 26 samples of the Anatolian Neolithic, R1a (as well as R1b) is entirely absent,115 and it is also absent from Neolithic cultures ofthe Balkans, such as the Stračevo,116 Vinča,117 and Lengyel118119 cultures."


It actually shows this migration certainly didn't happen in the Neolithic age, of course it is possible that they were some migrations from Iran to the northern lands through the Caucasus and Central Asia in the old times but the Germanic migration dates back to the bronze age. What is the oldest Germanic R1a (L664)?

----------


## spruithean

> 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.


Agreed, but the languages of Europe prior to IE are really not well attested besides Basque. In the case of Scandinavia, maybe some Uralic speakers were there at the right time, which can account for the Uralic loanwords in Germanic.




> It actually shows this migration certainly didn't happen in the Neolithic age, of course it is possible that they were some migrations from Iran to the northern lands through the Caucasus and Central Asia in the old times but the Germanic migration dates back to the bronze age. What is the oldest Germanic R1a (L664)?


Yeah, we know the migration didn't happen in the Neolithic because the R1a clades we are looking for were in the Neolithic sites in the steppe. R-L664 as far as I know has not been acquired in ancient testing yet. So no assumptions can made until we acquire the data. The major European clades all show a rapid expansion in the Bronze Age period. L664 is dated to have formed in the Bronze Age according to YFull's data.

I should add the following that the R1a-M420* (asterisk meaning that these are isolated and they do not test positive for the downstream SNPs that are widespread) that have been found in Iran and the Caucasus cannot be ancestral to the ancient East European R1a. R-M420* are early offshoots of the more basal lineage of M420 and they are on an entirely different branch than the Z93 branch. Z93 is downstream of Z645 which is downstream of M417. These branches have already been found in Yamnaya-esque LN/BA Eastern European locations through analyses of ancient samples, it's impossible for these Yamnaya-esque LN/BA EE individuals to have been recent migrants as they are a mixture of local forager people + ancient Euro farmer people, this was established through DNA testing and analysis of the the autosomal DNA. Another thing to point out is that all ancient R1a-Z93 samples show Eastern European foraging ancestry, again all evidence shows that Z93 is from the steppe. Besides Z93 has a lot of variance and structure to its lineages in South Asia, this is not a local feature, it's from the steppes. There are suggestions that this could mean that a Kazakh steppe (Kazakh not meaning ethnicity, but geography) population featured high levels of Z93 (including diversity) and perhaps several waves made their way into South Asia.

Now to visualize the R1a tree better:
https://yfull.com/tree/R1a/

Here we see that R-M420* (R1a* in this tree) is on an entirely different very early branch from all others that descend from the basal M420 lineage. 

And again, Ancient Y-DNA far outweighs modern Y-DNA. Populations can mix and certain lineages eventually become dominant, often times an ethnic group survives while another goes extinct. A prime example is that of ancient Europe prior to Bronze Age. We see old lineages in Europe that get replaced by R1b clades and others. This can be from a violent process, genetic drift, etc.

----------


## Cyrus

> I should add the following that the R1a-M420* (asterisk meaning that these are isolated and they do not test positive for the downstream SNPs that are widespread) that have been found in Iran and the Caucasus cannot be ancestral to the ancient East European R1a. R-M420* are early offshoots of the more basal lineage of M420 and they are on an entirely different branch than the Z93 branch. Z93 is downstream of Z645 which is downstream of M417. These branches have already been found in Yamnaya-esque LN/BA Eastern European locations through analyses of ancient samples, it's impossible for these Yamnaya-esque LN/BA EE individuals to have been recent migrants as they are a mixture of local forager people + ancient Euro farmer people, this was established through DNA testing and analysis of the the autosomal DNA. Another thing to point out is that all ancient R1a-Z93 samples show Eastern European foraging ancestry, again all evidence shows that Z93 is from the steppe. Besides Z93 has a lot of variance and structure to its lineages in South Asia, this is not a local feature, it's from the steppes. There are suggestions that this could mean that a Kazakh steppe (Kazakh not meaning ethnicity, but geography) population featured high levels of Z93 (including diversity) and perhaps several waves made their way into South Asia.
> 
> Now to visualize the R1a tree better:
> https://yfull.com/tree/R1a/
> 
> Here we see that R-M420* (R1a* in this tree) is on an entirely different very early branch from all others that descend from the basal M420 lineage. 
> 
> And again, Ancient Y-DNA far outweighs modern Y-DNA. Populations can mix and certain lineages eventually become dominant, often times an ethnic group survives while another goes extinct. A prime example is that of ancient Europe prior to Bronze Age. We see old lineages in Europe that get replaced by R1b clades and others. This can be from a violent process, genetic drift, etc.


I didn't get what you mean, isn't M417 a subclade of M17?

----------


## spruithean

M417 is downstream of M198 (which is essentially equivalent to M17, meaning they define the same subclade). M198/M17 is a descending branch of R-M459, which can also be referred to as R-SRY1532.2 among other names. R-M459 is a descending branch of R-M420. R-M420 is the basal R1a haplogroup that formed 22,800 ybp and diversified roughly 18,000 ybp.

So from the top down:

R1a (M420) formed 22,800 YBP, TMRCA 18,000 YBP
- R1a-M420*
- R-YP4141
- R-M459- R-M459*- R-YP1272
- R-M198/M17- R-M198*- R-YP1051 - R-M417So what we see above here is that R-M420 branches off into three separate branches, these branches are R-M420* (the isolated early offshoot that has been found in the North Caucasus and Iran populations), a second branch of R-M420 (not to be confused with M420*) is R-YP4141 and a third branch of R-M420 is R-M459. R-M459 branches off into three separate branches, R-M459*, R-YP1272 and R-M198. R-M198 (M17 is in this defining SNP "pack") is the upstream mutation that leads to the following branches of R-M198* (early off shoot, not the same as M198 or later branches), R-YP1051 and R-M417.

What I was referring to is that there is a very large difference between R-M420* (basal early off shoot) and R-M417, they are separated by several thousand years. So the M420* clades that we find in Iran and N. Caucasus aren't the ancestral forms of R-M417 because that is not possible as they are on separate branches of the tree, they share a common ancestor, but M417 is not descended from M420*, but both M417 and M420* are descended from M420.

----------


## Cyrus

> M417 is downstream of M198 (which is essentially equivalent to M17, meaning they define the same subclade). M198/M17 is a descending branch of R-M459, which can also be referred to as R-SRY1532.2 among other names. R-M459 is a descending branch of R-M420. R-M420 is the basal R1a haplogroup that formed 22,800 ybp and diversified roughly 18,000 ybp.
> 
> So from the top down:
> 
> R1a (M420) formed 22,800 YBP, TMRCA 18,000 YBP
> - R1a-M420*
> - R-YP4141
> - R-M459- R-M459*- R-YP1272
> - R-M198/M17- R-M198*- R-YP1051 - R-M417So what we see above here is that R-M420 branches off into three separate branches, these branches are R-M420* (the isolated early offshoot that has been found in the North Caucasus and Iran populations), a second branch of R-M420 (not to be confused with M420*) is R-YP4141 and a third branch of R-M420 is R-M459. R-M459 branches off into three separate branches, R-M459*, R-YP1272 and R-M198. R-M198 (M17 is in this defining SNP "pack") is the upstream mutation that leads to the following branches of R-M198* (early off shoot, not the same as M198 or later branches), R-YP1051 and R-M417.
> ...


I think you are absolutely wrong, Iran is not an isolated island but as most of historians have said, this country has been always at the Crossroad of Civilizations, you can't change all historical facts and genetic evidences for just proving that Germanic people didn't migrate from Iran, it is meaningless to say the main haplogroup of 80 million Iranians differs from the same haplogroup in the east, north and the west of this country, just because in the ancient times one person from this country probably went to modern Ukraine and died there.

----------


## spruithean

You have confused what I mean by "isolated" in this sense. I'm referring to R-M420* which is an independent branch of R-M420, it is not the same as other branches of R-M420 because it is negative for defining mutations that define other clades, so it is marked R-M420*. I'm not referring to the country of Iran itself. Don't jump to conclusions.

I'm not trying to change history, you're the one who claimed the Germanic people came from Iran, you're the one who claims various Germanic people are actually Scythians. You are the same person who posted loose linguistic similarities as evidence that Germanic was a branch of Indo-Iranian. 

Obviously we are going to agree to disagree, and this thread and others like it have gone absolutely nowhere, so do what you wish believe what you want. Maybe publish your ideas for peer review by the same community that has invested a great deal of work into these same studies.

----------


## Cyrus

> You have confused what I mean by "isolated" in this sense. I'm referring to R-M420* which is an independent branch of R-M420, it is not the same as other branches of R-M420 because it is negative for defining mutations that define other clades, so it is marked R-M420*. I'm not referring to the country of Iran itself. Don't jump to conclusions.
> 
> I'm not trying to change history, you're the one who claimed the Germanic people came from Iran, you're the one who claims various Germanic people are actually Scythians. You are the same person who posted loose linguistic similarities as evidence that Germanic was a branch of Indo-Iranian.
> 
> Obviously we are going to agree to disagree, and this thread and others like it have gone absolutely nowhere, so do what you wish believe what you want. Maybe publish your ideas for peer review by the same community that has invested a great deal of work into these same studies.


History is a science, not a divine revelation that you think no one should change it, it is not me who says *R1a diversification occured in Iran* (read what professional genealogists, like Dr. Peter Underhill, say), it is not me who talks about *numerous Akkadian words in proto-Germanic* (read what lingists, like German linguist Dr. Theo Vennemann, say), it is not me who talks about *archaeological relations between Iran and Scandinavia* (read what archaeologists, like Swedish archaeologist Dr. Ture J. Arne, say), ...

I didn't create this map of R1a migration:



I'm just trying to change your false belief about the origin of Germanic people.

----------


## nornosh

When problems couldn't be solved we often look at the upper stages of hgs so if we do this then we see R existed in Ma'alta culture 25,000 BC HG P, Q too were present in Siberia then in ice age they have to get out of there so the question is which region they get to, from which we see todays lineages?

----------


## markod

> When problems couldn't be solved we often look at the upper stages of hgs so if we do this then we see R existed in Ma'alta culture 25,000 BC HG P, Q too were present in Siberia then in ice age they have to get out of there so the question is which region they get to, from which we see todays lineages?


Rumor has it that Tianyuan has been found to have had P.

----------


## spruithean

> History is a science, not a divine revelation that you think no one should change it, it is not me who says *R1a diversification occured in Iran* (read what professional genealogists, like Dr. Peter Underhill, say), it is not me who talks about *numerous Akkadian words in proto-Germanic* (read what lingists, like German linguist Dr. Theo Vennemann, say), it is not me who talks about *archaeological relations between Iran and Scandinavia* (read what archaeologists, like Swedish archaeologist Dr. Ture J. Arne, say), ...
> I didn't create this map of R1a migration:
> 
> I'm just trying to change your false belief about the origin of Germanic people.


I'm not going to go back over what Ygorcs, myself and others have already laid out in terms of genetics because again, the data is out there from studies of ancient DNA and from current population geneticists work that is more current than the study you keep as your cornerstone in this rapidly moving field. I also don't feel I need to go back over any of this. You can find all the data you need in several studies that have come out after Underhill.

Now in regards to your linguistic and archaeological sources:
Again, these are theories that aren't part of the current consensus by the current specialists of these fields. Vennemann hypothesized a lot, and the majority reject his speculations. Germanic etymological research continues and several unclear words now have plausible explanations in Indo-European morphology. The proportion of non-IE words has dropped because of this work. 
Arne with his conclusion of trade contact is not evidence of migration, we already know the ancient world was far more connected than had been previously thought. This trade doesn't even need to be directly between two areas, there can be intermediaries along the way.

You can believe what you wish, however if it is a false belief about the origin of Germanic people then it is a lot more people than me that need to have their view "changed" on this topic then. 

Nornosh, there was a tree of haplogroup R posted over in the comments on a geneticists blog that mentioned dates and ancient samples, one of which was Ma'alta boy. I'll dig that link up.

Markod, I recall seeing that study with Tianyuan man. That find was useful especially when the data was combined with Ust'-Ishim, Ma'alta1, GoyetQ116-1 and Kostenki14. Certainly it helped delineate the early populations of Eurasia.

----------


## Cyrus

> I'm not going to go back over what Ygorcs, myself and others have already laid out in terms of genetics because again, the data is out there from studies of ancient DNA and from current population geneticists work that is more current than the study you keep as your cornerstone in this rapidly moving field. I also don't feel I need to go back over any of this. You can find all the data you need in several studies that have come out after Underhill.


What do you mean by ancient DNA? Do you belieave that several million people with haplogroup R1a-M17 migrated to Iran in the modern times?! When? From which land?! It seems you just don't want to believe that this hapligroup originated in Iran. Some ancient skeletons which date back to at least 6,000 years ago have been found at Tape Silak in the centre of Iran, Iranian genealogists say that they have found R1a-M17 in their DNA, why we shouldn't believe it?

----------


## spruithean

> What do you mean by ancient DNA? Do you belieave that several million people with haplogroup R1a-M17 migrated to Iran in the modern times?! When? From which land?! It seems you just don't want to believe that this hapligroup originated in Iran. Some ancient skeletons which date back to at least 6,000 years ago have been found at Tape Silak in the centre of Iran, Iranian genealogists say that they have found R1a-M17 in their DNA, why we shouldn't believe it?


What I mean by ancient DNA is samples from specific periods of archaeology that show where early clades of R1a (and R1b) have been found, however this is not restricted to uni-parental markers (Y-DNA & mtDNA), this also includes autosomal DNA, which as of right now shows that people in the Yamnaya culture who have had their DNA sequenced show a very specific mixture of Eastern European foragers, European farmers and Caucasus farmers. It's not that I wouldn't want or don't want to believe the haplogroup originated Iran, and I'm open to it, however conflating R1a originating in the Iranian plateau or in the general vicinity with the origin of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is where I think there may be a disconnect here between us, R1a *formed* thousands of years before the cultures that are suspected to have given rise to the Indo-European speakers. When we use all the genetic data available from the large amount of samples that have been acquired in the steppes and elsewhere we can paint a decent picture that points to the PIE homeland being in the Pontic-Steppe, does this mean that the PIE people didn't descend from certain groups that originated elsewhere? No, it just means that the most likely PIE homeland is in the steppes, they may partially descend from a group of people who came from elsewhere, perhaps Caucasus or Iran, but this all very early and far removed from the spread of the Indo-European speaking people.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048219/ 

The haplogroups of R1a that are associated with European groups and Indo-Iranian groups originated quite a bit after the estimated formation date of R1a-M420. The earliest ancient samples of those have been found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (with the exception of an ancient DNA outlier in Mongolia)

Please provide the published work or at least your source for the ancient R-M17 in Tepe Sialk (and better yet provide the source that gives a link to the appropriate BAM file) I would very much like to see it

----------


## Cyrus

> What I mean by ancient DNA is samples from specific periods of archaeology that show where early clades of R1a (and R1b) have been found, however this is not restricted to uni-parental markers (Y-DNA & mtDNA), this also includes autosomal DNA, which as of right now shows that people in the Yamnaya culture who have had their DNA sequenced show a very specific mixture of Eastern European foragers, European farmers and Caucasus farmers. It's not that I wouldn't want or don't want to believe the haplogroup originated Iran, and I'm open to it, however conflating R1a originating in the Iranian plateau or in the general vicinity with the origin of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is where I think there may be a disconnect here between us, R1a thousands of years before the cultures that are suspected to have given rise to the Indo-European speakers. When we use all the genetic data available from the large amount of samples that have been acquired in the steppes and elsewhere we can paint a decent picture that points to the PIE homeland being in the Pontic-Steppe, does this mean that the PIE people didn't descend from certain groups that originated elsewhere? No, it just means that the most likely PIE homeland is in the steppes, they may partially descend from a group of people who came from elsewhere, perhaps Caucasus or Iran, but this all very early and far removed from the spread of the Indo-European speaking people.
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048219/ 
> The haplogroups of R1a that are associated with European groups and Indo-Iranian groups originated quite a bit after the estimated formation date of R1a-M420. The earliest ancient samples of those have been found in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (with the exception of an ancient DNA outlier in Mongolia)
> Please provide the published work or at least your source for the ancient R-M17 in Tepe Sialk (and better yet provide the source that gives a link to the appropriate BAM file) I would very much like to see it


My sources about ancient R1a-M17 are just in Persian, I mentioned one of them in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...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.

----------


## Ygorcs

> As you see *it show a direct migration from Iran to Scandinavia*, before talking about other things, first you should show me a new study which fundamentally rejects Underhill's theory by of course using valid evidences.


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).

----------


## nornosh

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.

----------


## Cyrus

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?

----------


## markod

> 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?


I believe Baikal Neolithic is the oldest.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...52409X16306927

----------


## spruithean

> My sources about ancient R1a-M17 are just in Persian, I mentioned one of them in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...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  :Laughing: , 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/scienc...52409X16306927


I don't think that the Germanic culture existed 7,500 years ago, I talk about it: http://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015...rrior.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...rrior.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/Rec...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-euro..._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-euro..._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&sour...WYFkar9rw1R6pe
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&sour...WYFkar9rw1R6pe
> 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 _present_in 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/...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/...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.

----------


## Cyrus

> 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.


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!!

----------


## Cyrus

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."

----------


## spruithean

> 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!!


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.




> 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."


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/2018/1...uz-fiasco.html and https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/...ions-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?

----------


## Cyrus

> 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/2018/1...uz-fiasco.html and https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/...ions-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.blogs...k-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

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.

----------


## spruithean

> 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.blogs...k-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.


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?




> 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.


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.

----------


## Cyrus

> 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.


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.

----------


## Cyrus

> 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?


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.

----------


## spruithean

> 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 to believe this historical fact.


My own opinion is varied here and there, but this, https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_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/2018/1...uz-fiasco.html, https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/...ions-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

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.

----------


## mihaitzateo

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.

----------


## Cyrus

> My own opinion is varied here and there, but this, https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_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/2018/1...uz-fiasco.html, https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/...ions-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).


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

> 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!!


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

> 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.


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

> 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?!


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.

----------


## nornosh

> 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.


Then which culture the R1b sample(6000 years old) belonged to in your view aren't they IEs. So proto-germanic could be classified as IE.

----------


## hrvclv

Oh, God... This thread deserves an AWARD of its own kind!!

----------


## Cyrus

> Then which culture the R1b sample(6000 years old) belonged to in your view aren't they IEs. So proto-germanic could be classified as IE.


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", ...

----------


## Cyrus

> 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.


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

> 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", ...


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!

----------


## nornosh

We see some migrations of Scythians who were settling as east from Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan to west in Romania, W.Europe(Some groups) so Germanic tribes could too could have lived in S.Caucasia then migrating to W.Europe, but its theory right now.

----------


## Cyrus

> 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.


I think you just want to fool me about the relations between these haplogroups, the same site which says Gutians were Tocharian, says a sample of *R1b-U106* subclade has been found in Loebanr_IA, 950 BC, in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region. I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then *R1b-U106* can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same *R1b-U106* can't be related to Iran!!

----------


## Cyrus

It is interesting to mention that in the same region in the north of Pakistan, Kalash people live:



Isn't it strange that like anicent Gutians, they are also blonde?

----------


## spruithean

> 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.


Au contraire, do you know what is meant by population shift? A noticeable AUTOSOMAL shift. We don't see this. All we see is influx of haplogroups and haplogroup bottlenecks. Did you read the whole chapter on Northern European EEBA? I recommend you do as it gives context to the eventual Germanic peoples.




> 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)."


Again with the omissions of context. You have done this with Dr. Horvath's paper.
Here it is with full context:




> The best candidate for an original homeland of the *Pre-Germanic dialect of North-West Indo-European migrating into Scandinavia is the Beaker culture of the Low Countries and the western part of the Northern European Plain* (Kristiansen 2009). Samples of Bell Beakers and Barbed Wire Beakers from Oostwoud in the Netherlands (ca. 2500–1900 BC) show elevated Steppe ancestry (ca. 58%) and R1b1a1b1a1a2-P312 lineages, compatible with the admixture of Yamna lineages with local Corded Ware peoples.





> Dutch–German lowland areas share cultural roots with the southern Scandinavian area (Butler, Arnoldussen, and Steegstra 2011/2012), which predate technological and economic exchanges between Urnfield and Northern Bronze Age Scandinavia (Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke 2015). Samples of the Bronze Age Elp culture from Oostwoud (ca. 1900–1600 BC) show Steppe ancestry (ca. 51%), and hg. R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106, which is consistent with the apparent Y-chromosome bottleneck of Scandinavian Bell Beakers, and thus with the development of a Pre-Germanic community first around Jutland.





> Nordic Middle Neolithic samples include an individual from Kyndelöse (ca. 2900–2500 BC), of hg. R1a1a1b1a3a-Z284, subclade R1a1a1b1a3a2a1-Z281/CTS2243[51] (Allentoft et al. 2015), and a Late Neolithic sample from Ölsund, central-east Sweden (ca. 2600–2150 BC) shows hg R1a1a1b-Z645 (Mittnik, Wang, et al. 2018), both lineages related to Corded Ware settlers. A replacement of male lines is observed already during the Dagger Period, with two samples reported from Skåne, one from Lilla Bedinge (ca. 2150 BC) of hg. R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106[52], typical of incoming Bell Beakers, and another from Abbekås (ca. 1900 BC) of hg. I1-M253, proper of Neolithic Scandinavia. Dubious is the subclade of a sample from Marbjerg, Denmark (ca. 2080 BC), of hg. R1-M173 (Allentoft et al. 2015), although—based on later samples—probably also R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106.





> 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 scarce samples probably reflect thus the expansion of Pre-Germanic-speaking R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 lineages from the Northern European Lowlands into southern Scandinavia, replacing previous Corded Ware/Battle Axe R1a1a1b1a3a-Z284 lineages in Jutland and the northern Scandinavian coastal areas around the Skagerrak strait, or displacing them to the inland. The close interaction of the newcomers with the Battle Axe culture in Scandinavia (characterised by the Y-chromosome bottleneck of R1a1a1b1a3a-Z284 lineages), connected with the eastern Baltic (see _§__viii.16. Finno-Saami_), is evidenced by the evolution of a *North-West Indo-European-like Pre-Germanic phonology to a Proto-Germanic stage with strong phonetic Uralisms, which is compatible with long-term Finno-Samic–Germanic bilingualism and with Finno-Samic bilingual speakers eventually becoming monolingual speakers of Germanic* (Kallio 2001; Schrijver 2014).





> Haplogroup I1-M253 (more accurately pre-I1) was reported previously only in a hunter-gatherer (ca. 7000 BC) from Gotland (Günther et al. 2017), and it is not clear the extent of its expansion when migrants occupied Scandinavia, first with the Corded Ware culture, and later with the Bell Beaker culture. TRB and Pitted Ware cultures coexisted ca. 3300–2800 BC in Gotland (Fraser, Sanchez-Quinto, et al. 2018), and a replacement of ca. 50% mtDNA haplogroups by steppe lineages during the EBA (ca. 1700–1100 BC) has been reported (Fraser, Sjödin, et al. 2018). Both facts suggest that I1-M253 lineages had a strong presence in southern Sweden at least before the arrival of Bell Beakers, and thrived once integrated into the new emerging Scandinavian Late Neolithic social structure, probably spreading to Jutland through the Kattegat sea area already mixed in different tribes with R1b1a1b1a1a1-U106 lineages, before the migration period.


- Pre-I1 is my addition.

Naturally of course we know this isn't gospel, and things are subject to change overtime as things become more clear, but it is really quite clear that we have fairly strong evidence for an origin in Northern Europe for proto-Germanic. https://indo-european.eu/2019/04/pre...-seal-hunters/




> 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.




Whoever said that anyone said Germanic was a Celtic subbranch? Why do you constantly jump to conclusions? Northern Europe is the likely candidate of proto-Germanic, and again read more than just the entry "Germanic" from the link I provided to _"A Game of Clans - A Clash of Chiefs"_ which has entries preceding it on the same URL for Pre-Roman IA, BA and Neolithic periods in Northern Europe (Jutland area included) it is again stated to be Northern Europe (this is a broad term and the Northern European Plain - which includes Jutland is implicated a lot) as a likely candidate for a Pre-Proto-Germanic dialect locale. Also you've ignored a good chunk of the context with your quote of the page I linked. Above in this response I quoted more for context. 


I strongly believe that roots of Proto-Germanic did their developing in Northern Europe, in fact it more than likely did originate in Northern Europe. You continue to disagree with the common sense of this because it disagrees with your pet theory. Do you really think a language with Uralisms (Finno-Samic influence), Celtic influences, archaic words loaned out to Finnish and loanwords to Balto-Slavic was in or around the Zagros? Seriously? Is that parsimonious?

I strongly recommend you read the WHOLE chapter about Northern EEBA. Also, what "Celtic haplogroups"? No such thing. Only _"haplogroups found more commonly among Celtic-speaking populations"_ this applies to all haplogroups and respective ethnolinguistic populations. No one says these cut and dry statements. Again, I will refer you to Post 132.




> Oh, God... This thread deserves an AWARD of its own kind!!



I know. It's mind blowing how circular this thread is. But it is entertaining.  :Lmao: 




> 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", ...




Let's look at some of these words and others,

hemp - Middle English _hemp, hempe, henpe, henepe, henep, hanep_ from Old English _henep, hænep_ from Proto-Germanic _*hanapiz_, which is a doublet of _cannabis_ and _canvas_. Let's look at cannabis first: Borrowed from Latin _cannabis_ from ancient Greek κάνναβις, a kulturwort of either Scythian or Thracian origin. Word ultimately not a Semitic borrowing into PGmc, but instead a borrowing from Latin from Greek. A likely relic of Phoenician and Greek contact. Which is a hell of a lot more likely than your proposed theory. Now _canvas_, from Middle English _canevas_, from Anglo-Norman from Old Northern French _canevas_, from Latin _cannabis_, from Ancient Greek κάνναβις. In Akkadian the kulturwort is _qunnapu_, Classical Syriac _qnp_, Arabic _qinnab_, Proto-Slavic _*konopja_, Lithuanian _kanãpės_, Old Prussian _knapios_, Vulgar Latin _canapis_, _canapus_, Middle Persian _k'nb (kā̆naβ)_, Persian _kanab_, _kanav_ North Kurdish _konif_, Sogdian _kynp'/kēnapā,_ Chorasmian _knb-ynk_, Ossetian _gæn, gænæ,_ Khotanese _kamha, kumbā,_ Albanian _kânëp, kërp_, the list just goes on. Where is your evidence that qunnapu/kanabu means "Gutian hempen cloth" show me your sources, other wise this is leap and is pure conjecture. This is a kulturwort like the word _computer._ Kulturworts and wanderworts do not define a languages origins.sack - from Old English _sacc_ and _sæcc_ from late PGmc _*sakkuz_ borrowed from Latin _saccus_ which was borrowed from ancient Greek σάκκος (sákkos) which is borrowed from Semitic, likely Phoenician because well you know these two groups, Greeks and Phoenicians encountered one another.hoof - from Middle English _hoof, hof_ from Old English _hōf_, from proto-Germanic _*hōfaz_ from PIE _*ḱoph₂ós._ The Arabic word you cite, خف has a different etymology. The Arabic word for hoof is _ḥāfir_ with a different etymology than the Germanic roots for hoof, there only possible connection is a PIE loanword from a non-IE language, and this goes for ALL derivatives of the root PIE word for hoof (_*ḱoph₂ós_)frolic - borrowed from Dutch _vrolijk_, from Middle Dutch - _vrolijc_ from Old Dutch _*frawalīkaz_, the first part of this word is from proto-Germanic _*frawaz_, which is a cognate of Middle English "frow" meaning "hasty" and _*-līkaz_ is cognate with _-ly_ and _-like_. _*frawaz_ itself comes from Pre-Germanic _*prow-os_ from PIE _*prew_ as in to "jump" or "hop". The Arabic etymology of فرح is different.Fright is from Middle English words _fright, furht_ which ultimately are from Old English _fryhtu, fyrhto_ from Proto-Germanic _*furhtī_ meaning fear, from PIE _*perg-._ Cognates include: Scots _fricht_, Old Frisian _fruchte_, Low German _frucht_, Middle Dutch _vrucht_, German _furcht_, Danish _frygt_, Swedish _fruktan_, Gothic _fuarhtei_. Similar to Albanian frikë which are likely influenced by Gothic considering, well you know Gothic/Gepidic presence in these areas. Arabic has more words for fear than simply فرق, which itself has many meanings not limited to fright, and frankly the sources I looked at showed this word did not mean fright. 

Are you at all familiar with Grimm's Law and Verner's Law? Again, re-read Ygorcs posts (139, 154, 155) about languages. Especially his Portuguese example and sound changes.




> 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.


Again, no real strong etymological argument. What is your evidence for linking, Inkishush, Iarlagab, etc to Germanic names? Even if Gutians spoke an IE language and are somewhat related to Tocharian people it doesn't make them Germanic, which has clear traits showing its origins in Europe (Celtic influences, Uralisms and loan words to Finnish and Proto-Slavic), I should also note that Julius Oppert's theory on Gutians being linked to Germanic Goths is not an accepted theory outside of biased circles, and is more commonly accepted theory in "Pro-Aryan media". That's a big deal, and bad science, as it is a biased position from the outset.




> I think you just want to fool me about the relations between these haplogroups, the same site which says Gutians were Tocharian, says a sample of *R1b-U106* subclade has been found in Loebanr_IA, 950 BC, in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region. I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then *R1b-U106* can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same *R1b-U106* can't be related to Iran!!


We want to fool you? There is no great conspiracy here. Since I know you are using the Indo-European website I'll quote the page and link it for others: https://indo-european.eu/tag/yamnaya-ancestry/




> _"A sample of R1b-U106 subclade is found in Loebanr_IA ca. 950 BC, which – together with the sample of Darra-e Kur – is compatible with the presence of L51 in Yamna."_


 Note that 950BC is also not our oldest sample or R-U106, and the Swat Culture (Gandhara Grave culture) is more than likely related to the BMAC culture Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau, an association with Indo-Aryans is indicated.

R-L23>Z2103 and R-L23>L51>L52>L151>U106 are entirely different branches (refer to my L23 YFull tree link, phylogeny matters! Notice their last common ancestor was L23) that share a common root they are not descended from each other. I also encourage you peruse the Eurogenes Blog, the author there has opposing views to the IE website linked above and it's good to read a balance of views. That entry of that website is about *Yamnaya ancestry* (that bit, right there, is important!) which is also found in the sample you cite. Yamnaya in this context is important, because if indeed Yamnaya is the home land of PIE (in all likelihood it is) it makes sense to find their proposed offshoots showing Steppe admixture. This is why autosomal DNA is important when coupled with Y & mtDNA, it gives the FULL picture.

Also worth noting from the author of that website:




> NOTE. Errors in haplogroups of previously published samples makeevery subclade of new samples from the supplementary table questionable, but all new samples (safe for the Darra_i_Kur one) were analysed and probably reported by the Reich Lab, and at least upper subclades in each haplogroup treeseem mostly coherent with what was expected. Also, the contribution of Iranian Farmer related (a population in turn contributing to Hajji Firuz) to Khvalynsk in their sketch of the genetic history may be a sign of the association of R1b-M269 lineages with CHG ancestry, although previous data on precise R1b subclades in the region contradict this. (EDIT 11 APR 2018) The sample of Hajji Firuz is most likely much younger than the published date, hence its younger subclade may be correct. No revision or comment on this matter has been published, though


The same website that says the Guti were Tocharian? Did you actually read what the author wrote? Or did you omit the other parts?

From this post from that website: https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/con...-l23-lineages/.The full piece about Gutian from the website you claim calls them Tocharian (note I've omitted portions that produce large blank space):




> "Gutian language





> (…) Comparativists have asserted that, in spite of its late appearance, Tokharian is a relatively archaic form of Indo-European.3 This claim implies that the speakers of this group separated from their Indo-European brethren at a comparatively early date. They should accordingly have set out on their migrations rather early, and should have appeared within the Babylonian sphere of influence also rather early. Earlier, at any rate, than the Indo-Iranians, who spoke a highly developed (therefore probably later) form of Indo-European. Moreover, as some of the Indo-Iranians after their division into Iranians and Indo-Aryans4 appeared in Mesopotamia about 1500 B.C., we should expect the Proto-Tokharians about 2000 B.C. or even earlier.
> 
> 
> If, armed with these assumptions as our working hypothesis, we look through the pages of history, we find one nation – one nation only – that perfectly fulfills all three conditions, which, therefore, entitles us to recognize it as the “Proto-Tokharians”. Tis name was Guti; the intial is also spelled with q (a voiceless back velar or pharyngeal), but the spelling with g is the original one. The closing -i is part of the name, for the Akkadian case-endings are added to it, nom. Gutium etc. Guti (or Gutium, as some scholars prefer) was valid for the nation, considered as an entity, but also for the territory it occupied.
> 
> (…).
> 
> 
> The text goes on to follow the invasion of Babylonia by the Guti, and further eastward expansions supposedly connected with these, to form the attested Tocharians.
> ...





_"Tocharian-like"_ does not equal "Tocharian" we don't call donkeys "horses" because they are _horse-like_ that would be flat out wrong, and the Guti are not Tocharian ancestors even if an IE speaking people. Tocharian is far removed from Germanic. If the Guti are related to Tocharians it doesnt make them Germanic. I aleady highlighted this in Post 143

Again, I will mention yet again that autosomal evidence shows no Iranian components in Nordic Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Migration Period Germanic-associated ancient DNA samples or Medieval Germanic-speaking area aDNA samples. If this supposed Germanic out of Iran migration happened wouldn't we expect it to show up on an autosomal level? It would have to be a fairly sizable migration no? We aren't talking "Iranian" in the cultural sense with these components we are taking about genetic components in the geographical sense (see Ygorcs post on these components), The components that contributed to the populations of Iran like Hunter-Gatherer, Farmer, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, BA, IA, etc. we do not see any signs of this sort of admixture in Nordic LN, BA, IA, Migration Period, Medieval Period Germanic-associated ancient DNA Why? Did these people just up and vanish? If there is no sign of an autosomal influx how can the migration have happened? Where are the archaeological signs? The only archaeological evidence you've shown us some animal figurines, which if we are being honest isn't exactly proof, come on any one can come up with similar looking things out of sheer imagination and creativity. Saying these prehistoric North Europeans couldn't have created such art of their own is ridiculous.

----------


## spruithean

(continued)

More about the Hajji Firuz sample and RC dating issue: 

From the same website (this not the only website to report a carbon dating issue with Hajji Firuz: 



> A sample from Hajji Firuz in Iran ca. 5650 BC, of subclade R1b-Z2103, may confirm Mesolithic R1b-M269 lineages from the Caucasus as the source of CHG ancestry to Khvalynsk/Yamna, and be thus the reason why Reich wrote about a potential PIE homeland south of the Caucasus . (EDIT 11 APR 2018) The sample shows *steppe ancestry*, therefore the date is most likely incorrect, and a new radiocarbon dating is due. It is still interesting – depending on the precise subclade – for its potential relationship with IE migrations into the area.






> It is interesting to mention that in the same region in the north of Pakistan, Kalash people live:





> Isn't it strange that like anicent Gutians, they are also blonde?



Here we go again, citing phenotypes as evidence of a certain ethnolinguistic groups presence. This phenotype is not restricted to Germanic-speaking people and certainly not a European only phenomena. 

To quote the ever so "reliable" wikipedia: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people



> This identification of the Gutians as fair haired first came to light when Julius Oppert (1877) published a set of tablets he had discovered which described Gutian (and Subarian) slaves as namrum or namrûtum, one of its many meanings being "light colored".[20][21]





> *This racial character of the Gutians as light skinned can't be equated to being blond*. ...


 
The rest of this section of this page is mostly about the bickering of two historians.
Obviously given how this thread has panned out it's clear that no matter what is presented to you, you will continue to disregard evidences presented to you, as well as misquote or misinterpret the sources that have been shared with you. I don't know why you want to prove this connection between Germanic people and Gutians so badly, but it has a large amount of evidence AGAINST it, not for it. There is evidence that quite clearly proves that the Gutians are not the Goths (see my Wielbark and Chernyakhov links) I can understand the idea of linking an obscure people with a later historical people, it's tantalizing and makes things feel more fluid but it is greatly misleading. It's like saying the Picts of Scotland were Scythians, this is a common claim however in reality they were most definitely a continuation of the people who preceded them in the area (Caledonii and other various tribes).

----------


## Cyrus

Spruithean, thanks for your long reply, about linguistics, I can mention thousands other words but I know you will say the same things, like what you said about hemp, a very early proto-Germanic word with Germanic sound shifts from a Vulgar Latin word!! And then you compare it with some other words in middle ages in different languages, mostly from Arabic and Vulgar Latin, and call it a wanderwort!
But about genetics, I expected that you explain about the existence of R1b-L151 in Afghanistan and R1b-U106 in Pakistan from the 3rd millennium BC, isn't U106 a Germanic haplogroup which should be just found in the north of Europe in the ancient times? Why 3,000 years ago it existed as far as Pakistan? Does it mean this haplogroup didn't relate to the Germanic people? So what was the IE-related haplogroup of them?

----------


## spruithean

> Spruithean, thanks for your long reply, about linguistics, I can mention thousands other words but I know you will say the same things, like what you said about hemp, a very early proto-Germanic word with Germanic sound shifts from a Vulgar Latin word!! And then you compare it with some other words in middle ages in different languages, mostly from Arabic and Vulgar Latin, and call it a wanderwort!


The proto-Germanic root for hemp is related to the Greek word and Latin words, and imho it's more likely that these words are kulturworts because they are doublets of these words in several languages. I did not compare, I showed cognates. However, this is besides the point and your linguistic reasoning to claim an origin of proto-Germanic in a part of Iran is still not a reality, considering all other evidences. Besides we should be focusing on far more than isolated words. There are more clues to this language family and its origins than just those words that are either kulturworts, wanderworts or unknowns.




> But about genetics, I expected that you explain about the existence of R1b-L151 in Afghanistan and R1b-U106 in Pakistan from the 3rd millennium BC, isn't U106 a Germanic haplogroup which should be just found in the north of Europe in the ancient times? Why 3,000 years ago it existed as far as Pakistan?


Sure, do you mean L51? R-L51 is relatively old with an estimated formation date of 6100 ybp (TMRCA of 5700 ybp), so the lineage that became R-L51 diverged from the common root of R-L23 around that time (R-L23 is found in Yamnaya samples quite early), that is quite consistent with the estimated migrations of Yamnaya related people, no? Since the Swat Culture is closely associated with the BMAC culture, all of which show Steppe admixture it seems only reasonable to assume that these people were descended from PIE speakers from the Pontic-Steppe and the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and those related groups. 

In regards to U106 in that study, that individual is dated to 1000-800 BCE, U106 is estimated to have formed 4800 ybp and some of our oldest samples are from Europe, especially the north in this 3000-2000 BCE timeframe. Upon a brief investigation of that paper which features the Loebanr individual there are SNP quality questions in the study (false positives, misreads, no reads, etc) and some debate which ISOGG format they used and according to a certain knowledgeable individual on another forum in all likelihood the haplogroup call is more accurately placed in the R2 haplogroup:




> This is one person's opinion:
> 
> " Originally Posted by *Megalophias* [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Owner\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\ clip_image001.png[/IMG]
> I've gone through some of the suspect haplogroups:
> 
> There are 6 Gonur Tepe and 1 Swat Iron Age samples listed as *A*. As far as I can tell these are just super low coverage samples with no haplogroup assignment, they do not have any derived calls for A(xBT) clades or ancestral calls for BT or CT.
> 
> - I2312 - Belt Cave Iran Mesolithic - listed as *E1b1a1a1c2b1* - very unlikely. It has one derived allele for this, contradicted by 1 ancestral E1b1a1. It is some kind of *BT*. J, as at Hotu next door, is not excluded.
> - I6119 - Gonur Tepe BMAC - listed as *E1b1a1a1c2c3c* - definitely not, it has 5 ancestral calls for E. It is *CT(xC, E, G, J, R)*, with single ancestral calls also for D, H1a1, L1, Q1b. Perhaps T?
> ...


 (red is my own emphasis)


U106 is not a "Germanic" haplogroup. It is commonly associated with Germanic migration patterns and Germanic-speaking areas, but it is not strictly a Germanic haplogroup. Haplogroups are not language, nor are they ethnicity. We find a fair number of outlier lineages far from their normal distribution patterns. We've found I-Z140 in certain Bashkir clans, R-U152 in Yaghnobis, etc. and even the U152 haplogroup call for the R-U152 Yaghnobis is debatable according to the ongoing discussion about this on another website.

Anyways, we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It is interesting to mention that in the same region in the north of Pakistan, Kalash people live:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that like anicent Gutians, they are also blonde?


Utter myth spread by carefully cherry-picked pictures. Most Kalash people are not blonde. Their genetics also prove that they have a significant BA steppe ancestry of a kind most related to the Sintashta & Andronovo DNA samples, cultures associated by most experts to the Indo-Iranian expansion (Proto-Iranian and Proto-Indo-Aryan). There you have where that blonde hair must've come from (not to mention that such genes may also have come from other Caucasian/Iranian/Anatolian ancestors, why not? Do you think blonde hair is IE?!). The very fact that the Kalash speak a _very unique_ branch of Indo-Iranian (the Nuristani languages are not Iranian nor Indo-Aryan, but a very early split) demonstrates that they have nothing to do with "Asian Germanic" people or whatever. They have spoken a language completely unlike that of their neighbors for millennia, so it's obvious that they didn't shift to another language in the "recent" past, because their neighbors do not speak Nuristani languages (and did not as far as written historic records exist). 

However, besides that the Kalash have _very significant_ BA South Asian (Indus Periphery, probably similar to the genetics of the IVC) and Chalcolithic Iran ancestry, and even some West Siberian ancestry. They are most definitely _no good proxy AT ALL_ for part of the ancestry of the modern Germanic people. The genetic structure is completely different, totally unrelated.

Honestly, for someone who doesn't like Germanic nationalists you are still way too obsessed with associating blonde hair and light skin specifically to Germanic peoples as if only the ancestors of Germanic peoples could have had such features. You should now be in the 21st century and not revisiting old "proto-Nazi" ideas of racist anthropologists.

----------


## Ygorcs

I wonder why these people obsessed over the "blonde white" Kalash don't EVER show these pictures when they talk about them (maybe because that would shatter their biased fantasies?). It's clear that most Kalash don't look very different from the Tadjiks or many (particularly North) Iranians. It's actually even somewhat hard to find pictures of really blonde ADULT people.

----------


## Cyrus

> Sure, do you mean L51?


No, I mean R1b-L151 (*R1b1a2a1a*), look at it: https://indo-european.eu/2018/04/ear...ng-migrations/ > The Darra-e Kur sample, *2655 BC*, of haplogroup R1b-L*1*51

This haplogroup (R1b1a2a1a) still exists in different parts of Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly

You yourself said in your quote from Angela: Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as *R1b-P311*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M269




> The subclade R-P311 appears to have originated after the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution in Europe, and is substantially confined to Western Europe in modern populations. R-P311 is absent from Neolithic-era ancient DNA found in Western Europe, strongly suggesting that its current distribution is due to population movements within Europe taking place after the end of the Neolithic. The three major subclades of P311 are U106 (S21), L21 (M529, S145), and U152 (S28).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe Neolithic Europe is the period when Neolithic technology was present in Europe, roughly between 7000 BCE and *1700 BCE*.

So we know *R1b-P311/L151* existed in Europe after the end of the Neolithic (*1700 BC*) but it existed in Afghanistan in *2655 BC* and it still exists in Iran. We also know that Gutians lived in Iran from at least the 3rd millennium BC, so it is certainly possible that they had migrated to Europe, isn't it?

----------


## hrvclv

Around 3000 BC, L51 and its subclades were pastoralist tribes roaming the steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas.

At some point in time between 2800 and 2500 BC, they started moving en masse into Europe. They were organized in patrilineal tribes.

Even if it were proved that Gutians were L51, it would simply mean that one of the tribes who were on the steppes chose to cross southwards over the Caucasus and into Zagros instead of expanding westwards. 

Only genetic analysis of those ancient Gutians, and their autosomic results, will tell whether they were in any way related to the tribes (ancestral to Goths ?) that moved west.

Language won't help at this stage, because almost nothing is known of the Gutian Language, and most of what is alleged is highly conjectural. And also because it is blatantly obvious to any linguist that Germanic languages developed in situ, through Grimm's Law and Verner's Law, gradually evolving over time in their own specific way, as all languages do. The velars in Indo-Iranian did not yet exist in PIE. They developed on their own, through gradual change. The same happened in Germanic, independently. The probability that it happened otherwise is zero.

Germanic languages developed in the north of the area where the so-called Corded Ware culture developed and thrived, from 2900 to roughly 2300 BC. The CWC were essentially R1a people from the western Eurasian steppe, and (my personal guess is that) they already spoke a Satem form of PIE. When R1b L51 arrived from the east, there were apparently severe conflicts, and the two populations, originally from the same areas and cultures on the steppes, didn't mix much at first. The Corded Ware people were chased away from what is now Poland. Some fled east, and mixed with more Forest Steppe R1a of the Middle Dniepr Culture to gradually form the Sintashta Culture northof the Caspian Sea. Then the Sintashta Culture expanded further east between the Caspian Sea and the Tarim Basin, forming the Andronovo Culture. Andronovo people spoke a language ancestral to Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, all of them Satem. A first wave of those Indo-Iranian speaking people moved south, then west, and mixed with Hurrians in eastern Anatolia to form the Mitanni. Later, other Indo-Iranian tribes arrived in Iran : the Parthians, Medes, Persians...

Meanwhile, in Poland the newly-arrived R1b-L51 gradually mixed with the R1a Corded Ware people who had not chosen to flee. R1b-L51 spoke Centum PIE. If the R1a Corded Ware they subdued indeed spoke a Satem form of PIE (conjectural so far), and if Proto-Germanic developed as Centum PIE influenced by a Satem substrate, you could have an embryo of an explanation for the similarities identified between Germanic and Balto-Slavic, and also,beyond that, between Germanic and Indo-Iranian languages.

At the end of the day, Corded Ware is where Germanic and Indo-Iranian might overlap. That would date back to 2500 BC. 

Those considerations excepted, nothing in what you propose is either supported, let alone attested, by either genetics or linguistics.

You should read the literature, abundantly and patiently, instead of picking on isolated exceptions to turn them into general rules. The fact that one R-L51 (or a bunch of them for that matter), through a series of unknown adventures, ended up in south Asia doesn't mean that Germans originated in Afghanistan. Your Afghan R1b may simply have belonged to an early group of adventurers. You need exceptions to confirm general rules. You can't build theories on exceptions.

----------


## Cyrus

> Around 3000 BC, L51 and its subclades were pastoralist tribes roaming the steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas.
> 
> At some point in time between 2800 and 2500 BC, they started moving en masse into Europe. They were organized in patrilineal tribes.
> 
> Even if it were proved that Gutians were L51, it would simply mean that one of the tribes who were on the steppes chose to cross southwards over the Caucasus and into Zagros instead of expanding westwards. 
> 
> Only genetic analysis of those ancient Gutians, and their autosomic results, will tell whether they were in any way related to the tribes (ancestral to Goths ?) that moved west.
> 
> Language won't help at this stage, because almost nothing is known of the Gutian Language, and most of what is alleged is highly conjectural. And also because it is blatantly obvious to any linguist that Germanic languages developed in situ, through Grimm's Law and Verner's Law, gradually evolving over time in their own specific way, as all languages do. The velars in Indo-Iranian did not yet exist in PIE. They developed on their own, through gradual change. The same happened in Germanic, independently. The probability that it happened otherwise is zero.
> ...


After R1a, now about R1b, when I say R1b-P311/L151 (R1b1a2a1a), not R1b-L51, has been found in several samples from Iran, you say modern distribution proves nothing and there shoud be aDNA evidences in this region, but it is clear that when you don't want to believe something all evidences prove nothing! I think if even ancient Gutians back to life and say "We are a Germanic people", you will say they are wrong!

----------


## hrvclv

> After R1a, now about R1b, when I say R1b-P311/L151 (R1b1a2a1a), not R1b-L51, has been found in several samples from Iran, you say modern distribution proves nothing and there shoud be aDNA evidences in this region, but it is clear that when you don't want to believe something all evidences prove nothing! I think if even ancient Gutians back to life and say "We are a Germanic people", you will say they are wrong!


Wrong. I am probably the only one on this forum who does not exclude straight away the possibility that "Guti" and Goth" might be remotely connected (through some ancient, separate migration pattern, though, not the way you want it to be).

The problem is that you not only entirely (and seemingly deliberately) ignore what archeology is known to have established, but also ignore chronology, jump over the millenia to associate totally disconnected things, and cherry-pick isolated genetic samples to infer rash conclusions. Besides, your understanding of linguistic rules and linguistic comparative methods seems elementary at best.

On top of that, you do not read what people write, nor read the papers they refer you to. You have developed the most unrealistc hypotheses ever, and adamantly stick to them, however absurd better informed people show them to be.

In other words, you don't understand, either because you can't, or, more likely, because you don't want to understand.

You seem to be "past recovery". Have it your way.

----------


## nornosh

I think Eupedia got it right! Germanics despite minority lineages(mixtures) of IEs are overwhelmingly Neolithic farmer(hg g) \ mesolithic WHG(hg I2) mixture people with very little Indo-european mixture in them. IEs are people of Asia not europe IMHO. Look Turkey their language is Turkic yet turkic ydna makes only 12% because ruling elite imposed their language on natives same is true with Germanic\IE languages in western europe they were imposed on to majority paleolithic population of natives with only 12% mixture of IE blood, so Eupedia got it right!

----------


## nornosh

Look only 12% of adna in Germanics came in BA the others were local neolithics who already lived in the region for thousands of years according to Mr.Cunliffe, Mr.Oppenheimer, Eupedia.

----------


## spruithean

> No, I mean R1b-L151 (*R1b1a2a1a*), look at it: https://indo-european.eu/2018/04/ear...ng-migrations/ > The Darra-e Kur sample, *2655 BC*, of haplogroup R1b-L*1*51
> 
> This haplogroup (R1b1a2a1a) still exists in different parts of Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly
> 
> You yourself said in your quote from Angela: Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as *R1b-P311*.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R-M269
> 
> 
> ...


Re-read the quote in regards to the R-P311: _"- Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311. Low coverage, there is one positive call for the SNP, nothing + or - upstream. This is some kind of BT."_ The sample from Darra-i-Kur was low coverage and had only one positive call and nothing + or - upstream or downstream, this doesn't confirm anything and the likelihood of a false positive is fairly high, especially with coverage that is low without any corroborating upstream SNP calls. That sample from that quote isn't the only one with low coverage and wonky haplogroup calls, read the whole quote, the majority of them are questionable.

Again, the Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA evidence we have right now does not support any migration for the Gutians into Europe. As you can imagine a people such as the Gutians would have absorbed various peoples as they grew in influence in their respective territory, they would have absorbed various autosomal components from there area of Iran that would have then been visible in Bronze Age Northern European samples if they were the descendants of these migrants. We don't see this, so the chances of such a migration are really really low.

Cyrus, I also have an interest in ancient peoples like the Guti and it would be great to link them to later historical people, however we can't link them to another people based solely off the spelling of their exonym alone, especially when we have no text corpus for the Guti to even begin to determine what language they spoke. Besides we know that there were areas still referred to as Gutium after the Guti faded into history, and the people in those post-Guti Gutium areas included Medes and Mannaeans. It is much more realistic to theorize that the Gutians were a people who lived in Iran that were more similar to the neighbours and likely faded into history as they were absorbed by other rising nations.




> After R1a, now about R1b, when I say R1b-P311/L151 (R1b1a2a1a), not R1b-L51, has been found in several samples from Iran, you say modern distribution proves nothing and there shoud be aDNA evidences in this region, but it is clear that when you don't want to believe something all evidences prove nothing! I think if even ancient Gutians back to life and say "We are a Germanic people", you will say they are wrong!


Where are your citations for these ancient R-L51 samples found in Iran? You are saying it's clear that we "_don't want to believe something_"? Oh, please. When several times we have provided Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA evidence through various studies and links, and even archaeological and linguistic evidence doesn't support your theory, and you have the audacity to say we don't want to believe something? Come on man. As hrvclv has said you ignore evidence, and frankly it really seems like you don't actually read the studies we've linked you to and we've seen you cherry-pick parts of quotes completely ignoring the context and the entirety of the message it conveys. I

Whatever, you're free to believe what you want and we will agree to disagree and leave it at that.




> I think Eupedia got it right! Germanics despite minority lineages(mixtures) of IEs are overwhelmingly Neolithic farmer(hg g) \ mesolithic WHG(hg I2) mixture people with very little Indo-european mixture in them. IEs are people of Asia not europe IMHO. Look Turkey their language is Turkic yet turkic ydna makes only 12% because ruling elite imposed their language on natives same is true with Germanic\IE languages in western europe they were imposed on to majority paleolithic population of natives with only 12% mixture of IE blood, so Eupedia got it right!





> Look only 12% of adna in Germanics came in BA the others were local neolithics who already lived in the region for thousands of years according to Mr.Cunliffe, Mr.Oppenheimer, Eupedia.


What page of the Eupedia mainsite talks about this? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.

----------


## nornosh

> What page of the Eupedia mainsite talks about this? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.


Hi I first believed Ydna is the main indicator of ones descent then Moderators came to teach me that adna shows complete picture, then I have studied the admixture maps of adna, which shows ENF admixtures, WHG admixtures togather form 4\5th of European admixture the ANE forms 10
-17%. So if we infer from these datas then IEs had little general affect on Europeans. Ydna is less important than adna which shows complete admixture rather than person's one line of descent.

----------


## Cyrus

> Re-read the quote in regards to the R-P311: _"- Darra-i-Kur - Afghanistan EBA - listed as R1b-P311. Low coverage, there is one positive call for the SNP, nothing + or - upstream. This is some kind of BT."_ The sample from Darra-i-Kur was low coverage and had only one positive call and nothing + or - upstream or downstream, this doesn't confirm anything and the likelihood of a false positive is fairly high, especially with coverage that is low without any corroborating upstream SNP calls. That sample from that quote isn't the only one with low coverage and wonky haplogroup calls, read the whole quote, the majority of them are questionable.


I think you just want to fool yourself, just one ancient skeleton in Afghanistan has been analyzed and this haplogroup has been found (it is possible that it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this land too), a subclade of this haplogroup has been also found in the north of Pakistan, another important point is that this haplogroup still exists among the people of this region. This thing that what you or another person in this forum think about this genetic evidence, really doesn't matter, if you believe it is wrong, you should show me valid sources which fundamentally reject this DNA analysis.

----------


## halfalp

> You even don't know what my theory is, there is absolutely no relation between Germanic (R1a-R1b hybrid) and Indo-Iranian (Z95), there is also no relation between Iran and Indo-Iranian, I say people who live in the west of Iran (also R1a-R1b hybrid an no Z95) relate to the Germanic people.


You cannot say R1a and R1b then R1a-Z95. The R1a from all Iran and Middle-East and *Western Iran* will mostly be R1a-Z93 wich Z95 is a downstream. As for R1b, its mostly Z2105 + minor lineages as V1636, for wich we all have almost a story. The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Germanic countries are not Z93 nor Z2103.

----------


## halfalp

> I think you just want to fool yourself, just one ancient skeleton in Afghanistan has been analyzed and this haplogroup has been found (it is possible that it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this land too), a subclade of this haplogroup has been also found in the north of Pakistan, another important point is that this haplogroup still exists among the people of this region. This thing that what you or another person in this forum think about this genetic evidence, really doesn't matter, if you believe it is wrong, you should show me valid sources which fundamentally reject this DNA analysis.


The South and Central Asian paper is a complete shit show with a lot of weird calls, dating and assumptions. Its been postponed for a lot of times now and is probably not a good argument until the complete paper is out and that people have put their hands on the samples. As exemple, the preprint of the paper came 2 months before the preprint for the Caucasus paper, wich was out a few months earlier on.

----------


## halfalp

> Hi I first believed Ydna is the main indicator of ones descent then Moderators came to teach me that adna shows complete picture, then I have studied the admixture maps of adna, which shows ENF admixtures, WHG admixtures togather form 4\5th of European admixture the ANE forms 10
> -17%. So if we infer from these datas then IEs had little general affect on Europeans. Ydna is less important than adna which shows complete admixture rather than person's one line of descent.


Your point is wrong. Adna is not more important than Y-dna in terms of Indo-European studies because our Genotype is not influenced by Cultural changes. Western European y-dna is mostly R1b-M269 > R1b-L51, wich we know from prehistoric datas that its expansion from the east will only be related at max 50% of EEF or EEF/WHG and the rest from Steppe ( ANE ). 

Therefore what you are talking about is that, the fact that EEF ancestry is dominant in western europe comparing to steppe ancestry makes a better fit to explain IE languages expansions comparing it to R1b majority in western europe. *You are basically saying that your genetic package is more relevant than your forefathers to explain your language... wich i let you meditate if it makes sense to you.*

----------


## Cyrus

> You cannot say R1a and R1b then R1a-Z95. The R1a from all Iran and Middle-East and *Western Iran* will mostly be R1a-Z93 wich Z95 is a downstream. As for R1b, its mostly Z2105 + minor lineages as V1636, for wich we all have almost a story. The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Germanic countries are not Z93 nor Z2103.


The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Iran is not Z93 nor Z2103 too, both of them and their subclades don't exist in Iran, even 0.001℅.

----------


## halfalp

> The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Iran is not Z93 nor Z2103 too, both of them and their subclades don't exist in Iran, even 0.001℅.


Virtually all Iranian R1's are R1b-Z2103 or R1a-Z93, prove me wrong.

----------


## nornosh

> Your point is wrong. Adna is not more important than Y-dna in terms of Indo-European studies because our Genotype is not influenced by Cultural changes. Western European y-dna is mostly R1b-M269 > R1b-L51, wich we know from prehistoric datas that its expansion from the east will only be related at max 50% of EEF or EEF/WHG and the rest from Steppe ( ANE ). 
> 
> Therefore what you are talking about is that, the fact that EEF ancestry is dominant in western europe comparing to steppe ancestry makes a better fit to explain IE languages expansions comparing it to R1b majority in western europe. *You are basically saying that your genetic package is more relevant than your forefathers to explain your language... wich i let you meditate if it makes sense to you.*


Yes, genetic package is important in explaining their roots not language, ydna is important in setting one's language specially if they are the ruling class so they impose their language easily despite being less in numbers as the case with the Turkish language being imposed on 88% of local non Central asian population of turkey in the past, I am saying the same happened with IEs they made-up small ruling elite yet imposed their language(IE) on natives. See India for another example, the IE related people are minority(25%) yet their language is spread widely(75%) so could it happend in Europe too?

----------


## Cyrus

> Virtually all Iranian R1's are R1b-Z2103 or R1a-Z93, prove me wrong.


These are all haplogroups which have been found in Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly Which ones are R1b-Z2103 or R1a-Z93?!

----------


## nornosh

> These are all haplogroups which have been found in Iran: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly Which ones are R1b-Z2103 or R1a-Z93?!


Look the ones which are listed, L23* were not tested further for subclades so we can infere they belong to Z2103 or its vicinity clade unless new results published.

----------


## Cyrus

> Look the ones which are listed, L23* were not tested further for subclades so we can infere they belong to Z2103 or its vicinity clade unless new results published.


No as you see they have found subclade of R1b1a2a (L23) in Iran but that is *R1b1a2a1a* (L151), not R1b1a2a2 (Z2103), reality differs from your imagination.

----------


## nornosh

> No as you see they have found subclade of R1b1a2a (L23) in Iran but that is *R1b1a2a1a* (L151), not R1b1a2a2 (Z2103), reality differs from your imagination.


I am not arguing for the contrary yet where is the papers which shows they are L151, if its true then it will be revolutionary perhaps the biggest find in the last decade of genetic studies, I hope you provide the related research papers sooner.

----------


## Cyrus

I just searched about other haplogroups which have been found in the ancient sites in the northeast of Iran, in Turkmenistan a subclade of *I2a2* has been found which dates back to more than 4,000 years ago, I think it can be related to the Germanic migration too.

----------


## spruithean

> *I think you just want to fool yourself*, just one ancient skeleton in Afghanistan has been analyzed and this haplogroup has been found (it is possible that it is found in several other ancient skeletons in this land too), a subclade of this haplogroup has been also found in the north of Pakistan, another important point is that this haplogroup still exists among the people of this region. This thing that what you or another person in this forum think about this genetic evidence, really doesn't matter, if you believe it is wrong, you should show me valid sources which fundamentally reject this DNA analysis.


You can think what you want about me if you wish, but just so we're clear, they haven't published that paper due to dating issues, bad calls and other troubles. It's still a pre-print, and it was supposed to be finally published not too long ago, yet here we are still the pre-print and no word from them. By the way one of the authors himself said they were using a new Y-calls software that has some serious issues, not to mention that DNA contamination and damaged DNA issues, he answers questions on his Twitter page. Do you know what low coverage means? Do you know the implications of a + SNP call when the upstream SNPs have a - call? Do you know what that means? It means that the + call is most definitely incorrect. Do you really think it is possible for someone to be R-P311 but negative for L51, L23, M269 and M343 (and the phyloequivalents of each)? If you think that's possible then I don't know what to say. All the Y-calls are being reassessed and we'll know the final answer when they finally publish the results. Besides, your Darra-i Kur sample is flagged as damaged in the excel file from the paper.


What I or other forum members think? Try what everyone is thinking. Everyone is asking the same questions about this study because the SNP calls are inconsistent. Manually checking it is the best bet right now, and people have manually checked it (see my quote of Angela quoting Megalophias). We'll know more when this is past the pre-print stage and finalized.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RohlfsenC...00022284357632


I got curious and here is some data of Darra-i Kur and I8998 (aka S8998) from the Ycall file that one of the authors uploaded to Dropbox:


*Ancestral means - (negative)*, *derived means +(positive)*
Sample ID Haplogroup Ancestral Derived

Darra-i Kur is some kind of BT, the sample is damaged (as per another supplementary excel file) so who knows what the real Y-hg is. Hell, it's not even clear what haplogroup it is, we just know that he is probably something under BT, which is no surprise, since that's a lot of people. With the way phylogeny works these SNP calls contradict each other at a fundamental level, how can you be positive for a mutation but have multiple ancestral calls for upstream markers? It's not possible, for example you can't be I2a but negative for I2, I, AND IJ but positive for haplogroup R mutations. Like getting 100% on a test but getting half of the questions wrong, it's a mistake. In this case it is a mistake made by a new software they used.

Darra-I Kur is a damaged sample and that is even stated in the paper’s supplementary table also the amount of SNP coverage (36,481 << that’s pretty low coverage) is poor and reflects the damage.





> Numbers on left are ancestral (-) and numbers on far right column are (+)
> Darra.I.Kur_d A00 1 0
> *Darra.I.Kur_d A0-T 0 2*
> *Darra.I.Kur_d BT 0 1*
> Darra.I.Kur_d A1b1a1 1 0
> Darra.I.Kur_d DE 1 0
> Darra.I.Kur_d A1b1b2b 1 0
> Darra.I.Kur_d E 1 0
> Darra.I.Kur_d D 1 0
> ...



This guy (is I8998 Swat IA) he is most definitely not U106. He has 25 derived calls for R, one derived call for R2. He's probably some kind of R, maybe R2. He is definitely not R-U106, and again we'll know the full story when they finalize the paper and share their haplogroup corrections, which has actually happened. We already know their Y-calls were an issue.



> ID HG ANCESTRAL DERIVED
> S8998.E1.L1 A00 36 0
> *S8998.E1.L1 A0-T 0 12*
> S8998.E1.L1 A0 16 0
> *S8998.E1.L1 A1 0 6*
> S8998.E1.L1 A0a 2 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A0b 12 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A1a 8 0
> *S8998.E1.L1 A1b 0 4*
> ...


As you can see there are a lot of contradictions in these SNP calls (false positives, etc). How can a haplogroup such as R-P311 be assigned when there are no supporting derived calls upstream of P311? How can one be assigned R-U106 when they are clearly negative for upstream SNPs? It really looks like Megalophias and several others who've looked at this already are correct in their assessment of the Ycall excel sheet from the paper provided via Dropbox. The Y-calls contradict the haplogroup assignments here, no question. Hell, even MA1 (Ma'alta boy) was given a weird call, when we already know he is just R*. Anyway, this is all we can say now until the raw data is released and then people can really dig into the SNP calls.


Hell, I have even looked at their calls for the I2a2a guys and they were negative for upstreams like IJ, I-M170, I2a2, etc. The Y-calls really need to be reassessed for this study, and they are working on that.





> You cannot say R1a and R1b then R1a-Z95. The R1a from all Iran and Middle-East and *Western Iran* will mostly be R1a-Z93 wich Z95 is a downstream. As for R1b, its mostly Z2105 + minor lineages as V1636, for wich we all have almost a story. The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Germanic countries are not Z93 nor Z2103.



Indeed, but here we go....





> The South and Central Asian paper is a complete shit show with a lot of weird calls, dating and assumptions. Its been postponed for a lot of times now and is probably not a good argument until the complete paper is out and that people have put their hands on the samples. As exemple, the preprint of the paper came 2 months before the preprint for the Caucasus paper, wich was out a few months earlier on.



Agreed, I hope when they finally publish it with everything revised and finalized we'll finally be totally confident in the results. 





> The R1a-R1b hybrid branches in Iran is not *Z93* nor Z2103 too, both of them and their subclades don't exist in Iran, even 0.001℅.




You sure about that?


Underhill et. al. (2015) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...6/#__sec7title





> In the complementary R1a-Z93 haplogroup, the paragroup R1a-Z93* (Figure 3b) is most common (>30%) in the South Siberian Altai region of Russia, but it also occurs in Kyrgyzstan (6%) and in all Iranian populations (1–8%). R1a-Z2125 (Figure 3c) occurs at highest frequencies in Kyrgyzstan and in Afghan Pashtuns (>40%). We also observed it at greater than 10% frequency in other Afghan ethnic groups and in some populations in the Caucasus and Iran. Notably, R1a-M780 (Figure 3d) occurs at high frequency in South Asia: India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Himalayas. The group also occurs at >3% in some Iranian populations and is present at >30% in Roma from Croatia and Hungary, consistent with previous studies reporting the presence of R1a-Z93 in Roma.31, 51Finally, the rare R1a-M560 was only observed in four samples: two Burushaski speakers from north Pakistan, one Hazara from Afghanistan, and one Iranian Azeri. - Underhill et al (2015)



R-Z93 subclades are found amongst Iranian-speaking populations. Even if the rate is low in Iran, it is still there. Again though, there was a population already present in Iran prior to the arrival of Iranian speakers. We already know J2 is the most common haplogroup in Iran, it seems more likely to me at least that we have an Iranian-speaking elite with a native substrate, we see this in a lot of places in history, not a new phenomenon. The elite-dominance mechanism is seen in a lot of places.

In response to you saying that there is no Z2103…


to quote Grugni et. al. (2012):



> Eighty-eight Y-chromosome binary genetic markers were hierarchically genotyped as AFLP (YAP, [30]), RFLP (M2 [31], SRY10831.2 [32], M12 [33]; P15 [34]; M74 [35]; M34, M60, M61, M67, M70, M76, M78, M81, M175, M198, M207, M213 [36]; LLY22g, P36.2, P43 [37]; M123, M172 [38]; M242, M253, M285 [23]; V12, V13, V22 [39]; M377 [24]; P128, P287 [40]; M406 [41]; M269 [42]; Page08 [43]; V88 [44]; M458 [45]; PAGE55 [46]; L23, M412 [47]; L91 [48]; M527, M547, Page19, P303, U1 [49]), by DHPLC (M217 [50]; M25, M35, M47, M68, M69, M82, M92, M124, M170, M173, M174, M201, M205, M214, M216 [36]; M429 [51]; P209 [40]; M241, M267, M343 [23]; M357, M378, M410 [24]; M346 [40]; M434, M458 [45]; M530 [46]; L497, P16 [49]), and direct sequencing (M18 [33]; M42, M73, M75, M96 [52]; M33, PN2 [36]; MEH2 [53]; M317 [24]; M356 [54]; M438 [51]; P297 [40]). - Grugni et al (2012)


Do you see in the list of tested SNPs “Z2103”? I don’t. It means they didn’t test for it.

R-L23* shown as 8.5% in list you just linked, however again, this study which we already know didn't test more than the SNPs listed didn't test for Z2103. Do you see why this study doesn't really tell us much? We can't see the specific breakdown of the clades. So how much of that L23 (barring those which are indeed L23*) are Z2103? This is the same study that we already debated about R1a because of basal offshoots, this could be remedied if samples could be retested for downstream deeper SNPs. I wish they would do that for the sake of refinement at least. Let's wait for the final publication of the Central and South Asian study before we using it as a reference in discussions just yet.

But go ahead, deny this.

----------


## spruithean

In regards to your comments about the I2 samples:
Again,



> I1003 A00 5 0
> *I1003 A0-T 0 1*
> I1003 A1a 1 0
> I1003 A0a1 2 0
> *I1003 BT 0 7*
> I1003 A1b1a 1 0
> *I1003 CT 0 3*
> I1003 B3 1 0
> I1003 A1b1b2b 1 0
> ...


Not to mention that our oldest samples of I2 are in Europe. So it would more likely be a migration of I2 carriers OUT of Europe if these guys are indeed actually I2, however judging by the calls here, they aren't.
Now the other “I2” from the pre-print of Narasimhan et al. 2018



> S8527.E1.L1 A00 2 0
> *S8527.E1.L1 BT 0 6*
> *S8527.E1.L1 CT 0 2*
> S8527.E1.L1 A1b1b1 1 0
> S8527.E1.L1 DE 1 0
> S8527.E1.L1 E 2 0
> S8527.E1.L1 D 1 0
> S8527.E1.L1 C2 1 0
> S8527.E1.L1 E1a 4 0
> ...


Again, let's wait until the paper is FINALIZED and actually officially published and not just a pre-print. We've already been told that they corrected the Y-call errors and the paper is soon to be released.

----------


## halfalp

> I just searched about other haplogroups which have been found in the ancient sites in the northeast of Iran, in Turkmenistan a subclade of *I2a2* has been found which dates back to more than 4,000 years ago, I think it can be related to the Germanic migration too.


Well it contradictes your hypothesis because I2a2 clearly comes from Europe, so it would say that Iranian IE came from Europe.

----------


## halfalp

> Do you see in the list of tested SNPs “Z2103”? I don’t. It means they didn’t test for it.
> 
> R-L23* shown as 8.5% in list you just linked, however again, this study which we already know didn't test more than the SNPs listed didn't test for Z2103. Do you see why this study doesn't really tell us much? We can't see the specific breakdown of the clades. So how much of that L23 (barring those which are indeed L23*) are Z2103? This is the same study that we already debated about R1a because of basal offshoots, this could be remedied if samples could be retested for downstream deeper SNPs. I wish they would do that for the sake of refinement at least. Let's wait for the final publication of the Central and South Asian study before we using it as a reference in discussions just yet.
> 
> But go ahead, deny this.


Exactly this.

----------


## Cyrus

> Well it contradictes your hypothesis because I2a2 clearly comes from Europe, so it would say that Iranian IE came from Europe.


Just about I2a2 it is certainly possible that it (P78 branch) came from Europe but before proto-Indo-European era, as you read in Eupedia page about I2: "The P78 branch split into two clades A427 and Y7219 some 5,300 years ago, at the time of the Yamna culture in the Pontic Steppe." and "It might well have originated in the Yamna culture and spread with Proto-Indo-European speakers to Central Europe."

----------


## halfalp

> Just about I2a2 it is certainly possible that it (P78 branch) came from Europe but before proto-Indo-European era, as you read in Eupedia page about I2: "The P78 branch split into two clades A427 and Y7219 some 5,300 years ago, at the time of the Yamna culture in the Pontic Steppe." and "It might well have originated in the Yamna culture and spread with Proto-Indo-European speakers to Central Europe."


Ok dude, Pontic Steppe is Europe... it's not Iran.

----------


## Cyrus

> Ok dude, Pontic Steppe is Europe... it's not Iran.


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

----------


## Ygorcs

> 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.


According to whom? You, the person who has trouble understanding even what a proto-language is and how sound shifts start, and who thinks that the defining sound rules of a given language family must necessarily have happened all at once right after it split from its ancestral language? Haha, okay. Based on what? On an anachronistic and pseudo-scientific method of "mass comparison" based on the assumption that Germanic words that sound _somewhat_ similar to roots spoken by a Bronze Age peoplemore than 1000 years earlier are certainly cognates? Haha, good one (btw it's Wolf_gang_, not Wolfgan, and that's a modern Germanic name, the root is Iron Age Proto-Germanic _*gangaz_, nothing to do with a Bronze Age word _*gan_). When I say _most linguists_ I refer to the mainstream positions that are summed up in _actual_ books and articles written about the Gutians, and not in fringe "revisionist" texts written by anonymous amateurs on the internet. The two main hypotheses of linguistics scholars about the Gutians is that they either spoke some unknown isolate language or maybe were related to the Tocharians. In any case, you're so confused that you're now comparing Gutians to the Kalash people, who speak their own _really ancient_ branch of Indo-Iranian and have a clear Neolithic Iranian and South Asian-shifted genetic makeup that is totally unlike anything we might find anywhere in Europe, let alone in Germanic-speaking Northern Europe.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think you just want to fool me about the relations between these haplogroups, the same site which says Gutians were Tocharian, says a sample of *R1b-U106* subclade has been found in Loebanr_IA, 950 BC, in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region. I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then *R1b-U106* can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same *R1b-U106* can't be related to Iran!!


in the north of Pakistan which shows an ancient migration from Iran to this region >>> You're again putting words in other people's mouths. That's just dishonest, man. What a shame. That finding proves NO SUCH A THING as an ancient migration from Iran to that region. Quit this ridiculous wishfuil thinking. R1b clades have been found in _several_ Bronze Age and Iron Age DNA samples from the Eurasian steppe and Central Asia (Turan), in people who were clearly derived from a mix of Yamnaya-like and CWC-like peoples. And those clades, including descendants of R1a-M417 and R1b-L23, only appeared in South Asia in the LBA/EIA exactly together with Pontic-Caspian steppe ancestry. I don't need to fool you, because you're fooling yourself and making a fool of yourself to us every time you add _ad hoc_ conclusions of your own as if they were conclusions of the scientists themselves, and when you interpret the scientific data in a completely nonsense way.

_I don't know why when you want to prove Gutians were Tocharian then R1b-U106 can be related to R1b-Z2103 but when I talk about proto-Germanic, the same R1b-U106 can't be related to Iran!!_ >>. That's illogical, man, probably another consequence of your misconceptions and lack of knowledge about population genetics. R1b-U106 is a much later clade than R1b-Z2103. R1b-Z2103 compares to R1b-L51, not to U106, which is more specific and more recent. YOU are the one claiming anything about who the Gutians were. I didn't say they were Tocharians, I said _professional_ linguists asssociate Gutian language either with an unknown language family (isolate) or perhaps with Tocharian _(and that is a pretty fringe hypothesis not accepted by most linguists in fact)_. 

However, if Gutians were Tocharian the presence of R1b-Z2103 would be explained, because R1b-Z103 was found in very high propotion in the Afanasievo culture, offshoot of the Pontic-Caspian EBA peoples. The path of migration is well explained. Now, R1b-U106 has _not_ been found in BA Iran, whereas it has been found in BA Europe. And all U106 that appears in Asia DOES NOT appear in Iran, but rather first in North-Central Asia and later in South-Central Asia/South Asia, and only in the Iron Age. The path of migration is also clear in that case, and it has nothing to do with an Iranian origin.

----------


## Ygorcs

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


Oh my God, so _all this time_ you didn't know that when people are talking about European people of Bronze Age steppe origin they are referring to people who have a lot of ancestry from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is _obviously_ in Eastern Europe (modern Ukraine and European Russia)?! That's even worse than your not understanding the kindergarten-like matter of population genetics about its being just impossible that a R1b clade could _really_ be P311 if it is negative to the mutation markers that define the clades upstream of it. 

You should really read more and write less.

----------


## Cyrus

In summary, about R1b, we have already these ancient DNA evidences:

----------


## Cyrus

Another haplogroup which can be related to the Germanic migration is *Q-M346 (L56, L57, M346)* As you read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_Q-M242 It has been found in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, ...

And as you read about Lurs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lurs#cite_note-Grugni-28 Q-L56 has one of the highest frequencies among Lurs (6%).

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml "Modern Scandinavians belong to two distinct branches of *L56*: Y4827 and L804. All modern carriers of each branch seem to descend from a single ancestor who lived only some 3,000 years ago, during what was then the Nordic Bronze Age."

----------


## spruithean

Cyrus, refer to my posts here about the pre-print for Central and South Asia.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post577842

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post577843

----------


## Cyrus

> Cyrus, refer to my posts here about the pre-print for Central and South Asia.
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post577842
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post577843


It is really possible that there are a few mistakes in these DNA analyses, the same things can be said about all other genetic tests of ancient samples, but anyway we have these info and I see no reason for denying them. Haplogroup R1b1a2a1a (P311) still exists in Khuzestan/Luristan area in the west of Iran and we have genetic evidences which show the same haplogroup existed in the northeast of this land in the ancient times, it is certainly possible that it came from this land, not from the sky!

----------


## spruithean

You see no reason that they are wrong? Do you see the contradictions in the SNP reads? They are pretty damning. Ignoring the glaring mistakes that software they used made is ignoring the obvious that the SNP calls are faulty. It makes you look like you are desparately clinging to these inaccurate calls because they just might support your pet theory. The calls are incorrect and Darra-i Kur is damaged and has below 100,000 SNP reads (refer to my posts). It's bad news. The R-U106 and I2 guys are also clearly wrong as per their Ycall excel file. But you'll deny this because of your biases.
Read my posts again on this and actually look at the GLARING errors. One of their biggest mistakes was labeling Ma'alta Boy something other than R* when we know he is simply R*. Just wait till that pre-print is finally officially published, they actually went through and made corrections to the Y-calls and those will be published officially when the paper is finalized.
Now in regards to haplogroup Q:
From Eupedia



> Scandinavian Q1a
> *The oldest evidence to date of the presence of haplogroup Q is Europe are Q1a2-L56 samples from Mesolithic Latvia tested by Mathieson et al. (2017) and from the Khvalynsk culture (5200-4000 BCE), excavated in the middle Volga region and tested by Mathieson et al. (2016)*. *The Khvalynsk culture is ancestral to the Yamna culture, which represents the Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age homeland of the Proto-Indo-European speakers*. Q1a2 could have travelled alongside haplogroup R1a-Z284 (via Poland) or R1b-U106 (via the Danube) to Scandinavia, or have been present there since the Mesolithic, as in Latvia. Both scenarios are possible as modern Scandinavians belong to two distinct branches of L56: Y4827 and L804. In either cases, all modern carriers of each branch seem to descend from a single ancestor who lived only some 3,000 years ago, during what was then the Nordic Bronze Age.
> The maternal equivalents of that Siberian Q1a2 in prehistoric Eastern Europe are probably mtDNA haplogroups C4a and C5, which have been found Mesolithic Karelia (north-western Russia), in the Neolithic Dnieper-Donets culture in Ukraine, and in the Bronze Age Catacomb culture in the Pontic Steppe. Nowadays mtDNA C is mostly found among Siberians, Mongols and Native Americans, who happen to share Y-haplogroup Q1a2 on the paternal side. The analysis of prehistoric genomes from Eastern Europe did confirm the presence of a small percentage of Amerindian-related autosomal admixture.
> *Oddly enough, the L804 branch, which descends from the same Northeast Siberian branch as the Native American M3, is now found exclusively in Germanic countries, including Scandinavia, Germany, Britain and northern France*. Like the other Scandinavian branch (L527>Y4827), its genetic diversity suggests that this lineage expanded from a single ancestor living approximately 3,000 years ago, presumably in Scandinavia, in what would have been the Nordic Bronze Age. *At present it remains unclear when and how Q1a2-L804 reached Europe in the first place, but it might have been a very long time ago, during the late glacial period or the Mesolithic period. It may well have arrived at the same time as Q-Y4827. Alternatively, L804 might have come as a minor lineage accompanying haplogroup N1c1 from Mongolia until it reached Northeast Europe during the Neolithic period, some 7,000 years ago.*


From Eupedia



> Central Asian & Indo-Iranian Q1b1
> While Q1a is more Mongolian, Siberian and Native American, Q1b1 (F1213) appears to have originated in Central Asia and migrated early to South Asia and the Middle East. The highest frequency of Q1b1 in Europe is found among Ashkenazi Jews (5%) and Sephardic Jews (2%), suggesting that Q1b was present in the Levant before the Jewish disapora 2,000 years ago. In fact, Jewish Q1b all belong to the Y2200 subclade, which was formed some 2,600 years ago. Other subclades of Q1b1 are found throughout the Middle East, including, Armenia, Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon (2%), and in isolated places settled by the Phoenicians in southern Europe (Crete, Sicily, south-west Iberia). This means that Q1b must have been present in the Levant at latest around 1200 BCE, a very long time before the Hunnic migrations. *One hypothesis is that Q1b reached the Middle East alongside haplogroup R1a-Z93 with the Indo-Iranian migrations from Central Asia during the Late Bronze Age.* *The age estimate for the Middle Eastern Q1b1a (L245) branch is 4,500 years, which corresponds roughly to the beginning of the Proto-Indo-Iranian expansion to Central Asia*. The other branch, Q1b1b (Y2265) is found in Central Asia, Iran, Pakistan and India,* a distribution that also agrees with an Indo-Iranian dispersal.*
> Q1b1 was probably not one of the original lineages of Proto-Indo-European speakers of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe *since it is almost completely absent from Balto-Slavic and Germanic countries.* Nevertheless, it is reasonable to *assume that Q1b1 was indigenous to the Ural mountains or Central Asia and was absorbed by the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-Europeans there during the Bronze Age, either during the Sintashta or Andronovo culture, then spread with the Indo-Aryans to India, Iran and the Near East.* Q1b1 probably settled in the Levant at the same time as R1a-Z93, as both lineages are found among the Jews and the Lebanese and in places historically colonised by the Phoenicians. Autosomal analyses have confirmed that all Levantine people (Jews, Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians) possess about 0.5% of Northeast Asian (Mongoloid) admixture. Since these populations lack Mongoloid mtDNA, the presence of Northeast Asian admixture can only be explained by the 2% of Q1b1 among Levantine men, the only paternal lineage of Mongoloid origin in the region.


As per Grugni et al branches of Q in the region: 
Q1* = P36.2*
Q1a1 = M120
Q1a2 = M25
Q1a3 = M346
Q1b1 = M378
YFull tree Q-M120 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-M120/
YFull tree Q-M25
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-M25/
YFull tree Q-M346
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L56/
YFull tree Q-M378
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L275/
YFull tree Q-Y4827
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-Y4827/
YFull tree Q-L804
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L804/
The only branch here that is L56 is Q-M346 now let's take a look:
Q-L56 formed 26,200 YBP and has a TMRCA of 19,900 YBP
Q-L804 formed 15,200 YBP and has a TMRCA of 3200 YBP.
The common ancestor here is very very very old and it predates any thing that we can call "Germanic" or "Iranian". 
The oldest sample of Q-L56 is found in Mesolithic Latvia followed by Khvalynsk culture (5200-4000 BCE) in the Volga region of Russia. Khvalynsk is ancestral to Yamnaya.
Now really, Cyrus, I have a question for you, I really want to know. Why do you want to prove such a connection between Germanic ethnolinguistic cultures and Iranian ethnolinguistic cultures? 
We know their connection is Indo-European and traced to the Steppes. 

The predecessors of Germanic went to Europe and their language formed most likely out the dialect continuum of NW IE removed from the dialect continuum that gave rise to Indo-Iranian languages.

----------


## spruithean

Also, you say genetic evidences that P311 existed there since ancient times? That's your ancient evidence? You're citing the damaged sample with less than 100,000 SNPs? Refer to my posts again.
Additional Haplogroup Q stuff:
https://link.springer.com/article/10...438-017-1363-8
Interesting paragraphs from this study:



> Both Q1a1b-M25 and Q1a2-M346 subclades were frequent in Turkic-speaking populations, and their time estimates were at approximately 3-5 KYA (ESM_1; Table 1). According to Fig. 3 and Table 1, Q1a1b-M25 had spread from Central Asia to Western Asia and to Hungary in Central Europe (ESM_1); Q1a2-M346 had migrated from Southern Siberia (Malyarchuk et al. 2011) to most parts of Eurasia and the Comoros Islands of Africa. The results coincided with Turkic nomadic migrations from Southern Siberia and Mongolia to Central and Western Asia, Caucasus, and Eastern Europe (Yunusbayev et al. 2015). Therefore, we suggested that Q1a1b-M25 and Q1a2-M346 probably migrated with Turkic nomads from Southern Siberia to most parts of Eurasia. A few Q1a1b-M25 and Q1a2-M346 samples in Mongolic-speaking populations probably indicated that Turkic nomads had overlapped with Mongolic-speaking populations when they lived in the present Mongolian territory (Yunusbayev et al. 2015). An ancient DNA study showed that the Hungarians probably originated from Central Asia–Southern Siberia at approximately 4 KYA (Neparáczki et al. 2016), which was consistent with our time estimates (Table 1). Therefore, we proposed that Q1a1b-M25 and Q1a2-M346 had migrated from Central Asia–Southern Siberia to Central Europe at least 4 KYA. Three individuals of Africa (the Comoros Islands) that belonged to Q1a2-M346 reaffirmed that Middle Eastern populations had a genetic influence on the Comoros Islands (Gourjon et al. 2011).






> Subclades Q1a2a1a2-L804 and Q1a2b2-F1161 were the downstream of Q1a2-M346 (Fig. 2), both of which mainly distributed in Western and Northern Europe (Fig. 3). Q1a2a1a2-L804 arrived in Western and Northern Europe as early as 5-7 KYA (Table 1). Ancient DNA studies showed that first European farmers migrated from Central Europe to Western and Northern Europe between 5 and 7.5 KYA (Haak et al. 2005, 2010; Bramanti et al. 2009; Malmström et al. 2009). Therefore, we supposed that Q1a2a1a2-L804 had spread from Central Europe to Western and Northern Europe with European early Neolithic farmers. The time estimate for Q1a2b2-F1161 was one thousand years later than its upstream clade Q1a2-M346 (Table 1), which seemed to be unrelated to the Neolithic transition of Europe (Haak et al. 2010). Since Q1a2-M346 spread across Europe at that time, it probably brought Q1a2b2-F1161 to Western and Northern Europe, and even to Western and Southern Asia (Khurana et al. 2014; Yunusbayev et al. 2015).

----------


## Cyrus

> You see no reason that they are wrong? Do you see the contradictions in the SNP reads? They are pretty damning. Ignoring the glaring mistakes that software they used made is ignoring the obvious that the SNP calls are faulty. It makes you look like you are desparately clinging to these inaccurate calls because they just might support your pet theory. The calls are incorrect and Darra-i Kur is damaged and has below 100,000 SNP reads (refer to my posts). It's bad news. The R-U106 and I2 guys are also clearly wrong as per their Ycall excel file. But you'll deny this because of your biases.
> Read my posts again on this and actually look at the GLARING errors. One of their biggest mistakes was labeling Ma'alta Boy something other than R* when we know he is simply R*. Just wait till that pre-print is finally officially published, they actually went through and made corrections to the Y-calls and those will be published officially when the paper is finalized.


In this thread you have actually done nothing except denying! The interesting thing is that when you say one thing is wrong, you think it means all other ones are wrong too!! What about haplogroup *R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2* whcih has been found both in Samara (northeast of the Caspian sea) and Loebanr (north of Pakistan)? Show me your evidences which prove they are wrong too.

----------


## spruithean

Refer to my post where I provided the Y-calls for S8998 (Loebanr sample ID), Loebanr is dated to 1000-800 BC. His SNP calls show is more accurately R(xR1) maybe R2.
EDIT: So to just keep this right up here:



> S8998.E1.L1 A00 36 0
> *S8998.E1.L1 A0-T 0 12*
> S8998.E1.L1 A0 16 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A1 0 6
> S8998.E1.L1 A0a 2 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A0b 12 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A1a 8 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A1b 0 4
> S8998.E1.L1 A0a1 9 1
> ...


Do you see why Loebanr is not actually U106? He is more likely R(xR1) or R2, besides Loebanr is dated to 1000-800 BC, our oldest U106 sample is: Lille Beddinge (Sweden) R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 *2275-2032 BC* Allentoft et al. 2015, after that we find U106 in R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 *1881-1646 BC* Olande et al. 2017 in De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Netherlands. These samples PREDATE Loebanr. So even it was actually a legitimate U106 it doesn't fit your narrative. Phylogeny matters.

----------


## Cyrus

> Refer to my post where I provided the Y-calls for S8998 (Loebanr sample ID), Loebanr is dated to 1000-800 BC. His SNP calls show is more accurately R(xR1) maybe R2.
> EDIT: So to just keep this right up here:
> 
> 
> Do you see why Loebanr is not actually U106? He is more likely R(xR1) or R2, besides Loebanr is dated to 1000-800 BC, our oldest U106 sample is: Lille Beddinge (Sweden) R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 *2275-2032 BC* Allentoft et al. 2015, after that we find U106 in R1b1a1a2a1a1-U106 *1881-1646 BC* Olande et al. 2017 in De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Netherlands. These samples PREDATE Loebanr. So even it was actually a legitimate U106 it doesn't fit your narrative. Phylogeny matters.


It seems you again just wanted to fool me, I found the source, it says Bolded calls are derived SNPs consistent with R1b, and especially because of R/K2b2a2 0 25 derived markers, that is certainly R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2. I read the same thing about Darra-e-kur too.

----------


## spruithean

Incorrect.
Read it again. I also bolded derived calls. I have the Y-calls file on my computer, I provided the link to the Twitter response from the lead scientist of the paper. Your source also went through the Y-calls and found they were inconsistent also and they highlighted the inconsistencies. I'm not trying to fool you, you're fooling yourself because you desperately want to confirm your biased theory.

Loebanr can't be U106 if it is NEGATIVE for R1b in the first place it doesn't matter if it has a false positive at U106 position, as the UPSTREAM SNPs are NEGATIVE. It doesn't even matter if Loebanr was U106 (he wasn't and S8997 who is the second grave in the site is R2 and both have the same maternal haplogroup) the sample is predated by U106 in Sweden (Allentoft) and the Netherlands (Olalde).


Darra-i Kur has a total SNP count BELOW 100,000 and it has no upstream positive calls that precede P311. It's most accurate read is haplogroup BT, and that is not even worth putting down in a data sheet. You can try as you much as you want to misinterpret the data, but you still fail to see what it says. The Y-calls are inconsistent, and those haplogroup estimations are incorrect, and the finalized paper (NOT THE PRE-PRINT) will show the correct data.

----------


## Cyrus

> Now really, Cyrus, I have a question for you, I really want to know. Why do you want to prove such a connection between Germanic ethnolinguistic cultures and Iranian ethnolinguistic cultures? 
> We know their connection is Indo-European and traced to the Steppes. 
> 
> The predecessors of Germanic went to Europe and their language formed most likely out the dialect continuum of NW IE removed from the dialect continuum that gave rise to Indo-Iranian languages.


The only important thing for me is language/culture of people who lived in my country in the bronze age, it doesn't matter for me that they migrated to the Germanic lands or vice versa, I strongly believe a Germanic culture existed in Iran before the arrival of the Iranian culture in the 1st millennium BC. Of course culture is not just language, for example I believe mythical history of Iran (not Iranian/Avestan mythical history) is almost the same as Germanic mythical history, you can never find them in other Iranian myths in other countries, there are numerous things that I can talk about them, for example about the city of Dehloran in the west of Iran where Lurs live, we read: http://damavand9.blogspot.com/2009/05/dehloran.html?m=1 One of the most interesting things that you could find near the city Dehloran is a natural liquid Tar spring. According to the myths told by the native people, this tar spring was the blood of a dragon that was killed by the Iranian invincible hero, Esphandyar. Who was this hero who killed a dragon, bathed in its blood, and thereby received a skin as hard as horn that makes him invulnerable?

----------


## spruithean

Let's go over this again:




> S8998.E1.L1 A00 36 0
> *S8998.E1.L1 A0-T 0 12*
> S8998.E1.L1 A0 16 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A1 0 6
> S8998.E1.L1 A0a 2 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A0b 12 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A1a 8 0
> S8998.E1.L1 A1b 0 4
> S8998.E1.L1 A0a1 9 1
> ...


I've pointed out the negative calls that are upstream of U106. So try and accuse me of trying to fool you, you are only fooling yourself to fit your narrative. And to paraphrase someone from another forum who I suspect is your "source": "some kind of R for his 25 positive calls for Haplogroup R. However he is negative for R1/R1b/R1b1, etc, the fundamentals of phylogeny make this inconsistency of the haplogroup call quite clear. This Loebanr guy is R(xR1) maybe R2, and judging by the sample S8997 buried in the same area he is probably R2a, as he shares a maternal haplogroup with S8997.

----------


## Cyrus

> Let's go over this again:
> I've pointed out the negative calls that are upstream of U106. So try and accuse me of trying to fool you, you are only fooling yourself to fit your narrative. And to paraphrase someone from another forum who I suspect is your "source": "some kind of R for his 25 positive calls for Haplogroup R. However he is negative for R1/R1b/R1b1, etc, the fundamentals of phylogeny make this inconsistency of the haplogroup call quite clear. This Loebanr guy is R(xR1) maybe R2, and judging by the sample S8997 buried in the same area he is probably R2a, as he shares a maternal haplogroup with S8997.


Why you just focus on negative calls? We see positive calls for *R1b1* and *R1b1a1a2* too, as I see there are negative calls for upstream SNPs in several other ancient samples too, I don't know why you consider them correct but just this one is incorrect!

----------


## spruithean

> Why you just focus on negative calls? We see positive calls for *R1b1* and *R1b1a1a2* too, as I see there are negative calls for upstream SNPs in several other ancient samples too, I don't know why you consider them correct but just this one is incorrect!


sigh... Cyrus, 

You're not understanding me. 

*R1b1* has 6 negative calls to 1 positive call (do the math the odds are higher that it is negative), R1 has 12 negative calls. *R1b1a1a2* has 17 negative calls to 1 positive call (again do the math, the odds are higher). S8998 isn't even positive for *R1*, it has 12 negative calls! It can't be R1b-U106 if it is R1 negative, do the math. He's also negative for *R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a*, *R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a*, *R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a*, *R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b,* etc etc. In order to be R-U106 a genetic sample needs to be positive for ALL UPSTREAM SNPs that define R, R1, R1b, and so on down to U106, if they are negative for R1, R1b and everything upstream of U106 it is not possible. Ancestral means "NEGATIVE" and derived means "POSITIVE". The softwares final haplogroup call is inconsistent with the upstream calls which are negative (especially R1, R1b and others). On the left number column is the ancestral values and on the right number column is the derived values. I don't know how many more times this needs to be gone over. If an individual is negative for R1, let alone R1b and other clade defining mutations they most definitely cannot be U106. So how about we wait until the pre-print is finalized and officially published, they've already said they were fixing the Y-calls and going over them manually and they will release that information when the paper is officially published.

I have looked at the other ones too and found several inconsistencies and I'm not the only one who has taken the time to look at these, the I2 guys are most definitely wrong and there are several other examples from different haplogroups in that pre-print that others have gone over that are wrong and for your information I've already stated that they mislabeled Ma'alta boy (MA-1) too. They labeled him something way downstream when we know from other data and actually good analysis that he is R* (R-M207*). I'm focusing on Darra-i-Kur (damaged sample) and Loebanr because you keep touting them as evidence of your theory when they are inconsistent (thus incorrect) Y-haplogroup calls due to damage and software errors from a new software program that has issues. Hell they labeled more than just those incorrectly due to the software they used.

----------


## Cyrus

Spruithean, what about R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 in Samara? It seems to be the oldest one, we have two similar haplogroups in the south of it (Afghanistan and Pakistan) that you say both of them are wrong, if it is proved that the original one is correct then these ones can be correct too, for example it is possible that pre-print has some errors. Those who are expert in genetics certainly know these basic things that you say, when they talk about these haplogroups after doing deep DNA analyses, they have certainly some strong reasons.

----------


## spruithean

> Spruithean, what about R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 in Samara? It seems to be the oldest one, we have two similar haplogroups in the south of it (Afghanistan and Pakistan) that you say both of them are wrong, if it is proved that the original one is correct then these ones can be correct too, for example it is possible that pre-print has some errors. Those who are expert in genetics certainly know these basic things that you say, when they talk about these haplogroups after doing deep DNA analyses, they have certainly some strong reasons.


R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 in Samara (Yamnaya)? Not likely. Earliest U106 is Lille Beddinge in Sweden like I cited earlier followed by De Tuithoorn in the Netherlands.
The Yamnaya samples from Samara in Russia? *Those Samara Yamnaya were reported by both Haak et al. 2015 and Mathieson et al. 2015. Central and South Asian pre-print refers to them by modern nomenclature and they cited Mathieson et al as their source. So they did not publish Y-calls in the excel file because it seems they did not do the analysis for those samples.* If you look at the Y-calls excel file these samples are unavailable.

https://www.nature.com/articles/natu...#extended-data
An excerpt from Haak et al. 2015 (they refer to the nucleobases)

Haak et al. (2015) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...13433.full.pdf:



> *I0370 (Yamnaya)* 
> This individual was assigned to haplogroup R1b1a2a2 (CTS1078/Z2103:7186135G→C), with upstream haplogroups R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C, L150.1:10008791C→T), R1b1a (L320:4357591C→T) also supported.
> 
> *I0429 (Yamnaya)*
> This individual was assigned to haplogroup R1b1a2a2 (Z2105:15747432C→A) and to the upstream haplogroups R1b1a2a (L23:6753511G→A) and R1b1a2 (L150.1:10008791C→T, M269:22739367T→C). It was ancestral for R1b1a2a2a (L584:28731917C→T) and so could be designated R1b1a2a2*(x R1b1a2a2a).
> 
> *I0438 (Yamnaya)* 
> This individual could also be assigned to haplogroup R1b1a2a2 (Z2105:15747432C→A). It could also be assigned to the upstream haplogroups R1b1a2a (L23:6753511G→A), R1b1a (L320:4357591C→T). It was ancestral for R1b1a2a2a (L584:28731917C→T), and R1b1a2a2c (CTS7822:17684699A→T), so it could be designated R1b1a2a2*(xR1b1a2a2a, R1b1a2a2c).
> 
> ...


So yes, it seems there are inconsistencies here, *obviously some of these Yamnaya are R-L23, however the Central and South Asian pre-print did not do the calls for those samples and instead cited Mathieson et al. 2015 (and Haak et al) as their source and used modern nomenclature* *via ISOGG or YCC* (it seems they didn't do the assessment of these samples! They aren't in the excel file for the Ycalls), and we know there are inconsistencies with the Central/South Asian pre-print, they reported MA-1 wrong and several others because of the software they used. Let’s wait until the Central and South Asian paper is finalized (we've been waiting awhile!) before we start making maps using the pre-print data, does that seem fair? So perhaps we revisit this sort of discussion when that paper is finally finalized and people can create hypotheses based on the finalized data and not the pre-print.

----------


## Cyrus

As you read here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....sian-DNA-Paper

*Central and South Asian DNA Paper*

Its finally out!!!

The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia

ProfileVagheesh M Narasimhan, Nick J Patterson, Priya Moorjani, Iosif Lazaridis, Lipson Mark, Swapan Mallick, Nadin Rohland, Rebecca Bernardos, Alexander M Kim, Nathan Nakatsuka, Inigo Olalde, Alfredo Coppa, James Mallory, Vyacheslav Moiseyev, Janet Monge, Luca M Olivieri, Nicole Adamski, Nasreen Broomandkhoshbacht, Francesca Candilio, Olivia Cheronet, Brendan J Culleton, Matthew Ferry, Daniel Fernandes, Beatriz Gamarra, Daniel Gaudio, Mateja Hajdinjak, Eadaoin Harney, Thomas K Harper, Denise Keating, Ann-Marie Lawson, Megan Michel, Mario Novak, Jonas Oppenheimer, Niraj Rai, Kendra Sirak, Viviane Slon, Kristin Stewardson, Zhao Zhang, Gaziz Akhatov, Anatoly N Bagashev, Baurzhan Baitanayev, Gian Luca Bonora, Tatiana Chikisheva, Anatoly Derevianko, Enshin Dmitry, Katerina Douka, Nadezhda Dubova, Andrey Epimakhov, Suzanne Freilich, Dorian Fuller, Alexander Goryachev, Andrey Gromov, Bryan Hanks, Margaret Judd, Erlan Kazizov, Aleksander Khokhlov, Egor Kitov, Elena Kupriyanova, Pavel Kuznetsov, Donata Luiselli, Farhad Maksudov, Chris Meiklejohn, Deborah C Merrett, Roberto Micheli, Oleg Mochalov, Zahir Muhammed, Samridin Mustafakulov, Ayushi Nayak, Rykun M Petrovna, Davide Pettner, Richard Potts, Dmitry Razhev, Stefania Sarno, Kulyan Sikhymbaevae, Sergey M Slepchenko, Nadezhda Stepanova, Svetlana Svyatko, Sergey Vasilyev, Massimo Vidale, Dima Voyakin, Antonina Yermolayeva, Alisa Zubova, Vasant S Shinde, Carles Lalueza-Fox, Matthias Meyer, David Anthony, Nicole Boivin, Kumarasmy Thangaraj, Douglas Kennett, Michael Frachetti, Ron Pinhasi, David Reich

Abstract

The genetic formation of Central and South Asian populations has been unclear because of an absence of ancient DNA. To address this gap, we generated genome-wide data from 362 ancient individuals, including the first from eastern Iran, Turan (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan), Bronze Age Kazakhstan, and South Asia. Our data reveal a complex set of genetic sources that ultimately combined to form the ancestry of South Asians today. We document a southward spread of genetic ancestry from the Eurasian Steppe, correlating with the archaeologically known expansion of pastoralist sites from the Steppe to Turan in the Middle Bronze Age (2300-1500 BCE). These Steppe communities mixed genetically with peoples of the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) whom they encountered in Turan (primarily descendants of earlier agriculturalists of Iran), but there is no evidence that the main BMAC population contributed genetically to later South Asians. Instead, Steppe communities integrated farther south throughout the 2nd millennium BCE, and we show that they mixed with a more southern population that we document at multiple sites as outlier individuals exhibiting a distinctive mixture of ancestry related to Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gathers. We call this group Indus Periphery because they were found at sites in cultural contact with the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) and along its northern fringe, and also because they were genetically similar to post-IVC groups in the Swat Valley of Pakistan. By co-analyzing ancient DNA and genomic data from diverse present-day South Asians, we show that Indus Periphery-related people are the single most important source of ancestry in South Asia — consistent with the idea that the Indus Periphery individuals are providing us with the first direct look at the ancestry of peoples of the IVC — and we develop a model for the formation of present-day South Asians in terms of the temporally and geographically proximate sources of Indus Periphery-related, Steppe, and local South Asian hunter-gatherer-related ancestry. Our results show how ancestry from the Steppe genetically linked Europe and South Asia in the Bronze Age, and identifies the populations that almost certainly were responsible for spreading Indo-European languages across much of Eurasia.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior.../292581-2.xlsx

Darra.I.Kur_d Darra.I.Kur Darra.I.Kur petrous L5082 1240K.capture DoukaJHulEvol2017 This study Katerina Douka 4655 2850-2460 calBCE (3989±31 BP, OxA-31781) Darra_i_kur_MBA Darra_i_kur_MBA Iran / Turan BA Darra-i-Kur Cave Afghanistan 36.783333 70 M H2a *R1b1a1a2a1a* 0.031 36481 Damage PASS .. .. minus .. .. .. 

S8998.E1.L1 I8998 LOEB_78, Grave 78, Individual 1 petrous S8998.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) This study Ron Pinhasi, Luca Olivieri, Muhammad Zahir, Massimo Vidale, Roberto Micheli 2950 1000-800 BCE SPGT Loebanr_IA South Asia IA Loebanr 1 Pakistan 34.747222 72.391667 M W3a1b *R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2* 3.95464 881251 All PASS(Xcontam=0.005) 0.004617 4.39622593 half 0.18 W3a1b 0.99

----------


## Cyrus

> Lets wait until the Central and South Asian paper is finalized (we've been waiting awhile!) before we start making maps using the pre-print data, does that seem fair?


Ok, it seems you just didn't know, it was finalized last year, so we should just focus on making map, yes?

Therfore we have *R1b-P311* in Afghanistan from *2850-2460 BC* (in fact it is the only haplogroup which has been found in this country from the ancient times) and *R1b-U106* in Pakistan from 1000-800 BC, and from another side, we know Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC and R1b-U106, a subclade of R1b-P311, is the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people. 

There are also other genetic evidnces like *I2a2a2a* in Turkmenistan:

S8527.E1.L1 I8527 MOS324, IE-10-23 petrous (CBD) S8527.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) This study Sergey Vasilyev 5450 5000-2000 BCE Geoksiur_EN Geoksiur_EN Iran / Turan C Geoksiur Turkmenistan 37.1907 61.0343 M .. *I2a2a2a* 0.028172 33150 All PASS .. .. half 0.213 .. .. 

Migration map of R1a, based on recent researches:



Also Q-M346 (L56, L57, M346), ...

All genetic evidences show that the Germanic people migrated from Iran to Scandinavia.

----------


## nornosh

WOW it looks great, new theory! or it's finally proven? Germanics settlement of Europe from Southern Caucasia region!

----------


## spruithean

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------


## spruithean

> WOW it looks great, new theory! or it's finally proven? Germanics settlement of Europe from Southern Caucasia region!


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

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

----------


## nornosh

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


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

----------


## Cyrus

> Cyrus, that thread is old (03-31-2018) the paper is still not published, it is still a pre-print. It's still a pre-print at BioXRiv see your own link from that website. I'm well aware that it hasn't been officially published.
> From your bioXriv link:
> *"[This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]."*
> It also says "*March 31, 2018.*" as the date for the pre-print being posted on bioXriv.
> 
> It could be upwards of 6 months for this paper to be finalized. They've done their reassessment and will publish said results when they publish the paper.
> 
> So again, we should wait before we make assumptions and before we start making maps based off of bad Y-calls using a pre-print that hasn't been officially published. 
> Also still there is no evidence of Germanic people migrating from Iran as the Darra-i-Kur is a damaged sample with low reads of everything, Loebanr has inconsistent reads, the I2 samples inconsistent reads, etc the list goes on. Besides even if your precious Loebanr was U106 and if those I2 were legitimate they are *PREDATED* by European samples by a huge timeframe. *So it would mean a migration from Europe, not to.
> ...


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

----------


## Northener

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

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...ronze-age.html

----------


## spruithean

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


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

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

Anyway, 

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

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

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




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


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





> Read this blog of Davidski, it's very clear that the genetic profile of Nordic Bronze (LNBA) is basically the cluster (=origin) that formed the Germans of the Iron Age and later.
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...ronze-age.html



Good read!

----------


## Cyrus

> Read this blog of Davidski, it's very clear that the genetic profile of Nordic Bronze (LNBA) is basically the cluster (=origin) that formed the Germans of the Iron Age and later.
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...ronze-age.html


Nordic bronze age culture is the base of Germanic culture in Europe but the Germanic culture itself came through Halstatt culture and they were combined in the Jastrof culture about 500 BC, it can be said Germanic men married Nordic women!
About mtDNA haplogroup U7:  
We read in Wikipedia: Genetic analysis of individuals associated with the Late Hallstatt culture from Baden-Wrttemberg Germany considered to be examples of Iron Age "princely burials" included haplogroup U7. Haplogroup U7 was reported to have been found in 1200-year-old human remains (dating to around 834), in a woman believed to be from a royal clan who was buried with the Viking Oseberg Ship in Norway. Haplogroup U7 was found in 1000-year-old human remains (dating to around AD 1000-1250) in a Christian cemetery is Kongemarken Denmark. However, U7 is rare among present-day ethnic Scandinavians.

----------


## Cyrus

> Pre-print is where the papers initially go for review to look for errors. It is not coincidence, nor is this a conspiracy this is science, scientists don't set out with a theory and then look for evidence, they acquire data and then build from there. I've looked through the Y-calls and they are really quite inconsistent there are some that are consistent but that is because they follow phylogeny well (and they are high quality samples), some are somewhat questionable others are extremely questionable. It's not about belief here, it's about the data and the reads and probabilities and how a new computer program (by new I mean very new) interpreted the data. Anyway this paper with its corrections has gone through peer review (_the data currently out on bioXriv is NOT the new stuff that is set to be released_) and it will be published eventually, it could be as long as 6 months. 
> 
> We will always find samples that present low coverage, damage, etc. due to the nature of genetic material (it degrades over time) and the chemical processes that human bodies undergo when buried in various types of soil or other materials, we know some soils are acidic and they damage the DNA if not entirely destroying it. Damaged DNA can cause incorrect sequence reads due to the damage (it can alter how the nucleobases are interpreted), there are many studies where some samples are reported with no haplogroups at all due to the damage, or are given very basal calls due to the damage and being unnable to read the bases along the "strands". 
> 
> Anyway, 
> 
> Some of the calls that ARE consistent are S8505.E1.L1., S8504.E1.L1., I6550, I6549, I1784, S8524.E1.L1., I2927, I2128, S8194.E1.L1., I6553, I3262, I1985, and many others
> 
> Some of the inconsistent calls are S8527.E1.L1., Darra-i Kur, S8998.E1.L1., I1003, I1992 etc. to name a few of them.


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

----------


## Northener

> Nordic bronze age culture is the base of Germanic culture in Europe but the Germanic culture itself came through Halstatt culture and they were combined in the Jastrof culture about 500 BC, it can be said Germanic men married Nordic women!
> About mtDNA haplogroup U7:  
> We read in Wikipedia: Genetic analysis of individuals associated with the Late Hallstatt culture from Baden-W�rttemberg Germany considered to be examples of Iron Age "princely burials" included haplogroup U7. Haplogroup U7 was reported to have been found in 1200-year-old human remains (dating to around 834), in a woman believed to be from a royal clan who was buried with the Viking Oseberg Ship in Norway. Haplogroup U7 was found in 1000-year-old human remains (dating to around AD 1000-1250) in a Christian cemetery is Kongemarken Denmark. However, U7 is rare among present-day ethnic Scandinavians.


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

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

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

----------


## Northener

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


So in fact I'm an Iranian in disguise?

----------


## Cyrus

> So in fact I'm an Iranian in disguise?


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

----------


## Northener

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


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

----------


## Ygorcs

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


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

----------


## Northener

When you want to look at the Indo-European component in the Germanic culture initially brought in by Corded Ware (Single Grave Culture) people than Davidski has made this connection....not exactly Iran but still.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/...ine-twins.html

----------


## Ygorcs

> Read this blog of Davidski, it's very clear that the genetic profile of Nordic Bronze (LNBA) is basically the cluster (=origin) that formed the Germans of the Iron Age and later.
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...ronze-age.html


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

----------


## Ygorcs

> As you read here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....sian-DNA-Paper
> 
> *Central and South Asian DNA Paper*
> 
> Its finally out!!!
> 
> The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia


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

----------


## Cyrus

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


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

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

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

For example look at page 180:

----------


## Northener

> I meant *Germanic language*, I am really interested to know that is there something in the Germanic culture which doesn't exist in the Iranian culture, especially those ones which don't exist in other Indo-European cultures?
> 
> *Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture* By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams
> 
> http://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC
> 
> For example look at page 180:


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

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

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

----------


## Cyrus

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


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

----------


## Cyrus

> You talk about language but your 'evidence' is mythology. As said there is some Indo-European mythological (and genetic) connection. But loose not 1:1 as you seem to suppose.
> 
> Germanic (just like Slavic, Celtic or you name it) is an unique historical phenomenon, bound to a certain area, a product of mixtures. No Gutian tribes that travelled a few ;) miles and popped up as Jutes or Goths. That's outdated nineteenth century stuff.
> 
> What the difference is, I guess the Gernanic language is evident not Iranian like. So besides some Indo-European common traces this all has no single ground.


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

----------


## Northener

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


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

----------


## Ygorcs

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


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

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

----------


## Ygorcs

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


Tell me one sole scientifically sound reason to claim that the Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 B.C. And please don't tell me that it is because _Proto-Germanic has been estimated to have been spoken around 500 B.C. duh!_, because that would be a confession of total ignorance about even the most basic aspects of historical linguistics.

----------


## Cyrus

> I meant that *chronology* matters, so the direction of the genetic flow is obvious if autosomal admixtures and parental markers are disbuted in time and space and appear *first* in some place and only *much later* pop up in other place with the same genetic characteristics not just found earlier elsewhere, but also derived from earlier admixtures and lineages also found in that other place. If R1b-U106 appears together with a previously nonexistant European-derived Steppe_MLBA ancestry in a place (Pakistan, Afghanistan) only _centuries_ after it was found in Europe, and there is a striking chronological concomitance between the arrival of that haplogroup and the arrival of a clearly European genetic signal that didn't exist there before... then, well, what do you think that suggests to us? Of course, that U106 arrived in South-Central Asia in the BA and as late as the IA, just like other haplogroups and just like the BA steppe admixture, and that it came via Central Asia from Europe. If you don't understand even that, then it's a lost case, indeed.
> 
> And no, U106 is not a literal "Germanic haplogroup" since its inception. There isn't such a thing. It's just a haplogroup that, probably because of several factors of genetic drift, became particularly common in the population that would later form the Proto-Germanic speakers. U106 is correlated with Germanic speakers, but it is obvious that haplogroups are not languages, and people have always moved and shifted their language, so males with U106 could've spoken any number of languages in the past (though probably not most of them).


As you said haplogroups are not languages, so it is possible male with U106 were originally a non-Indo-European people in the north of Europe, they migrated to the Caspian steppe and adopted an IE language and then they came to Iran and created proto-Germanic language and then came back to Europe. What is wrong about it?

----------


## Cyrus

> Tell me one sole scientifically sound reason to claim that the Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 B.C. And please don't tell me that it is because _Proto-Germanic has been estimated to have been spoken around 500 B.C. duh!_, because that would be a confession of total ignorance about even the most basic aspects of historical linguistics.


OK, for example I believe θ(th) didn't exist in the north of Europe before the arrival of proto-Germanic language in 500 BC, now please show evidences that this sound existed.

----------


## Ygorcs

> As you said haplogroups are not languages, so it is possible male with U106 were originally a non-Indo-European people in the north of Europe, they migrated to the Caspian steppe and adopted an IE language and then they came to Iran and created proto-Germanic language and then came back to Europe. What is wrong about it?


Answer: lack of any evidence, especially if you consider - as you should - the chronology of events. Science cannot be based on mere hypothetical possibility. Your hypothesis is predicated on an increasingly flimsy argument, which is that Proto-Germanic language _and culture_ were imposed onto much of Northern Europe, but that left negligible or nonexistant impact in the overall ancestry of the population (since BA or IA Iranian admixture really does not exist in ancient or modern DNA samples from that region).

----------


## Cyrus

> Answer: lack of any evidence, especially if you consider - as you should - the chronology of events. Science cannot be based on mere hypothetical possibility. Your hypothesis is predicated on an increasingly flimsy argument, which is that Proto-Germanic language _and culture_ were imposed onto much of Northern Europe, but that left negligible or nonexistant impact in the overall ancestry of the population (since BA or IA Iranian admixture really does not exist in ancient or modern DNA samples from that region).


Would you please tell me what BA or IA Iranian admixture does not exist in ancient or modern DNA samples from Northern Europe? People who live in the west of Iran and north of Europe have these haplogroups: R1b, R1a, I, E1b1b, J, Q, G, N. And almost all European haplogroups are subclades of Iranian ones.

----------


## Cyrus

What about haplogroup J2 in Scandinavia:


It doesn't seem to be J2b:



What is it?

----------


## hrvclv

Here is what experienced genetics buffs think of the matter :




> This is how things look in a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Northern European genetic variation based on my Global25 test. Strikingly, Nordic_MN_B, SWE_Battle_Axe, *Nordic_LN and Nordic_BA more or less recapitulate the cluster made up of present-day Swedish samples.*


From this page : http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...ronze-age.html

In plain English : there has been NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE GENETIC MAKEUP OF GERMANIC POPULATIONS SINCE THE BRONZE AGE. Their DNA today is basically what it was 3000 years ago. All of it locally produced. 

No... no Iranian introgression of any kind!! Get it?

----------


## Ygorcs

> OK, for example I believe θ(th) didn't exist in the north of Europe before the arrival of proto-Germanic language in 500 BC, now please show evidences that this sound existed.


What? Do you think a sound must be brought to some region from outside for it to start existing due to some sound change in a given language? There is no proof at all that /th/ existed or DID NOT EXIST _(don't you believe it existed? So what? who cares about your personal beliefs? This is about evidence, and you have none to make any sort of claim. Do you even have any evidence whatsoever of languages spoken in the Early Iron Age in North Europe? No? Then don't create fantasies in your mind)_. By the way, it is obvious that it should be enough that (pre-)Proto-Germanic had developed this sound, other languages don't need to have had the same phoneme. 

But all of that is in fact completely irrelevant, a non-issue, because sound changes bring new phonemes to a certain language due to the internal dynamics of language evolution, with one phoneme slowly but surely changing more and more its actual realization until it becomes a new phoneme. New sounds appear and disappear all the time, they don't need to be the same already found in languages of the same area. The /th/ of Castillian Spanish only appeared around the 17th century from earlier /ts/. It did not exist in the languages of the Iberian Peninsula before that. Or do you think it was necessary for Icelandic or English people to migrate to Spain to "teach" the locals about the phoneme /th/? Man, your knowledge of linguistics is not just extremely shallow, it even lacks plain common sense.

P.S.: By the way, reconstructed Proto-Italic had the /th/ sound. It was probably spoken originally in Central Europe.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Would you please tell me what BA or IA Iranian admixture does not exist in ancient or modern DNA samples from Northern Europe? People who live in the west of Iran and north of Europe have these haplogroups: R1b, R1a, I, E1b1b, J, Q, G, N. And almost all European haplogroups are subclades of Iranian ones.


I talk about _admixture_ and you reply talking about Y-DNA haplogroups, and the most upstream forms of those haplogroups generically? Do you know what _autosomal admixture_ means? Honestly I can't even take your post seriously any longer... 

Besides, it's obvious that most European Y-DNA subclades of haplogroups _do not_ derive directly from clades originated in Iran and expanded from there, but from clades that already existed in Neolithic "Old Europe", in Neolithic Anatolia or in the Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age Pontic-Caspian steppe. Most of the Y-DNA haplogroups you keep talking about were already well established in Europe by the Copper Age or even before that. There is little *direct* relationship between the most common subclades of haplogroups of Northern Europe and the most common subclades of haplogroups of Iran, and some of these clearly came from Europe and Central Asia to Iran, not the other way around. Contrary to most of Northern Europe after the Early Bronze Age, Iran _did experience_ a significant genetic change between the Late Neolithic and the modern era. 

Sorry, repeating your mantra countless times won't make it true.

----------


## Cyrus

> Here is what experienced genetics buffs think of the matter :
> 
> 
> 
> From this page : http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...ronze-age.html
> 
> In plain English : there has been NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE GENETIC MAKEUP OF GERMANIC POPULATIONS SINCE THE BRONZE AGE. Their DNA today is basically what it was 3000 years ago. All of it locally produced. 
> 
> No... no Iranian introgression of any kind!! Get it?


Instead of these ultra-nationalist claims, please reply my questions, Eupedia website itself says haplogroup Q came in the last 3000 years, if you believe J2 dates back to more than 3000 years ago, you should explain how? Haplogroup R1a and R1b existed in other lands too, it is certainly possible that they came back from other lands too.

----------


## halfalp

There is not really ultra-nationalist claims here, everyone is saying what we have analyzed as amateur for years now. About y-dna modern distribution, J2b is probably the closest thing that would fit your hypothesis of a prehistoric lineage coming from Iran to Europe in Late Neolithic / Chalcolithic.

----------


## Cyrus

> There is not really ultra-nationalist claims here, everyone is saying what we have analyzed as amateur for years now. About y-dna modern distribution, J2b is probably the closest thing that would fit your hypothesis of a prehistoric lineage coming from Iran to Europe in Late Neolithic / Chalcolithic.


It is at least good that you say there could be also a migration from Iran to Europe, it is the first time that I hear it in this forum but Scandinavian one doesn't seem to be J2b.

----------


## Cyrus

It seems no one wants to talk about haplogroup J2 in Scandinavia, I just found something:

J1a-FGC58748FGC58748/Z43008 formed *2600 ybp* > J1a-FGC58748* id:YF11104 *SWE*

What does it mean?

----------


## hrvclv

Present-day distribution :

J2 in Germany : 4.5%
J2 in Sweden : 2.5%
J2 in Norway : 0.5%

J1 in Germany : close to 0
J1 in Norway and sweden : 0

Wow... that's surely enough to change the language.

As for Germanic-oriented nationalist claims, from me, in central France???!! It takes some stretch of the imagination, doesn't it?

You are T-ROLLING THIS FORUM. I hope everyone will just give up answering you, and let this ABSURD thread die its natural death.

----------


## spruithean

> Would you please tell me what BA or IA Iranian admixture does not exist in ancient or modern DNA samples from Northern Europe? People who live in the west of Iran and north of Europe have these haplogroups: R1b, R1a, I, E1b1b, J, Q, G, N. *And almost all European haplogroups are subclades of Iranian ones.*


The admixture we are referring to would be components such as Iran_Neolithic, Iran_Chalcolithic, Iran_BA, Iran_IA, etc. We don't find any of those components in Scandinavia or Germanic populations. Various Migration period and Medieval Period Germanic populations plot quite closely with Nordic BA and associated samples. Uniparental markers are part of the story, but autosomal DNA tells you more in regards to a person's origins. 

Now the second part right there, that is a BOLD claim, where is your evidence for that? Let me guess, Grugni et al 2012? The same study we've discussed 100 times over in this thread? The very same study which didn't test BEYOND the SNPs they listed? Come on. You can't make those claims when the specifications of a paper limited their depth of haplogroup testing (see the list of SNPs they tested). Besides several of those Haplogroups you mention PREDATE Indo-Europeans and are found in Europe as early as the Paleolithic period (I-M170 clades most notably), again we have very old samples of I, I2, G, I1, etc in Europe ranging from the Paleolithic to the Neolithic prior to the migration of the IE people. Now the I1 and I2 samples can easily be explained without really extravagant theories and the paper (Grugni) specifically calls these lineages (I-M170/I2/I1) "West Eurasian" or "European". 
In terms of haplogroup Q, I refer you to the study I linked previous, and again the limited SNP depth of Grugni et al is not definitive of anything in terms of phylogeny of Iranian or European haplogroups because "low resolution" haplogroups without actually getting close to a terminal SNP can lead to really broad statements. 
https://link.springer.com/article/10...438-017-1363-8

Also, Eupedia's page on Haplogroup Q has a subheading for Q in Scandinavia and it mentions an early sample of Q-L56 in Khvalynsk culture. Which is the precursor to Yamnaya. The specific branch of Q in Scandinavia is from a distinctly European lineage. Haplogroup Q more likely originates in Siberia where it expanded with a great amount of Q being quite common among indigenous people of North America.
Again, it is not appropriate to claim that these Iranian haplogroups discussed in Grugni et al are all predecessors to European haplogroups without actually knowing what the real terminal SNPs are for these various modern Iranian samples. We know from private testing that Iranian haplogroups are quite a bit downstream of the ones featured in Grugni et al. You can see examples at FamilyTreeDNA's Iranian DNA Project these can be seen via the tables of results and SNPs they provide. https://www.familytreedna.com/groups...na/dna-results
In regards to U106 and non-IE... that's unlikely. We find U106 in the samples I mentioned like Lille Beddinge, Sweden (Allentoft et al 2015), Únětice, Czech Rep. (Olalde 2018), De Tuithoorn, NL (Olalde 2017) and these are dated to the Bronze Age timeframe. Haplogroups in Europe that could be considered non-IE, are those that were there early on from the Paleolithic onward, I, C, G, F*, etc. 



> What about haplogroup J2 in Scandinavia:
> 
> It doesn't seem to be J2b:
> 
> What is it?


A specific J2 lineage. J2 is quite old and probably associated with the diffusion of domesticated cattle and goats, so not exactly IE and doesn't correlate well with any Bronze Age Migration out of Gutium. Like all haplogroups J2 is old and it has many subclades all with specific geographic origins. The map at Eupedia is quite all encompassing, because it is looking at OVERALL distribution of the paragroup of J2.
For your most recent post https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC58748/
It's a very specific lineage of J2 which quite downstream from the paragroup J2. This lineage looks European with related collateral branches above this node having a distinct Balkan to Central Europe spread.

----------


## Cyrus

> Present-day distribution :
> 
> J2 in Germany : 4.5%
> J2 in Sweden : 2.5%
> J2 in Norway : 0.5%
> 
> J1 in Germany : close to 0
> J1 in Norway and sweden : 0
> 
> ...


J2 in Luristan: 17%
J1 in Luristan: 2%

As I have said several times the most important haplogroups are R1b and R1a which have the highest frequency in Luristan.

J2a, Q-M346(L56) and other haplogroups actually prove there was a migration from Iran to Scandinavia.

I didn't say you are nationalist but your link claimed nationalist things (a pure race with no change in the last 3000 years!!), anyway I already know what I wanted to know, so it really doesn't matter other ones reply or not.

----------


## spruithean

Jeez, no one has said pure race. That's you misunderstanding data, yet again. You are really t-rolling this board now, it is quite obvious. 

Read my post above for J2 and Q. They are specific lineages found in Scandinavia that belong to European branches. They are not evidence of anything. You have a tendency to link things without actually doing the research. This thread is tired as it is the same discussion all the time that leads absolutely nowhere because you fail to see what anyone is saying in favour of accusing people of "ultra-nationalism", that's rich coming from you quite honestly. We constantly circle back around to the same 2012 citation that discusses modern distribution in a modern country. So because ample evidence and strong counter arguments have been given through evidence with support from ancient samples and very indepth genetics papers you still refuse to see the writing on the wall here, and instead accuse people of nationalism. Incredible.

What other haplogroups? Are you citing Grugni et al again? The very same study which only tested a limited amount of SNPs and did not provide any higher clade resolution because of the list of SNPs they tested? Yet when we look at private studies we find very specific lineages in the Iranian DNA project.

This thread is essentially a revolving door.

----------


## Cyrus

> For your most recent post https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-FGC58748/
> It's a very specific lineage of J2 which quite downstream from the paragroup J2. This lineage looks European with related collateral branches above this node having a distinct Balkan to Central Europe spread.


Armenia is not in Balkan or Central Asia, that is really very interesting, as I said in the thread about Indo-European phonology, Persian sources also talk about Gutian migration to Armenia. Skjoldr (Skayordi in the Persian/Armenian sources) was the first Gutian king of Armenia (Urartu/Heorot) who helped Cyaxares in the conquest of Assyrian empire.

----------


## spruithean

I'm well aware that Armenia is not in the Balkans. Are you aware that Europeans were active in Armenia since the Byzantine Empire? You are aware that Armenians settled in Europe throughout the middle ages for various reasons, yes? Or will this thread always jump to your theory instead of first looking at more recent movements of people?


Do you have evidence for Skjöldr being Skayordi? Besides a loose linguistic argument? Evidence for Urartu being Heorot? Or again, more wishful thinking?

----------


## Cyrus

> Jeez, no one has said pure race. That's you misunderstanding data, yet again. You are really t-rolling this board now, it is quite obvious. 
> 
> Read my post above for J2 and Q. They are specific lineages found in Scandinavia that belong to European branches. They are not evidence of anything. You have a tendency to link things without actually doing the research. This thread is tired as it is the same discussion all the time that leads absolutely nowhere because you fail to see what anyone is saying in favour of accusing people of "ultra-nationalism", that's rich coming from you quite honestly. We constantly circle back around to the same 2012 citation that discusses modern distribution in a modern country. So because ample evidence and strong counter arguments have been given through evidence with support from ancient samples and very indepth genetics papers you still refuse to see the writing on the wall here, and instead accuse people of nationalism. Incredible.
> 
> What other haplogroups? Are you citing Grugni et al again? The very same study which only tested a limited amount of SNPs and did not provide any higher clade resolution because of the list of SNPs they tested? Yet when we look at private studies we find very specific lineages in the Iranian DNA project.
> 
> This thread is essentially a revolving door.


I should really thank you, you helped too much about my theory, the fact is I didn't know anything about genetic relations between people who lived in the west of Iran and Scandinavians, if you look at my first posts in this thread I firstly thought it probably related to haplogroup I! The fact is for many years I thought there are just cultural relation between two lands but I already know many things about genetic relations too, thanks again.

----------


## Cyrus

> I'm well aware that Armenia is not in the Balkans. Are you aware that Europeans were active in Armenia since the Byzantine Empire? You are aware that Armenians settled in Europe throughout the middle ages for various reasons, yes? Or will this thread always jump to your theory instead of first looking at more recent movements of people?
> Do you have evidence for Skjöldr being Skayordi? Besides a loose linguistic argument? Evidence for Urartu being Heorot? Or again, more wishful thinking?


It doesn't talk about historical Armenia but modern one which was part of Sassanid empire, look at also this one: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-PF4888/

Sweden 2, Armenia 2, Azerbaijan 1, Qatar 1, ...

I don't know why you think Iran and Europe are in two different worlds, an inscription of Darius the Great has been found in Gherla (Armenopolis) in the northwest of Romania, this thing that some people from Iran came to the Central or Northern Europe in 500 BC is not a strange thing.

----------


## Cyrus

About the name of Armenia (Aremani), it should be mentioned that this is just the name of this land in Old Persian after Gutian migration to this land, Armenians have always called themselves Hay and their country Hayastan. The original name was *Alman* (Alemanni), /l/ didn't exist in Old Persian phonology and l>r was one of the main sound changes in this language. I had talked about this name in ancient Akkadian sources:

----------


## spruithean

> I should really thank you, you helped too much about my theory, the fact is I didn't know anything about genetic relations between people who lived in the west of Iran and Scandinavians, if you look at my first posts in this thread I firstly thought it probably related to haplogroup I! The fact is for many years I thought there are just cultural relation between two lands but I already know many things about genetic relations too, thanks again.


You fail to comprehend the studies that have been linked to you, and what we've been telling post after post.




> It doesn't talk about historical Armenia but modern one which was part of Sassanid empire, look at also this one: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-PF4888/
> 
> Sweden 2, Armenia 2, Azerbaijan 1, Qatar 1, ...
> 
> I don't know why you think Iran and Europe are in two different worlds, an inscription of Darius the Great has been found in Gherla (Armenopolis) in the northwest of Romania, this thing that some people from Iran came to the Central or Northern Europe in 500 BC is not a strange thing.


A 9100 year old haplogroup tells us absolutely nothing. Most of the downstreams of those are PRIOR to Indo-Europeans. You fail to pay attention to chronology and phylogeny, which then leak over to you not paying attention to the specific phylogeny of ancient samples or their respective chronologies.

We know that the Achaemenid Empire extended into Europe. This doesn't mean any one from Iran then moved to Northern Europe, you make assumptions based on bad interpretations of data. Several people in this thread have provided ample evidence that shows a solid case against your theory and you continue to ignore it.




> About the name of Armenia (Aremani), it should be mentioned that this is just the name of this land in Old Persian after Gutian migration to this land, Armenians have always called themselves Hay and their country Hayastan. The original name was *Alman* (Alemanni), /l/ didn't exist in Old Persian phonology and l>r was one of the main sound changes in this language. I had talked about this name in ancient Akkadian sources:


More nonsense and more ridiculous assumptions made here. You fail to pay attention to Uralisms from Uralic in Germanic, Celtic loanwords, Latin loanwords, Germanic loanwords (both pre-proto-Germanic and proto-Germanic) into Finnish, as well as Germanic loanwords into Balto-Slavic etc. You continue to ignore archaeological continuity, autosomal continuity in Scandinavia and Northern Germany and the list goes on. You have every right to believe your theory, but the more you ignore everything everyone is sharing with you the more you look like a t-roll.

----------


## Cyrus

> You fail to comprehend the studies that have been linked to you, and what we've been telling post after post.
> A 9100 year old haplogroup tells us absolutely nothing. Most of the downstreams of those are PRIOR to Indo-Europeans. You fail to pay attention to chronology and phylogeny, which then leak over to you not paying attention to the specific phylogeny of ancient samples or their respective chronologies.
> We know that the Achaemenid Empire extended into Europe. This doesn't mean any one from Iran then moved to Northern Europe, you make assumptions based on bad interpretations of data. Several people in this thread have provided ample evidence that shows a solid case against your theory and you continue to ignore it.
> More nonsense and more ridiculous assumptions made here. You fail to pay attention to Uralisms from Uralic in Germanic, Celtic loanwords, Latin loanwords, Germanic loanwords (both pre-proto-Germanic and proto-Germanic) into Finnish, as well as Germanic loanwords into Balto-Slavic etc. You continue to ignore archaeological continuity, autosomal continuity in Scandinavia and Northern Germany and the list goes on. You have every right to believe your theory, but the more you ignore everything everyone is sharing with you the more you look like a t-roll.


You yourself know that new genetic studies also support my theory, of course you hope that these studies are proved to be wrong and they say that Germanic haplogroups don't exist in Asia but I know they will disappoint you, in fact you should wait for more genetic studies and several other evidences for Germanic presence in Iran, I believe this is a historical fact which can never be changed.

----------


## nornosh

Why Germanic 'god' relates to Indo-Iranian 'khuda' and Latin 'Deo' to Sanskrit 'Deva', IndoIranian 'Bagh' to Indic 'Baghwan' maybe because they share common ancestor PIE  :Thinking:

----------


## Ygorcs

> Present-day distribution :
> 
> J2 in Germany : 4.5%
> J2 in Sweden : 2.5%
> J2 in Norway : 0.5%
> 
> J1 in Germany : close to 0
> J1 in Norway and sweden : 0
> 
> ...


Exactly. For me the "confession statement" of his has already been said: _"I believe θ(th) didn't exist in the north of Europe before the arrival of proto-Germanic language in 500 BC_"; and then he tops that with _"I believe this is a historical fact which can never be changed."_ 

It's a matter of belief, a dogma, an ideological principle, a personally invested agenda - not a matter of disinterested, unbiased science. And it's particularly funny and also bizarre to see an _Iranian man_ on a crusade to prove that _Germanic people are from Iran_ bashing other people (non-Germanic people, mind you, lol) as "ultra-nationalists" and "racists". Talk about projection.

Honestly I recommend everyone to just stop feeding this bunch of delusional fiction and nonsense.

----------


## MOESAN

> About the name of Armenia (Aremani), it should be mentioned that this is just the name of this land in Old Persian after Gutian migration to this land, Armenians have always called themselves Hay and their country Hayastan. The original name was *Alman* (Alemanni), /l/ didn't exist in Old Persian phonology and l>r was one of the main sound changes in this language. I had talked about this name in ancient Akkadian sources:



I try my proper nail.
the *Alemanni* tribes name dates since a very later time than your* Alman* of Armenia, of supposed Gutian origin (which I dont contest specifically here). this name is not mentioned concerning the first known Germanic tribes; it seems it's rather a new name of OUR era signifying "all men" (°all-? mandi? I've not the old form at hand) after kind of fusion of old dispersed or weakened tribes of previous other names; sulemy the same phenomenon as the formation of the Franks name. So a direct link with the Alman of Armenia is to discard.
If you like names forms proximities I can cite a place *Tamul* in the Baltic region (not precised, I found it in an abstract about Narva culture period), and *Tamul* waterfalls in Mexico; it opens you new doors to rewrite history, opening a door to Southern India as a 'must'. 
Concerning proper names, I made researches about curious surnames of Brittany and I found, for some of them, at te level of look (writing) same surnames in Iberia, or Italy, or the Netherlands, or Finland or Poland or Hungary and so on... until China! It's not proximity, but appearent identity!
And these names, present in these countries since surnames exist, have absolutely no link tying them, they have different etymologies, except a very small number.

----------


## Cyrus

> Why Germanic 'god' relates to Indo-Iranian 'khuda' and Latin 'Deo' to Sanskrit 'Deva', IndoIranian 'Bagh' to Indic 'Baghwan' maybe because they share common ancestor PIE


I think you know Persian, as you read about Sanskrit Deva: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=deva

"god, divinity, good spirit" in Hindu religion, 1819, from Sanskrit deva "a god" (as opposed to asuras "wicked spirits"), etymologically *"a shining one,"* from **div- "to shine,"* thus cognate with Greek dios "divine" and Zeus, and Latin deus "god" (Old Latin deivos), from PIE root *dyeu- "to shine," in derivatives "sky, heaven, god."

Div in Persian means "demon", not "god", the important point is that this word never means "shining" in Persian, in fact it is not possible that a word with this meaning is used for demon, the Middle Persian word for "shining" is *tewa* which is clearly a loanword from proto-Germanic, in Modern Persian that is "Taban" (w>b sound change). https://glosbe.com/fa/en/%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86

As you read in this book: A history of Zoroastrianism: The Early Period By Mary Boyce, Frantz Grenet (The Gods of Pagan Iran, page 77), the chief god of Iran was Tir/Tyr, it was also the chief god of Armenians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tir_(god), the founder of Parthian empire and some other Parthian and then Armenian kings were *Tiridates* which means "Given by God (Tir)". Tyr is from proto-Germanic *Tiwaz*: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tyr  Also compare to the name of Gutian king *Tirigan*.

----------


## Cyrus

> I try my proper nail.
> the Alemanni tribes name dates since a very later time than your Alman of Armenia, of supposed Gutian origin (which I dont contest specifically here). this name is not mentioned concerning the first known Germanic tribes; it seems it's rather a new name of OUR era signifying "all men" (°all-? mandi? I've not the old form at hand) after kind of fusion of old dispersed or weakened tribes of previous other names; sulemy the same phenomenon as the formation of the Franks name. So a direct link with the Alman of Armenia is to discard.
> If you like names forms proximities I can cite a place Tamul in the Baltic region (not precised, I found it in an abstract about Narva culture period), and Tamul waterfalls in Mexico; it opens you new doors to rewrite history, opening a door to Southern India as a 'must'.
> Concerning proper names, I made researches about curious surnames of Brittany and I found, for some of them, at te level of look (writing) same surnames in Iberia, or Italy, or the Netherlands, or Finland or Poland or Hungary and so on... until China! It's not proximity, but appearent identity!
> And these names, present in these countries since surnames exist, have absolutely no link tying them, they have different etymologies, except a very small number.


It really doesn't matter that there are similar names in modern Germanic lands or not, I say the names of all ancient tribes in the west of Iran such as Guti, Suedi, Alman, Padan, Suebi, ... have Germanic origin, it is certainly possible that we find two similar names in two different lands, but what about 10, 100, 1000, ...? I can list the names of at least 500 place names in the west of Iran which have Germanic origin, most of them also exist in the modern Germanic lands.

----------


## Cyrus

For example search the same name of *Lur*: https://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Lur&country=

As you see more than half of them are in Iran, but what are other ones:

Lur, Pakistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (land of Kalash people)
Lur, Sweden, Skåne
Lur, Sweden, Västra Götaland
Lur, Austria, Styria
...

Number of placenames which contain the word _Lur_:

Iran: 24
Afghanistan: 11
Sweden: 7
Pakistan: 5

----------


## Northener

> For example search the same name of *Lur*: https://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Lur&country=
> 
> As you see more than half of them are in Iran, but what are other ones:
> 
> Lur, Pakistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (land of Kalash people)
> Lur, Sweden, Skåne
> Lur, Sweden, Västra Götaland
> Lur, Austria, Styria
> ...
> ...


Cyrus, I think there is some common ground in mythology and some distant genetic relationship. That’s all. Tribes that bring direct the Germanic culture to NW Europe from Iran is a fairy tale.

But I guess this remarks are like to bring water to the sea.....believers stay believers.




Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Cyrus

Would you please explain this haplogroup:

*R1a-Y17491* (formed 4900 ybp), a subclade of R1a-Z282 which is itself a subclade of *R1a-Z283*: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y17491/

Subclades:
*R-YP5872* (formed 4600 ybp) id:YF08495 *Sweden* > R-YP6536 _Sweden_
*R-YP4858* (formed 4600 ybp) id:YF04155PAK *Pakistan* > R-FGC64133 (formed 3100 ybp) _Turkey/Syria_

Look at the location of R1a-Z283 in the Migration map of haplogroup R1a:

----------


## Northener

> Would you please explain this haplogroup:
> 
> *R1a-Y17491* (formed 4900 ybp), a subclade of R1a-Z282 which is itself a subclade of *R1a-Z283*: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y17491/
> 
> Subclades:
> *R-YP5872* (formed 4600 ybp) id:YF08495 *Sweden* > R-YP6536 _Sweden_
> *R-YP4858* (formed 4600 ybp) id:YF04155PAK *Pakistan* > R-FGC64133 (formed 3100 ybp) _Turkey/Syria_
> 
> Look at the location of R1a-Z283 in the Migration map of haplogroup R1a:



Corded Ware.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

----------


## Cyrus

> Corded Ware.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


What is the relation between the western branch of the Corded Ware culture and Pakistan?

----------


## Northener

> What is the relation between the western branch of the Corded Ware culture and Pakistan?


Very distant cousins, very different branches. So no direct connection Iran and Germanic.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Cyrus

> Very distance cousins, very different branches. So no direct connection Iran and Germanic.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum


No, they are from the same branch and closely related to each other.

I think it can solve the puzzle:



Where is it?

----------


## Northener

there.... ;)

----------


## Northener

and here....



so you theory is thin air.....

----------


## Ygorcs

> Corded Ware.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture


"Closely related" with a common origin in 2600 B.C., even before Akkadians had conquered all of Mesopotamia? Is that still "closely related" to you, who claim a Proto-Germanic migration during the Iron Age, after 500 B.C., "only" a little more than 2000 years later? Actually an origin 4600 ybp makes all the sense. CWC had several clades derived from R1a-M417, many of them started to split by them. Sintashta, Srubnaya and, via them, Andronovo are clearly a mix of CWC with local Yamnaya-derived populatons (which had already acquired quite a bit of extra EEF in the preceding centuries, too). CWC, full of subclades of R1a-M417, expanded and later dispersed exactly between 4900-4300 ybp, and one of its descendant populations, which migrated to Central Asian steppe, ended up contributing to the genetic makeup of LBA/IA South-Central Asians and South Asians. What a coincidence, don't you think? All the pieces fit together, unlike your increasingly loose and fanciful hypothesis which needs all sorts of twists and omissions on the genetic evidences to even sound vaguely plausible.

----------


## Cyrus

> "Closely related" with a common origin in 2600 B.C., even before Akkadians had conquered all of Mesopotamia? Is that still "closely related" to you, who claim a Proto-Germanic migration during the Iron Age, after 500 B.C., "only" a little more than 2000 years later? Actually an origin 4600 ybp makes all the sense. CWC had several clades derived from R1a-M417, many of them started to split by them. Sintashta, Srubnaya and, via them, Andronovo are clearly a mix of CWC with local Yamnaya-derived populatons (which had already acquired quite a bit of extra EEF in the preceding centuries, too). CWC, full of subclades of R1a-M417, expanded and later dispersed exactly between 4900-4300 ybp, and one of its descendant populations, which migrated to Central Asian steppe, ended up contributing to the genetic makeup of LBA/IA South-Central Asians and South Asians. What a coincidence, don't you think? All the pieces fit together, unlike your increasingly loose and fanciful hypothesis which needs all sorts of twists and omissions on the genetic evidences to even sound vaguely plausible.


If you remember, I talked about R1a-M17 in Germany as the source of the same haplogroup in Iran, we read in Wikipedia:

"David Anthony considers the Yamnaya culture to be the Indo-European Urheimat. According to Haak et al. (2015), a massive migration from the Yamnaya culture northwards took place ca. 2,500 BCE, accounting for 75% of the genetic ancestry of the Corded Ware culture, noting that R1a and R1b may have "spread into Europe from the East after 3,000 BCE". *Yet, all their seven Yamnaya samples belonged to the R1b-M269 subclade, but no R1a1a has been found in their Yamnaya samples.* This raises the question where the R1a1a in the Corded Ware culture came from, if it was not from the Yamnaya culture.

Semenov and Bulat do argue for such an *origin of R1a1a in the Corded ware culture*, noting that several publications point to the presence of R1a1 in the Comb Ware culture."

It means R1a came from CWC to Yamnaya, not vice versa, so Europeans migrated to the Caspian steppe and then adopted the Indo-European language, one group of these Europeans continued its way to Iran and created the Germanic culture and then came back to Europe in 500 BC.

----------


## MOESAN

I'm K.O. You win here, Cyrus.
I avow all these subclades of Y-R1b-U106, R1a1a, I1, I2a2 in today Germanic lands have no importance.

----------


## nornosh

Look if there were great migrations in 500 BC then people in Greece, Turkey must have noticed it yet no records of it is in those countries sources.
The 2600 BC date looks more probable IMO, with possibly some less migrations in 500 BC which must have had some influences on Europe.

----------


## Ygorcs

> If you remember, I talked about R1a-M17 in Germany as the source of the same haplogroup in Iran, we read in Wikipedia:
> 
> "David Anthony considers the Yamnaya culture to be the Indo-European Urheimat. According to Haak et al. (2015), a massive migration from the Yamnaya culture northwards took place ca. 2,500 BCE, accounting for 75% of the genetic ancestry of the Corded Ware culture, noting that R1a and R1b may have "spread into Europe from the East after 3,000 BCE". *Yet, all their seven Yamnaya samples belonged to the R1b-M269 subclade, but no R1a1a has been found in their Yamnaya samples.* This raises the question where the R1a1a in the Corded Ware culture came from, if it was not from the Yamnaya culture.
> 
> Semenov and Bulat do argue for such an *origin of R1a1a in the Corded ware culture*, noting that several publications point to the presence of R1a1 in the Comb Ware culture."
> 
> It means R1a came from CWC to Yamnaya, not vice versa, so Europeans migrated to the Caspian steppe and then adopted the Indo-European language, one group of these Europeans continued its way to Iran and created the Germanic culture and then came back to Europe in 500 BC.


Nonsense. CWC _appears_ centuries later than the early phase of the Yamnaya culture, which is a direct and continuous development from the earlier Repin culture. R1a-M417 was also found _centuries earlier_ in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, before the CWC. Also, again: haplogroups are not people, haplogroups are not one's overall ancestry. The CWC has the same origin as the Yamnaya wherever it was, but the Yamnaya-like admixture was found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian region since the Eneolithic (Vonyuchka, Progress, Khvalynsk).

----------


## Cyrus

> Look if there were great migrations in 500 BC then people in Greece, Turkey must have noticed it yet no records of it is in those countries sources.
> The 2600 BC date looks more probable IMO, with possibly some less migrations in 500 BC which must have had some influences on Europe.


Of course nothing happened in 500 BC!! Achaemenid empire didn't exist! Persians didn't conquer and occupy Pontus, Armenia, ..., they didn't force any people to leave their land!! Scythians didn't migrate to Europe, but I don't know why no one lived in the east of Europe except Scythians because ancient Greek sources just talk about them in these regions!!

It really sounds good, there was not any great migration in 500 BC and from 2600 BC just Iranian-speaking people lived in a large part of Europe and Asia, yes?

----------


## Northener

> It means R1a came from CWC to Yamnaya, not vice versa, so Europeans migrated to the Caspian steppe and then adopted the Indo-European language, one group of these Europeans continued its way to Iran and created the Germanic culture and then came back to Europe in 500 BC.


@Cyrus reminds me of Huup Huup Barbatruc.....

When i was a child there was some kind of cartoon in which creatures turned into another shape....before that they shouted huup huup barba truc (trick).

Somehow your posting reminds me of that ;) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjboFzPF-I

----------


## Cyrus

> I'm K.O. You win here, Cyrus.
> I avow all these subclades of Y-R1b-U106, R1a1a, I1, I2a2 in today Germanic lands have no importance.


They are actually very important, we know subclades of *R1a1a* existed in the north of Europe long time before Yamnaya, as you read in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a, "The *Rossen culture* (4,600–4,300 BC), which was situated on Germany and predates the Corded Ware culture, an old subclade of R1a, namely *L664*, can still be found." The same thing can be said about R1b1a but in a southern part of Europe, as you read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b "Villabruna 1 (individual I9030), found in an Epigravettian culture setting in the Cismon valley (modern Veneto, Italy), who lived circa 14,000 years BP and belonged to R1b-L754, numerous individuals from the Mesolithic Iron Gates culture of the central Danube (modern Romania and Serbia), dating from 10,000 to 8,500 BP – most of them falling into R1b-L754"

Northern and southern parts of Europe are certainly the sources of both R1a1a and R1b1a, also I1 and I2, people from these lands migrated to the Caspian steppe and adopted an Indo-Euroepan culture, it is meaningless to say a younger culture in the steppe created old cultures in Europe.

----------


## Cyrus

> Nonsense. CWC appears centuries later than the early phase of the Yamnaya culture, which is a direct and continuous development from the earlier Repin culture. R1a-M417 was also found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, before the CWC. Also, again: haplogroups are not people, haplogroups are not one's overall ancestry. The CWC has the same origin as the Yamnaya wherever it was, but the Yamnaya-like admixture was found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian region since the Eneolithic (Vonyuchka, Progress, Khvalynsk).


Look at my previous post, I think you know these things better than me, a subclade of R1a-M417, namely L664, has been found in Rossen culture (4,600–4,300 BC) in Germany, at least 1,000 years before Yamnaya culture (3300–2600 BC) in the steppe.

----------


## Cyrus

I think many things should be corrected about the migration map of haplogroup R1a:

----------


## Silesian

> Nonsense. CWC _appears_ centuries later than the early phase of the Yamnaya culture, which is a direct and continuous development from the earlier Repin culture. R1a-M417 was also found _centuries earlier_ in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, before the CWC. Also, again: haplogroups are not people, haplogroups are not one's overall ancestry. The CWC has the same origin as the Yamnaya wherever it was, but the Yamnaya-like admixture was found centuries earlier in the Pontic-Caspian region since the Eneolithic (Vonyuchka, Progress, Khvalynsk).


 How do you explain the many cultural/archeological[snp age dates] differences between Yamnaya R1b-Z2108/9 [R-Z2108Z2109/CTS1843 * Z2108+/- formed 5200 ybp] and CWC R1a?

----------


## spruithean

> Of course nothing happened in 500 BC!! Achaemenid empire didn't exist! Persians didn't conquer and occupy Pontus, Armenia, ..., they didn't force any people to leave their land!! Scythians didn't migrate to Europe, but I don't know why no one lived in the east of Europe except Scythians because ancient Greek sources just talk about them in these regions!!
> 
> It really sounds good, there was not any great migration in 500 BC and from 2600 BC just Iranian-speaking people lived in a large part of Europe and Asia, yes?


Are you sure that the Achaemenid Empire didn't exist in 500 BC? Who conquered Egypt in 525 BC? Who conquered Lydia in 547 BC? Who were the Greeks at war with in 499 BC during the Greco-Persian War? There weren't just Iranian-speaking people living in Europe and Asia. The map you provided even acknowledges this. The Greeks mention the Scythians a fair bit because they interacted with them heavily, and the Greeks had colonies on the Black Sea coast and were directly neighboured by Scythian tribes. The Greeks however mention other people besides the Scythians like Thracians and the like.




> They are actually very important, we know subclades of *R1a1a* existed in the north of Europe long time before Yamnaya, as you read in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a, "The *Rossen culture* (4,600–4,300 BC), which was situated on Germany and predates the Corded Ware culture, an old subclade of R1a, namely *L664*, can still be found." The same thing can be said about R1b1a but in a southern part of Europe, as you read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b "Villabruna 1 (individual I9030), found in an Epigravettian culture setting in the Cismon valley (modern Veneto, Italy), who lived circa 14,000 years BP and belonged to R1b-L754, numerous individuals from the Mesolithic Iron Gates culture of the central Danube (modern Romania and Serbia), dating from 10,000 to 8,500 BP – most of them falling into R1b-L754"
> 
> Northern and southern parts of Europe are certainly the sources of both R1a1a and R1b1a, also I1 and I2, people from these lands migrated to the Caspian steppe and adopted an Indo-Euroepan culture, it is meaningless to say a younger culture in the steppe created old cultures in Europe.


You're going to have to provide a citation for this "R-L664" in Rossen Culture. I'm curious as an ancient sample such as this wouldn't be ignored, especially by people that are in this research field. It's my understanding that prior to Rossen there was the LBK culture in Germany (and Hungary) and their LBK samples are all G2a2a and G2a2a1, they found that in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048219/ the list of haplogroups are in the Extended Data table 2 PDF. (Word of caution for all studies, we need to be clear about what ISOGG tree they are using, ISOGG is notoriously behind by about a year, this is why we use shorthand)

Do you have actual evidence of I1 moving to the Pontic Caspian steppe? I1s formation and TMRCA say otherwise. Haplogroup I in Europe is far older than steppe cultures and it was present in Europe in the Paleolithic period. 




> Look at my previous post, I think you know these things better than me, a subclade of R1a-M417, namely L664, has been found in Rossen culture (4,600–4,300 BC) in Germany, at least 1,000 years before Yamnaya culture (3300–2600 BC) in the steppe.


Again, provide a citation for this R-L664 in Rossen Culture. Cite the publication. Wikipedia does not cite an actual study and it simply redirects you to YFull (while claiming that YFull is FTDNA?)




> I think many things should be corrected about the migration map of haplogroup R1a:


Can you explain your reasoning for this map?

----------


## Cyrus

> How do you explain the many cultural/archeological[snp age dates] differences between Yamnaya R1b-Z2108/9 [R-Z2108Z2109/CTS1843 * Z2108+/- formed 5200 ybp] and CWC R1a?


As I said in another thread Proto-Indo-European was initially divided into two different branches: *Satem* (R1a-M17) and *Centum* (R1b-L23), they existed at the same time but they were different cultures, it is possible that Satem originated in Corded Ware culture and Centum in Yamnaya culture.

Modern distribution of these hoplogrops show major migration from 5,500 to 4,500 years ago:



After about 2,000 years in the 1st millennium BC, we see some cultural changes, Iranian culture was expanded to modern Iran, Armenian culture reached to modern Armenia in the south and Celtic and Germanic cultures came back to Europe. Balto-Slavic, Indian, Anatolian, Hellenic, Italic, Thracian, Albanian, ... cultures have a longer history in their own lands.

----------


## Angela

Since this seems to be a discussion mainly about genetics, and specifically about y dna, I am moving it to that part of the site.

If you like I can rename it something like Germanic ethnogenesis through yDna analysis.

----------


## Cyrus

> Can you explain your reasoning for this map?


The most important point is that we know in the 1st millennium BC non-Indo-European people such as Basques, Iberians, Etruscans, Finns, ... lived in the west and north of Europe and all of them had the same haplogroups of R1a and R1b, so it can't be said that these haplogroups in Europe just relate to Indo-Europeans.

----------


## hrvclv

> Since this seems to be a discussion mainly about genetics, and specifically about y dna, I am moving it to that part of the site.
> 
> If you like I can rename it something like Germanic ethnogenesis through yDna analysis.


We all know what it seems to be. I wish I knew what it really is (Sigh!). 

Don't move or rename the damn thing. Dump it where it belongs and pull the chain.

----------


## spruithean

> The most important point is that we know in the 1st millennium BC non-Indo-European people such as Basques, Iberians, Etruscans, Finns, ... lived in the west and north of Europe and all of them had the same haplogroups of R1a and R1b, so it can't be said that these haplogroups in Europe just relate to Indo-Europeans.


So we're just going ignore phylogeny and make broad sweeping statements then? 




> We all know what it seems to be. I wish I knew what it really is (Sigh!). 
> 
> Don't move or rename the damn thing. Dump it where it belongs and pull the chain.


This, anything that has been said in this thread has been rejected in favour of a pseudohistory and a pet theory, any evidence that shows the pet theory is complete nonsense gets ignored.




> As I said in another thread Proto-Indo-European was initially divided into two different branches: *Satem* (R1a-M17) and *Centum* (R1b-L23), they existed at the same time but they were different cultures, it is possible that Satem originated in Corded Ware culture and Centum in Yamnaya culture.
> 
> Modern distribution of these hoplogrops show major migration from 5,500 to 4,500 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 2,000 years in the 1st millennium BC, we see some cultural changes, Iranian culture was expanded to modern Iran, Armenian culture reached to modern Armenia in the south and Celtic and Germanic cultures came back to Europe. Balto-Slavic, Indian, Anatolian, Hellenic, Italic, Thracian, Albanian, ... cultures have a longer history in their own lands.


Haplogroups don't speak languages, pretty bold of you to assert that R-L23 is Centum and R-M17 is Satem, are we going to ignore the large amount of Yamnaya admixture in Corded Ware? 

This map makes no sense. Celtic and Germanic came back to Europe? That's ridiculous and everyone is getting tired of this pseudohistorical stuff. What about Italic? Italic and Celtic are quite closely linked at a certain point, so care to explain that? Where is Balto-Slavic in all this? How did proto-Germanic influence Balto-Slavic and early Finnish if it was way far away? How did Finnish acquire some pre-proto-Germanic loanwords? Proto-Germanic most definitely arose in Northern Europe, you keep denying this. Present some real archaeological evidence that this migration "out of Iran" happened, we've already discussed the genetic aspect and how it doesn't fit your theory and you insist on ignoring that or misinterpreting the data. 


Also where is the citation for an ancient sample of R-L664 in the Rossen Culture? I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a scholarly source.

----------


## nornosh

> Also where is the citation for an ancient sample of R-L664 in the Rossen Culture? I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a scholarly source.


Yes Wikipedia got it mixed up! its actually from Corded ware culture in 2700 BC not Rossen culture BUT the point they are making is that it preceded the oldest R1b samples in W.Europe so it couldn't have been from Yamna culture which were discussed in previous threads already.

----------


## Ygorcs

> How do you explain the many cultural/archeological[snp age dates] differences between Yamnaya R1b-Z2108/9 [R-Z2108Z2109/CTS1843 * Z2108+/- formed 5200 ybp] and CWC R1a?


What "many cultural/archaeological" differences are you referring to? They were close enough to be two cultures from different parts of the PIE-speaking sphere of influence. In my nMonte models, I found it pretty interesting (and plausible) that Yamnaya looks more easily modeled as _Progress Eneolithic + Khalynsk Eneolithic_, whereas CWC Baltic (early, with almost no extra EEF or WHG/EHG ancestry) can be easily modeled as _Progress Eneolithic + Ukraine Eneolithic_. Maybe CWC derives from Eneolithic Steppe-influenced Ukrainian cultures of the Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age displaced northward (possibly first into the forest-steppe, later to the forest areas) by the Yamnaya who originally came from the east (Khvalynsk > Repin > Yamnay). They were clearly related not just genetically, but also culturally, but they were not the same, and the CWC most certainly acquired new cultural traits as it mixed with EEF and HG people in Northern Europe and adapted to a completely new environment.

----------


## Silesian

> What "many cultural/archaeological" differences are you referring to? They were close enough to be two cultures from different parts of the PIE-speaking sphere of influence. _In my nMonte models, I found it pretty interesting (and plausible) that Yamnaya looks more easily modeled as Progress Eneolithic + Khalynsk Eneolithic, whereas CWC Baltic (early, with almost no extra EEF or WHG/EHG ancestry) can be easily modeled as Progress Eneolithic + Ukraine Eneolithic. Maybe CWC derives from Eneolithic Steppe-influenced Ukrainian cultures of the Late Copper Age/Early Bronze Age displaced northward (possibly first into the forest-steppe, later to the forest areas) by the Yamnaya who originally came from the east (Khvalynsk > Repin > Yamnay)_. They were clearly related not just genetically, but also culturally, but they were not the same, and the CWC most certainly acquired new cultural traits as it mixed with EEF and HG people in Northern Europe and adapted to a completely new environment.


Could you please be so kind and post all your working/viable nMonte models in regards to this subject. So we can have some common understanding and to communicate.

----------


## Silesian

> As I said in another thread Proto-Indo-European was initially divided into two different branches: *Satem* (R1a-M17) and *Centum* (R1b-L23), they existed at the same time but they were different cultures, it is possible that Satem originated in Corded Ware culture and Centum in Yamnaya culture.
> 
> Modern distribution of these hoplogrops show major migration from 5,500 to 4,500 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> After about 2,000 years in the 1st millennium BC, we see some cultural changes, Iranian culture was expanded to modern Iran, Armenian culture reached to modern Armenia in the south and Celtic and Germanic cultures came back to Europe. Balto-Slavic, Indian, Anatolian, Hellenic, Italic, Thracian, Albanian, ... cultures have a longer history in their own lands.


 Okay have a look at this. I was wondering what is going on with some of these R1b samples. I'm going to be very specific.

As you might already know markers downstream from R1b-Z2108+-Z2109+ are linked directly with Yamnaya/Afansievo/Catacombe/Poltavka/Eastern Bell Beaker[R1b-KMS67 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-KMS67/].
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2108*/

What is of interest is R-Y14415 this 5200+/- year old marker[roughly 300+/- years older than the R1a marker above # R-Y17491FGC86403 * Y17491formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybpinfo] is found among Punjabi's[R-Y35099] while at the same time it is also found in Swedes under R-Y14512. How can this be? Recent immigration ? 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y14415/

----------


## Cyrus

> So we're just going ignore phylogeny and make broad sweeping statements then? 
> 
> 
> 
> This, anything that has been said in this thread has been rejected in favour of a pseudohistory and a pet theory, any evidence that shows the pet theory is complete nonsense gets ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> Haplogroups don't speak languages, pretty bold of you to assert that R-L23 is Centum and R-M17 is Satem, are we going to ignore the large amount of Yamnaya admixture in Corded Ware? 
> ...


About L664 in the Rossen Culture, look at 
"R1a subclades" by CB Horvath, it mostly talks about this haplogroup.

I don't know what you mean by proto-Germanic influence on Balto-Slavic and early Finnish! Proto-Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, you believe a language almost the same as proto-Indo-European existed in the north of Europe and in 500 BC this language was changed to proto-Germanic, now do you want to say Balto-Slavic borrowed some words from proto-IE?!

----------


## Cyrus

> Okay have a look at this. I was wondering what is going on with some of these R1b samples. I'm going to be very specific.
> 
> As you might already know markers downstream from R1b-Z2108+-Z2109+ are linked directly with Yamnaya/Afansievo/Catacombe/Poltavka/Eastern Bell Beaker[R1b-KMS67 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-KMS67/].
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2108*/
> 
> What is of interest is R-Y14415 this 5200+/- year old marker[roughly 300+/- years older than the R1a marker above # R-Y17491FGC86403 * Y17491formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybpinfo] is found among Punjabi's[R-Y35099] while at the same time it is also found in Swedes under R-Y14512. How can this be? Recent immigration ? 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y14415/


That is really interesting, so a subclade of R1b-Z2103 has been also found in Sweden, as you probably know the oldest sample with this haplogroup has been found in Hajji Firuz Tepe in Iran.

----------


## nornosh

> What is of interest is R-Y14415 this 5200+/- year old marker[roughly 300+/- years older than the R1a marker above # R-Y17491FGC86403 * Y17491formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybpinfo] is found among Punjabi's[R-Y35099] while at the same time it is also found in Swedes under R-Y14512. How can this be? Recent immigration ? 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y14415/


Could they have formed in Yamna culture in early BA then migrated to the regions in middle Bronze age IE migrations and survived till today.

----------


## nornosh

> About L664 in the Rossen Culture, look at 
> "R1a subclades" by CB Horvath, it mostly talks about this haplogroup.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by proto-Germanic influence on Balto-Slavic and early Finnish! Proto-Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, you believe a language almost the same as proto-Indo-European existed in the north of Europe and in 500 BC this language was changed to proto-Germanic, now do you want to say Balto-Slavic borrowed some words from proto-IE?!


Look theres one important thing about Germanics in 500 BC they were spread in very tiny geographical region with no big divisions so it could be because of this they keeped one common language among themselves which wouldh'v been very like common IE with minor differences, but after 500 BC their numbers grew so they spread far from this region then their languages begin to evolve and divided into several branches. So my theory is if tribes don't divide they can keep their language for very long time.

----------


## Silesian

> Could they have formed in Yamna culture in early BA then migrated to the regions in middle Bronze age IE migrations and survived till today.


That's what I was wondering. You see the same thing at the base of R1b-z2108/z2109+. Where 3 different samples Gujarit- Southern Russia-Armenia. Southern Russia very old wagons can be found.

----------


## spruithean

> About L664 in the Rossen Culture, look at 
> "R1a subclades" by CB Horvath, it mostly talks about this haplogroup.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by proto-Germanic influence on Balto-Slavic and early Finnish! Proto-Germanic language didn't exist in the north of Europe before 500 BC, you believe a language almost the same as proto-Indo-European existed in the north of Europe and in 500 BC this language was changed to proto-Germanic, now do you want to say Balto-Slavic borrowed some words from proto-IE?!


CB Horvath never actually says there are any ancient samples, he just proposes that L664 is responsible for Rossen, however preceding cultural periods (Linear Pottery Culture from Germany to Hungary) have yielded aDNA samples, none of which are R-L664 (they are G2a, pre-I1, T1a, etc). We have R1a from early Corded Ware in Germany though, so we do need some Rossen Culture samples.

The links below are not gospel, just worth reading:

From Carlos Quiles article (I have my disagreements with some of his stuff, but it's all worth looking at): 
https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_12_1
https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_17_2

From another source:
http://langstuff.pjm.fi/frompgtofi/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-...Proto-Germanic (if only this wasn't wikipedia )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-...anic_languages (if only this wasn't wikipedia too  :Laughing: )

When did I say Balto-Slavic borrowed words from proto-IE? PIE was changed into proto-Germanic? No, there was a dialect continuum, Ygorcs has gone over this several times, so we should revisit those posts.





> That is really interesting, so a subclade of R1b-Z2103 has been also found in Sweden, as you probably know the oldest sample with this haplogroup has been found in *Hajji Firuz Tepe in Iran*.


Not denying that it is interesting, but we need to be careful with this sample due to C14 dating issues (they did it twice and failed to yield a good result), http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/1...uz-fiasco.html, there are claims they did it a third time and got a good result which we will see the data on when they publish the paper, which I'm really surprised is still not out. Also worth the read: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/...ions-into.html

Again, I'm not denying that this is interesting and I'm not suggesting that the links I provided above about Hajji Firuz are gospel (in terms of his ancestry but his carbon-dating was revealed to have had two bad runs), I'm just saying we should be cautious with the samples carbon-dating until the study is finally published with all the corrections and the massive amount of extra samples they added.




> Look theres one important thing about Germanics in 500 BC they were spread in very tiny geographical region with no big divisions so it could be because of this they keeped one common language among themselves which wouldh'v been very like common IE with minor differences, but after 500 BC their numbers grew so they spread far from this region then their languages begin to evolve and divided into several branches. So my theory is if tribes don't divide they can keep their language for very long time.


It is usually believed that East Germanic split off early leaving a Northwest Germanic language that split off into four dialects of North Germanic, North Sea Germanic, Weser-Rhine Germanic, and Elbe Germanic.


EDIT: In regards to Hajji Firuz R-Z2103 from one of the guys on the Central/South Asia paper: https://twitter.com/vagheesh/status/1103456664324395008

----------


## spruithean

> That's what I was wondering. You see the same thing at the base of R1b-z2108/z2109+. Where 3 different samples Gujarit- Southern Russia-Armenia. Southern Russia very old wagons can be found.


Yeah, I have wondered the same thing that you and Nornosh have wondered, they are on branches from the R-Y14415 node dated to 5200 ybp, so perhaps Yamnaya fits?. Do you have a link to the Gujarit-S.Russia-Armenia samples?

----------


## Silesian

> Yeah, I have wondered the same thing that you and Nornosh have wondered, they are on branches from the R-Y14415 node dated to 5200 ybp, so perhaps Yamnaya fits?. Do you have a link to the Gujarit-S.Russia-Armenia samples?


Go to my prior post #299 and hit R1b-Z2108 hotlinked to yfull tree. You can see three lumped together Armenia, Russia Dagestan,Gujarat India. Under those is R1b-Kms-67 found in Yamnay- and modern Italy-France-Greece.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Okay have a look at this. I was wondering what is going on with some of these R1b samples. I'm going to be very specific.
> 
> As you might already know markers downstream from R1b-Z2108+-Z2109+ are linked directly with Yamnaya/Afansievo/Catacombe/Poltavka/Eastern Bell Beaker[R1b-KMS67 https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-KMS67/].
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2108*/
> 
> What is of interest is R-Y14415 this 5200+/- year old marker[roughly 300+/- years older than the R1a marker above # R-Y17491FGC86403 * Y17491formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybpinfo] is found among Punjabi's[R-Y35099] while at the same time it is also found in Swedes under R-Y14512. How can this be? Recent immigration ? 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y14415/


Maybe Afanasievo remnants, who were basically identical to the Yamnaya (not necessarily coming directly as Afanasievo people, but perhaps as absorbed clans into the later Sintashta/Andronovo/Srubnaya MLBA populations)? Or it could also be related to absorption by MLBA steppe people (who settled South Asia) of Poltavka-Potapovka and Catacomb populations that also neighbored CWC-derived peoples to their north and BB-derived peoples to their west, and via them those haplogroups may have reached Northern Europe eventually.

----------


## Cyrus

My thread about statue menhirs in Archaeology forum was deleted! I don't know what the purpose of Eupedia is but you can't hide all historical evidences forever.

----------


## Cyrus

> Look theres one important thing about Germanics in 500 BC they were spread in very tiny geographical region with no big divisions so it could be because of this they keeped one common language among themselves which wouldh'v been very like common IE with minor differences, but after 500 BC their numbers grew so they spread far from this region then their languages begin to evolve and divided into several branches. So my theory is if tribes don't divide they can keep their language for very long time.


Proto-Germanic is a Centum language but Corded Ware culture is the source of Satem language, in fact in the first step proto-IE in the north of Eurasia was changed to Satem, the proto-Finnic word for "hundred" is _sata_ which is from the same word _satem_ "hundred". It is impossible that proto-Germanic was derived from Satem.

----------


## Cyrus

> CB Horvath never actually says there are any ancient samples, he just proposes that L664 is responsible for Rossen, however preceding cultural periods (Linear Pottery Culture from Germany to Hungary) have yielded aDNA samples, none of which are R-L664 (they are G2a, pre-I1, T1a, etc). We have R1a from early Corded Ware in Germany though, so we do need some Rossen Culture samples.
> 
> There links below are not gospel, just worth reading:
> 
> From Carlos Quiles article (I have my disagreements with some of his stuff, but it's all worth looking at): 
> https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_12_1
> https://indo-european.info/indo-euro...htocid=_6_17_2
> 
> From another source:
> ...


We know the Finns and Sami people lived in the north of Europe from at least 2,000 BC, there are many words from Satem languages (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and especially proto-Armenian) in both proto-Finnic and proto-Samic languages, of course we see proto-Germanic words in these languages but after 500 BC, is there any word from a Centum language in them too? Please mention some of them, if you know.

----------


## halfalp

> We know the Finns and Sami people lived in the north of Europe from at least 2,000 BC, there are many words from Satem languages (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and especially proto-Armenian) in both proto-Finnic and proto-Samic languages, of course we see proto-Germanic words in these languages but after 500 BC, is there any word from a Centum language in them too? Please mention some of them, if you know.


I dont understand what you mean there. You keep making the point that CWC was Proto-Satem and Proto-Germanic a Centum Languages. So if there is Proto-Germanic loanwords in Uralic languages, isn't it your Centum link? 

Proto-Germanic is tied to Balto-Slavic and tied to Italo-Celtic. Proto-Germanic probably came in Scandinavia with R1b-U106 at some point, in the Bronze Age. Corded Ware is transitional to the Germanic ancestry.

----------


## Cyrus

> I dont understand what you mean there. You keep making the point that CWC was Proto-Satem and Proto-Germanic a Centum Languages. So if there is Proto-Germanic loanwords in Uralic languages, isn't it your Centum link? 
> Proto-Germanic is tied to Balto-Slavic and tied to Italo-Celtic. Proto-Germanic probably came in Scandinavia with R1b-U106 at some point, in the Bronze Age. Corded Ware is transitional to the Germanic ancestry.


Proto-Germanic is a Centum language, not Centum itself, it is believed that before 500 BC a language almost the same as Centum existed in the north of Europe which was changed to proto-Germanic in 500 BC but we see almost all loanwords in proto-Finnic and proto-Samic languages are from Satem, not Centum.
The only relation between proto-Germanic and Italic and Celtic languages is that they are Centum, nothing can be said about proto-Germanic and Balto-Slavic other than they are IE languages!
By considering the number of common IE origin words, I actually think proto-Germanic is closer to Hittite, Ancient Greek and Tocharian, especially if we look at those words which seem to be younger than others, like proto-IE *_spadʰ_ "spade" or *_adʰes_ "adze".

----------


## nornosh

> Proto-Germanic is a Centum language, not Centum itself, it is believed that before 500 BC a language almost the same as Centum existed in the north of Europe which was changed to proto-Germanic in 500 BC but we see almost all loanwords in proto-Finnic and proto-Samic languages are from Satem, not Centum.
> The only relation between proto-Germanic and Italic and Celtic languages is that they are Centum, nothing can be said about proto-Germanic and Balto-Slavic other than they are IE languages!
> By considering the number of common IE origin words, I actually think proto-Germanic is closer to Hittite, Ancient Greek and Tocharian, especially if we look at those words which seem to be younger than others, like proto-IE *_spadʰ_ "spade" or *_adʰes_ "adze".


Look Germanics settled the North from southern Germany so they didn't have contact with Finns early on for centuries yet Corded ware culture's location is next to Finns, Balts so maybe this is why they influenced each other from early on yet Germanics only came in to contact with Finns in the first millenium BC so their influence is much later on Finnic languages. The 500 BC influence could only be from Scythians from Ukraine region who could have settled Western Europe yet with minimal numbers. Suppose your theory is right(Germanics) then Celts, Latins too must have settled W.Europe from 500 BC onwards how is your view on this? :Sad 2:

----------


## Cyrus

> Look Germanics settled the North from southern Germany so they didn't have contact with Finns early on for centuries yet Corded ware culture's location is next to Finns, Balts so maybe this is why they influenced each other from early on yet Germanics only came in to contact with Finns in the first millenium BC so their influence is much later on Finnic languages. The 500 BC influence could only be from Scythians from Ukraine region who could have settled Western Europe yet with minimal numbers. Suppose your theory is right(Germanics) then Celts, Latins too must have settled W.Europe from 500 BC onwards how is your view on this?


Of course there is no evidence about the existence of Celtic and Italic people in Europe before the 1st millennium BC too, in fact we know before 500 BC in Italy the main languages were Etruscan, Camunic, Picenian, Ligurian, Sicanian, Paleo-Sardinian, ... which ere not Indo-European, in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, ... people spoke Rhaetian language which is believed to be a Tyrsenian language, not Indo-European, and in the west of Europe the main languages were Vasconic, Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian languages. R1b has still the highest frequency among Basques who are not an Indo-European people.

----------


## nornosh

Yet genetic samples in W.Europe point to BA settlement by IEs not Iron age, which is hard to ignore! so more studies needed to reconcile linguistic with genetic results.

----------


## Cyrus

> Yet genetic samples in W.Europe point to BA settlement by IEs not Iron age, which is hard to ignore! so more studies needed to reconcile linguistic with genetic results.


What are these genetic samples? R1b has the highest frequency in the west of Europe where Basques and other non-Indo-European people lived, the oldest samples of R1b has been also found in Europe which date back to 14,000 years ago, it is very clear that this haplogroup came from west to east.

I can't understand how it is possible that in the 1st millennium BC the languages of most of people who lived in the west of Europe were non-Indo-European but we relate haplogroup R1b which had the highest frequency among them to Indo-Europeans?!

----------


## Northener

@Cyrus your initial question was this:




> It is widely believed that haplogroup I-M253 (I1) relates to the Germanic people, according to a study published in 2015, I-M253 originated between 3,180 and 3,760 years ago in Europe, but what do we know about the ancestral branch of this haplogroup? I think it can certainly help us to know Germanic people migrated from which land.


IMO the (Proto) Germanic origin lasy in the Nordic LN-BA. Germanic people of the iron age are a product of a mixture between Funnelbeakers (TRB/ I-M253 incorporated) and Single Grave Culture/ NW Bell Beakers. The Germans of the Iron Age share basically the Nordic LNBA genetic profile. Nothing more nothing less.

See for some more about this:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post579158

----------


## spruithean

> Go to my prior post #299 and hit R1b-Z2108 hotlinked to yfull tree. You can see three lumped together Armenia, Russia Dagestan,Gujarat India. Under those is R1b-Kms-67 found in Yamnay- and modern Italy-France-Greece.


Right, I see them.



> My thread about statue menhirs in Archaeology forum was deleted! I don't know what the purpose of Eupedia is but you can't hide all historical evidences forever.


That thread was deleted because you were warned by one of the moderators to stop posting tin-foil hat pseudo-history stuff. There is no conspiracy to hide any historical evidences of anything, what you were using as evidence was not (and is not) evidence, you are coming across as a t-roll.



> Proto-Germanic is a Centum language but Corded Ware culture is the source of Satem language, in fact in the first step proto-IE in the north of Eurasia was changed to Satem, the proto-Finnic word for "hundred" is sata which is from the same word satem "hundred". It is impossible that proto-Germanic was derived from Satem.


First, that is bold claim to assert that Corded Ware is the source of only Satem. Second no one ever said that proto-Germanic was Satem. You are again ignoring links provided that show pre-proto-Germanic contacts with Finnish as well as proto-Germanic contacts. You do this countless times in this thread because it is evidence that your theory is nonsense. You are also making an extremely bold (and inaccurate) statement that Corded Ware contained Satem languages only, when we know that is extremely unlikely as Indo-Iranian precursors were spoken further east (Sintashta), Centum and Satem dialects were likely in a broad spread.
You can read some interesting things pertaining to Uralic here: https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_parpola.pdf search for "Northwest Indo-European", and "Germanic branch". Interesting quotes from this author:
_“Presumably the language of the Corded Ware people (who were mobile pastoralists) was Proto-Northwest-Indo-European, the common ancestor of the later Celtic, Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic branches, which was still quite close to Late PIE (cf. Oettinger 1997; 1999; 2003; in press).”_
_"The Nordic Bronze Age culture (c. 1750–600 BCE) in the Jutland peninsula up to Schleswig-Holstein and southern Scandinavia goes back to the local Corded Ware culture, which from about 2800 BCE replaced the cairns of the TRB culture in these parts. This is the generally assumed homeland of the Germanic branch of Indo-European (cf. Ramat 1998). In the Early Iron Age, the Nordic Bronze Age culture expanded southwards, to form the Jastorf culture (c. 600–0 BCE) of northern Germany between the Rhine and the Oder. This is close to the location of the Germanic tribes described by Tacitus in his Germania in 98 CE(cf. Mallory 1989: 84–87; Wikipedia s. v. Jastorf culture). The Nordic Bronze Age culture exerted a strong influence on coasts of Finland and on Estonia, especially the western island of Saaremaa c. 1500–500 BCE (cf. Salo 1997: 14–17;Kriiska & Tvauri 2007: 96–116); these areas may have been bilingual at this time, with a Proto-Germanic speaking elite. The East Germanic Goths originally came from Sweden and moved from the East Baltic to the Black Sea in the late second century CE. The Germanic loanwords have had a very important role in the study of the historical development of the Uralic languages of the Baltic region and Fennoscandia (cf. Posti 1953; Hofstra 1985; Koivulehto 1999a;1999b; Aikio 2006; Kallio in this book)."_
_"The Nordic Bronze Age culture, correlated above with early Proto-Germanic, exerted a strong influence upon coastal Finland and Estonia 1600–700 BCE. Due to this, the Kiukais culture was transformed into the culture of Paimio ceramics (c. 1600–700 BCE), later continued by Morby ceramics (c. 700 BCE – 200 CE). The assumption is that clear cultural continuity was accompanied by linguistic continuity. Having assimilated the language of the Germanic traders and relatively few settlers of the Bronze Age, the language of coastal Finland is assumed to have reached the stage of Proto-Finnish at the beginning of the Christian era. In Estonia, the Paimio ceramics have a close counterpart in the contemporaneous Asva ceramics"_
I provided links showing both influences of Finnic/Samic on early Germanic and proto-Germanic (even pre-proto-Germanic) influence on Finnic/Samic languages, yet you've ignored it and instead cite the use of _sata_ in Finnish. We already know that Uralic languages acquired Indo-Iranian influence due to the likely proximity of early proto-Uralic populations to the predecessors of Indo-Iranian cultures prior to migrations of Uralic people further to places such as Finland or the Baltic coast of Northeastern Europe. You ignore chronology and ignore information people share in this thread, your pseudohistorical nonsense is tired.
You ignore this fact that proto-Germanic (and pre-proto) had an influence on Finnic/Samic languages because it shows that proto-Germanic most likely formed in Northern Europe and that is something your theory has not accounted for.



> We know the Finns and Sami people lived in the north of Europe from at least 2,000 BC, there are many words from Satem languages (Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian and especially proto-Armenian) in both proto-Finnic and proto-Samic languages, of course we see proto-Germanic words in these languages but after 500 BC, is there any word from a Centum language in them too? Please mention some of them, if you know.


You've not seen the recent papers on Uralic and associated Y-haplogroups have you?
Any word from a centum language in Finnic/Samic? 
Germanic loanwords in Finnic that arrived PRIOR to long a raising:
Finnish _hake-_ from PGmc _*sākija-_
Finnish _raha_ from PGmc _*skrahā_
Finnish _kavio_ from Pre-PGmc _*kāpa-_
Finnish _lieka_ from Pre-PGmc _*lēgā-_
(PRE-proto-Germanic loans right there)
Early Finnic & Samic Germanic loanwords demonstrating earlier *e prior to i-mutation
Finnish _teljo_ from PGmc _*þeljō_
Finnish _menninkäinen_ from PGmc _*menþingō_
Northern Sami _deahkki_ from early PGmc _*þekkwiz_
Northern Sami _jievja_ from early PGmc _*heują_
Finnish _rengas_ from early PGmc _*hrengaz_
Or what about Finnish _ruhtinas_ from PGmc _*druhtinaz_? Will you ignore these?
Or Finnic _*kuningas_ from Proto-Germanic _*kuningaz_, or this same word _*kuningaz_ being the influence for Northern Sami: _gonagas_ and other variants in various Sami languages. What about Proto-Germanic _*lambaz_ found in Proto-Finnic _*lambas_ (descendants are found in Estonian to Votic) which is also shared with Samic languages and this isn't even a full list of the Germanic loanwords in Finnic/Samic languages.

----------


## spruithean

> Of course there is no evidence about the existence of Celtic and Italic people in Europe before the 1st millennium BC too, in fact we know before 500 BC in Italy the main languages were Etruscan, Camunic, Picenian, Ligurian, Sicanian, Paleo-Sardinian, ... which ere not Indo-European, in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, ... people spoke Rhaetian language which is believed to be a Tyrsenian language, not Indo-European, and in the west of Europe the main languages were Vasconic, Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian languages. R1b has still the highest frequency among Basques who are not an Indo-European people.


No evidence for Celtic or Italic? Stop t-rolling.
So you are ignoring the chronology of R1b samples and their phylogeny. Also, Pictish was most likely a Celtic language, so it was IE. 
Pretty bizarre to place Tyrrhenian all the way up there when the Tyrrhenian Sea is further south.

----------


## Silesian

> No evidence for Celtic or Italic.....................

----------


## spruithean

That video does not even dive into the specific subclades within each population. Assuming that all of the R-M269 is Celtic is ridiculous.

----------


## Cyrus

> You've not seen the recent papers on Uralic and associated Y-haplogroups have you?
> Any word from a centum language in Finnic/Samic?
> Germanic loanwords in Finnic that arrived PRIOR to long a raising:
> Finnish hake- from PGmc *sākija-
> Finnish raha from PGmc *skrahā
> Finnish kavio from Pre-PGmc *kāpa-
> Finnish lieka from Pre-PGmc *lēgā-
> (PRE-proto-Germanic loans right there)
> Early Finnic & Samic Germanic loanwords demonstrating earlier *e prior to i-mutation
> ...


Sometimes I think you actually want to support my theory! Almost all Finnish words that you mentioned are from proto-Germanic (after 500 BC) but those ones that you said are from pre-Proto-Germanic actually show the Germanic migration from the west of Iran to the north of Europe.

For example about proto-Finnic *_kapja_ "hoof", if you remember I had mentioned Arabic _xuf_ "hoof": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D9%81#Etymology_2 linguists believe the reconstructed IE word *_ḱoph₂s_ "hoof" is a loanword from proto-Semitic: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Recon...2%82%82%C3%B3s

Proto-Germanic *_xufaz_ seems to be a direct loanword from Semitic but we see irregular sound changes in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, both _x_ and _f_ didn't exist in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic phonologies, in Indo-Iranian _x_ has been palatalized to _ć_ and _f_ has been aspirated to _pʰ_, so we have Indo-Iranian *_ćapʰs_ but we see regular _x>k_ and _f>p_ in Balto-Slavic, so it is *_kopyto_, proto-Finnic word is clearly from Balto-Slavic.

----------


## spruithean

> What are these genetic samples? R1b has the highest frequency in the west of Europe where Basques and other non-Indo-European people lived, the oldest samples of R1b has been also found in Europe which date back to 14,000 years ago, it is very clear that this haplogroup came from west to east.
> 
> I can't understand how it is possible that in the 1st millennium BC the languages of most of people who lived in the west of Europe were non-Indo-European but we relate haplogroup R1b which had the highest frequency among them to Indo-Europeans?!


R1b was a less common haplogroup according to present data so far in Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic samples in Europe: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancie...pean_dna.shtml

The clades of R1b that are associated with IE are found quite early in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (after the *upstream* R-L754 in Italy) we already see the same thing with I clades, found in prehistoric Europe with eventual spread outward (we even find specific subclades of I2 in the Steppe) as humans began to settle more of Europe once the glacial maximum retreated. The IE associated R1b clades are younger than the L754 individual and they are in abundance in Western Europe, so the spread was more likely East to West (especially when data at this time shows somewhat of a lack of R1b in Neolithic Europe) you cannot assume that modern distribution is the only answer, you have to account for what was going in these periods as Bronze Age migrants arrived, we already have evidence of _Yersinia pestis_ presence in this period coming from steppe populations moving into Europe, and it likely wiped out a significant amount of the pre-Bronze Age population of Europe. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2.../03/1820447116, this can cause a significant number of lineages to die off.




> *Sometimes I think you actually want to support my theory*! Almost all Finnish words that you mentioned are from proto-Germanic (after 500 BC) but those ones that you said are from pre-Proto-Germanic actually show the Germanic migration from the west of Iran to the north of Europe.
> 
> For example about proto-Finnic *_kapja_ "hoof", if you remember I had mentioned Arabic _xuf_ "hoof": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D9%81#Etymology_2 linguists believe the reconstructed IE word *_ḱoph₂�s_ "hoof" is a loanword from proto-Semitic: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Recon...2%82%82%C3%B3s
> 
> Proto-Germanic *_xufaz_ seems to be a direct loanword from Semitic but we see irregular sound changes in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, both _x_ and _f_ didn't exist in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic phonologies, in Indo-Iranian _x_ has been palatalized to _ć_ and _f_ has been aspirated to _pʰ_, so we have Indo-Iranian *_ćapʰ�s_ but we see regular _x>k_ and _f>p_ in Balto-Slavic, so it is *_kopyto_, proto-Finnic word is clearly from Balto-Slavic.


LOL, no.

Pretty sure we covered this several pages back and again, no this is not evidence of a migration from Iran, as usual you consider sound laws as you please with no regard for anything else going on in the language around it. Do you read any of the links we provide that show material cultural continuity? Do you not pay attention to the complete lack of Iranian-like admixture in prehistoric Scandinavia/Northern Europe? Why do you ignore these facts? Why do you ignore the study I've linked that shows the Goths in all likelihood migrated from Southern Scandinavia?

----------


## Cyrus

> Do you not pay attention to the complete lack of Iranian-like admixture in prehistoric Scandinavia/Northern Europe?


Because you don't pay attention to what I said about mtDNA haplogroup U7.

----------


## MOESAN

> Sometimes I think you actually want to support my theory! Almost all Finnish words that you mentioned are from proto-Germanic (after 500 BC) but those ones that you said are from pre-Proto-Germanic actually show the Germanic migration from the west of Iran to the north of Europe.
> For example about proto-Finnic *_kapja_ "hoof", if you remember I had mentioned Arabic _xuf_ "hoof": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D9%81#Etymology_2 linguists believe the reconstructed IE word *_ḱoph₂�s_ "hoof" is a loanword from proto-Semitic: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Recon...2%82%82%C3%B3s
> Proto-Germanic *_xufaz_ seems to be a direct loanword from Semitic but we see irregular sound changes in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages, both _x_ and _f_ didn't exist in Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic phonologies, in Indo-Iranian _x_ has been palatalized to _ć_ and _f_ has been aspirated to _pʰ_, so we have Indo-Iranian *_ćapʰ�s_ but we see regular _x>k_ and _f>p_ in Balto-Slavic, so it is *_kopyto_, proto-Finnic word is clearly from Balto-Slavic.


Sorry, but you produce the evolution X>k and f>p but almost everytime it's rather the opposite. At least in Germanic (and other languages) this is the rule, and the words with K- or P- are rather loans made before the Germanics devoicing/"spirantizing" mutation (I don't find the correct english word, sorry).
That said the map you provide here is an hypothesis and has no scientific basis as conclusion. Everybody can make beautiful maps checking their own hypothesis.
aside:
here under a traduction of Bernard SERGENT: academic compilation of other works:
_"Germanic presents a big amount of lexicon shared with Macro-Baltic, then with Italics and Celtics. For grammar and morphology, the relations are very numerous with Baltic languages (43% according to Kroeber-Chrétien/Adams calcul) despite some very big differences discard it as a member of the same family, and the correspondances of lexicon are for the most with Baltic languahes, not with Slavic languages. Eric Hamp speaks nevertheless of a "North-European group" which unitesGermanic, Baltic-Slavic and Albanese."*_...

*gathered into a "Baltic-Balkanic super-family" by some people...

----------


## MOESAN

@Spruithean

All that is very difficult to disentangle;
I think (with my present knowledge) that loanwords from Germanic in Finnic are superstratum; but in Saami Finnic, I red somewhere one substratum was seemingly satemlike what pushed me to imagine it could rather be after contacts with northern IE tribes so Fatyanovo ones ore some other CWClike group; the other substrata was of an unkown family of language.
In Scandinavia, the local Y-R1a post-CWC look as if they had been pushed from South towards North, so in my opinion, not the Germanic launcher.
That said it's true that we can think too that the very widely spred CWC tribes could have spoken at first a vague continuum of not too evolved post-PIE, so think the westernmost ones could have evolved into centum dialects when the easternmost ones evolved into satem diaects; that said (to seem fair play! LOL), I find this last argument a bit convoluted. But we discussed this already in other threads, less weird than this one.

----------


## Cyrus

> Sorry, but you produce the evolution X>k and f>p but almost everytime it's rather the opposite. At least in Germanic (and other languages) this is the rule, and the words with K- or P- are rather loans made before the Germanics devoicing/"spirantizing" mutation (I don't find the correct english word, sorry).


It certainly depends on phonology, for example in English _caviar_ is pronounced with a k, not x, the same thing can be said about p and f too.

Another interesting word which also shows a migration from Iran is Finnish _hylje_ "earless seal".

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hylje

From Proto-Finnic *hlgeh, from Proto-Finno-Ugric **lke*. May be connected with Proto-Germanic **selhaz*. Cognate with Estonian hljes.

----------


## spruithean

> Because you don't pay attention to what I said about mtDNA haplogroup U7.


The lone instance of it in a single female Viking grave? I'm not ignoring it, it is a single sample, you cannot use that as evidence of anything when we already know that a fair number of people from outside of Scandinavia were there in the Viking Age (the Sigtuna paper highlights this). A single case from the medieval period does not say much in regards to the ethnogenesis of Germanic-speaking peoples. They also estimate that U7 originated 30,000 years ago in the Black Sea area.

From the Sigtuna paper:




> Social Structures and Mobility
> 
> Different sex-related mobility patterns for Sigtuna inhabitants have been suggested based on material culture, especially ceramics. Building on design and clay analyses, some female potters in Sigtuna are thought to have grown up in Novgorod in Rus’ [40]. Moreover, historical sources mention female mobility in connection to marriage, especially among the elite from Rus’ and West Slavonic regions [41, 42]. Male mobility is also known from historical sources, often in connection to clergymen moving to the town [43].


https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982218308443

We see a similar scenario in Migration period papers where they highlight higher female mobility.




> It certainly depends on phonology, for example in English





> _caviar_ is pronounced with a k, not x, the same thing can be said about p and f too.
> 
> Another interesting word which also shows a migration from Iran is Finnish _hylje_ "earless seal".
> 
> https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hylje
> 
> From Proto-Finnic *h�lgeh, from Proto-Finno-Ugric **��lke*. May be connected with Proto-Germanic **selhaz*. Cognate with Estonian h�ljes.




Please, not even once does your link to _hylje_ even connect it to Iran. Countless times in this thread we have shown that there is no Iranian-like admixture in prehistoric Northern European samples, there is no archaeological evidence of such a migration and everything points to your theory being incorrect.

----------


## Cyrus

> The lone instance of it in a single female Viking grave? I'm not ignoring it, it is a single sample, you cannot use that as evidence of anything when we already know that a fair number of people from outside of Scandinavia were there in the Viking Age (the Sigtuna paper highlights this). A single case from the medieval period does not say much in regards to the ethnogenesis of Germanic-speaking peoples.
> 
> From the Sigtuna paper:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...60982218308443
> 
> We see a similar scenario in Migration period papers where they highlight higher female mobility.
> ...


You certainly know I meant "princely burials" in Germany from about 500 BC (Late Hallstatt culture), not just this Viking queen.

----------


## spruithean

A "~30,000 year old" haplogroup that likely originated in the Black Sea area?
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46044

To quote the entire abstract:




> *Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U is among the initial maternal founders in Southwest Asia and Europe and one that best indicates matrilineal genetic continuity between late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer groups and present-day populations of Europe.* While most haplogroup U subclades are older than 30 thousand years, the comparatively recent coalescence time of the *extant variation of haplogroup U7 (~16–19 thousand years ago) suggests that its current distribution is the consequence of more recent dispersal events, despite its wide geographical range across Europe, the Near East and South Asia.* Here we report 267 new U7 mitogenomes that – analysed alongside 100 published ones – enable us to discern at least two distinct temporal phases of dispersal, both of which most likely emanated from the Near East. The earlier one began prior to the Holocene (~11.5 thousand years ago) towards South Asia, while the later dispersal took place more recently towards Mediterranean Europe during the Neolithic (~8 thousand years ago). *These findings imply that the carriers of haplogroup U7 spread to South Asia and Europe before the suggested Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region.*

----------


## Northener

> Because you don't pay attention to what I said about mtDNA haplogroup U7.





> Look Germanics settled the North from southern Germany


I don't know what's going on here, but this all makes no sense. No plausible story based on what these gentleman put forward.
Reasonable replies from for example Spruithaen are replied with another random straw....without any coherency.

Let me tell you there is no plausible connection between the genetics of the Germans and Iranian or Persian tribes. Fairy tales.

The German genetics are een historical admixture of funnel beaker (Ertebolle/ENF mixture) and highly Steppe influenced Single Grave and Bell Beaker. This al took place from LNBA and beyond on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia. Not that fantastic movement of 'Germanic tribes' rushing in from Iran....yeah sure.

Did you know that the Groningers in the Netherlands are Inca derived? Why? Because the genes of the potatoes in Groningen show a basic resemblance of those in the Andes. So there most be a connection....;)

But a rational debate seems to be hard.....that's a loss because a good discussion about my ancestry would be nice. But this shows IMO a tendency towards throlling.....

----------


## MOESAN

> It certainly depends on phonology, for example in English _caviar_ is pronounced with a k, not x, the same thing can be said about p and f too.
> Another interesting word which also shows a migration from Iran is Finnish _hylje_ "earless seal".
> https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/hylje
> From Proto-Finnic *h�lgeh, from Proto-Finno-Ugric **��lke*. May be connected with Proto-Germanic **selhaz*. Cognate with Estonian h�ljes.


'caviar cannot be taken as an example for ancient Germanic evolution; it's a rather modern loanword in english, surely from a _written_ source, maybe after a long chain of transmission, so phonologically out of worth; in any case not before the 9th Cy - look at Greek words with *ch /kh/ >/X/* pronounced */k/* in French and other languages, or *Cy-* /*ku/* or* /kü/* pronounced */Si/* in French - 'caviar' is maybe of Turkish origin or of Iranian origin or...?, with *kh- ~/X/* or */H/* according to some writings, but it says nothing about the Germanic (even English) and Iranian links about the 500 BC -
concerning *"Proto-Finnic *hülgeh, from Proto-Finno-Ugric *šülke. May be connected with Proto-Germanic *selhaz"*. what is your Iranian or Near-Eastern language cognate?
it's my last post TO YOU in this thread -

----------


## Ygorcs

> Of course there is no evidence about the existence of Celtic and Italic people in Europe before the 1st millennium BC too, in fact we know before 500 BC in Italy the main languages were Etruscan, Camunic, Picenian, Ligurian, Sicanian, Paleo-Sardinian, ... which ere not Indo-European, in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, ... people spoke Rhaetian language which is believed to be a Tyrsenian language, not Indo-European, and in the west of Europe the main languages were Vasconic, Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian languages. R1b has still the highest frequency among Basques who are not an Indo-European people.


Haha! Who made that map? What's its source? You yourself? Tyrrhenian IS a language family composed of Etruscan + Rhaetian + Lemnian (which by the way is very Etruscan-like, possibly just a dialect of it or a sister language), so what the heck is that "Tyrrhenian language" up there in Northern Europe? What the heck is Lemnian doing all over Greece when it was only ever found in the tiny island of Lemnos in the Iron Age? Ditto for Northern Picene, what is it doing all over the Dinaric Balkans with no evidence at all for its presence except in Eastern Italy? What explains the reach of Tartessian so much northward of its known location in the Iron Age? And what's this "Trojan language" (and the people of Troy might've been Luwian or Phrygian in fact) not just in Northwestern Anatolia, but also in the South Balkans? What on earth is Pictish about if it was probably a Celtic or para-Celtic language? And what's this extent of Paleo-Sardinian and Paleo-Sicilian languages to the Maghrebi coast? 

In fact, ALL of those languages depicted in the map are known only in the 1st millennium B.C., and some of them have little or no inscriptions written in them - all of them, with no exception (I don't count Trojan, because it is not attested at all in the linguistic record). So, the evidence for the existence of these non-IE languages is exactly the same there is for the IE languages that you're claiming didn't exist in Europe because... well, because like most languages ever in ancient times they weren't written down (wow what a great evidence, indeed). If IE languages like Italic, Celtic and Germanic did not "exist" before their first attestation in Europe, then for sure those non-IE languages didn't, either (of course that's just a nonsensical argument in the same vein of the ones we have read here from you).

Looks like one of those fictional maps made for stories of imaginary alternative worlds, frankly. Some people just don't know when they should stop for lack of enough evidences or knowledge.

----------


## Cyrus

> I don't know what's going on here, but this all makes no sense. No plausible story based on what these gentleman put forward.
> Reasonable replies from for example Spruithaen are replied with another random straw....without any coherency.
> 
> Let me tell you there is no plausible connection between the genetics of the Germans and Iranian or Persian tribes. Fairy tales.
> 
> The German genetics are een historical admixture of funnel beaker (Ertebolle/ENF mixture) and highly Steppe influenced Single Grave and Bell Beaker. This al took place from LNBA and beyond on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia. Not that fantastic movement of 'Germanic tribes' rushing in from Iran....yeah sure.
> 
> Did you know that the Groningers in the Netherlands are Inca derived? Why? Because the genes of the potatoes in Groningen show a basic resemblance of those in the Andes. So there most be a connection....;)
> 
> But a rational debate seems to be hard.....that's a loss because a good discussion about my ancestry would be nice. But this shows IMO a tendency towards throlling.....


I don't talk about neolithic or even bronze age but iron age, more exactly Jastorf culture in Denmark and northern Germany, http://www.geocities.ws/reginheim/hisorigins.html "*The first Germanic culture*: Not much is known about the exact historical origins of the Germanic peoples but most historians agree that the first culture that can officially be called "Germanic" was the Jastorf culture in northern Germany, this culture came into existence around 600BC and was the first northern European culture that used iron."

*Danish archaeologists in search of the historical roots of the Danish civilization in Iran*: http://www.payvand.com/news/05/jan/1191.html

"A few years ago, a researcher from the Copenhagen Museum, Nadia Haupt, discovered more than one thousand coins and relics that did not belong to the Danish or other Scandinavian cultures, and therefore set to find out more about the historical roots of the Danish civilization.

The ancient items that took the attention of experts included more than one hundred thousand coins that are not part of the Danish history, Viking shipwrecks that Haupt believes their style of construction and the kind of trade they used to undertake differentiate them from those of their ancestors, clothes and accessories used today in some Scandinavian cities and villages, and red and blue colors included in the clothes of the residents under study.

The findings prompted archeologists and anthropology enthusiasts to find out more about their ancestral roots, and where these items have originally come from. The first hypothesis that these items originated from southwestern Europe such as Spain was overruled with more studies.

The next hypothesis focused on the northeastern countries in Europe, or more specifically Russia. Relics found in the excavations of the area have confirmed the existence of trade relationships between Denmark and Russia, but Haupt intends to get to the main roots. 

She has followed her leads in Russia and has now come to the Iranian side of the Caspian Sea, hoping to prove that Eastern cultures had influenced the Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark."

----------


## Cyrus

> A "~30,000 year old" haplogroup that likely originated in the Black Sea area?
> https://www.nature.com/articles/srep46044


Please, you certainly know we are talking about what haplogroup and where its original land is.

The Viking World, page 266: 



North Sea Archaeologies: A Maritime Biography, 10,000 BC - AD 1500, page 211:

----------


## Northener

> I don't talk about neolithic or even bronze age but iron age, more exactly Jastorf culture in Denmark and northern Germany, http://www.geocities.ws/reginheim/hisorigins.html "*The first Germanic culture*: Not much is known about the exact historical origins of the Germanic peoples but most historians agree that the first culture that can officially be called "Germanic" was the Jastorf culture in northern Germany, this culture came into existence around 600BC and was the first northern European culture that used iron."
> 
> *Danish archaeologists in search of the historical roots of the Danish civilization in Iran*: http://www.payvand.com/news/05/jan/1191.html
> 
> "A few years ago, a researcher from the Copenhagen Museum, Nadia Haupt, discovered more than one thousand coins and relics that did not belong to the Danish or other Scandinavian cultures, and therefore set to find out more about the historical roots of the Danish civilization.
> 
> The ancient items that took the attention of experts included more than one hundred thousand coins that are not part of the Danish history, Viking shipwrecks that Haupt believes their style of construction and the kind of trade they used to undertake differentiate them from those of their ancestors, clothes and accessories used today in some Scandinavian cities and villages, and red and blue colors included in the clothes of the residents under study.
> 
> The findings prompted archeologists and anthropology enthusiasts to find out more about their ancestral roots, and where these items have originally come from. The first hypothesis that these items originated from southwestern Europe such as Spain was overruled with more studies.
> ...


First of all the Germans were not 'newborn' in the iron age/Jastorf. They didn't fall out of space. The 'original' Germans genetic roots lay in the Bronze Age. So did the Germans of the European migration ages in the early middle ages. And even nowadays my family falls in this specific genetic cluster.

The Vikings later on had many connections they also found a Buddha among the Vikings, that doesn't make them Buddhist or Indian ;) 

http://irisharchaeology.ie/2013/12/t...ng-age-buddha/

----------


## Cyrus

> First of all the Germans were not 'newborn' in the iron age/Jastorf. They didn't fall out of space. The 'original' Germans genetic roots lays the Bronze Age. So did the Germans of the European migration ages in the early middle ages. And even nowadays my family falls in this specific genetic cluster.
> 
> The Vikings later on had many connections they also found a Buddha among the Vikings, that doesn't make them Buddhist or Indian ;)
> 
> http://irisharchaeology.ie/2013/12/t...ng-age-buddha/


A Buddha certainly doesn't prove anything but if you also find Indian style of construction or Indian style clothes and accessories in Scandinavian cities and villages, and archeologists and anthropology enthusiasts relate them to Scandinavian ancestral roots, then it can be certainly said that Scandinavians had an Indian culture, the same thing can be said about all other peoples and cultures in the world. 

If Germanic culture existed in the north of Europe before 500 BC, there should be at least some evidences about it in the Germanic sources, but we see more than 800 years ago Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson also says about Asgard: https://pagan.wikia.org/wiki/Asgard "Aesir were "men of Asia", not gods, but the *speakers of the original Germanic language*, who moved from Asia to the north and intermarried with the peoples already there." And from another side we see several evidences which prove Germanic Asgard is the same ancient land of Asagarta (Hellenized as Zagros) in Iran, Snorri also says "Odin is the chief of Asagarth. On the border of Sweden the Great (Suedin in Mesopotamian sources) is a mountain range (Zagros) running from northeast to southwest. South of it are the lands of the Turks (Seljuks at the time of Snorri's writing), where Odin had possessions."

----------


## Cyrus

The fact is I really love to read Germanic mytho-historical sources, I have two sons, one of is Odin and another one is Armin, two Irano-Germanic names.

----------


## spruithean

> I don't talk about neolithic or even bronze age but iron age, more exactly Jastorf culture in Denmark and northern Germany, http://www.geocities.ws/reginheim/hisorigins.html "*The first Germanic culture*: Not much is known about the exact historical origins of the Germanic peoples but most historians agree that the first culture that can officially be called "Germanic" was the Jastorf culture in northern Germany, this culture came into existence around 600BC and was the first northern European culture that used iron."
> *Danish archaeologists in search of the historical roots of the Danish civilization in Iran*: http://www.payvand.com/news/05/jan/1191.html
> "A few years ago, a researcher from the Copenhagen Museum, Nadia Haupt, discovered more than one thousand coins and relics that did not belong to the Danish or other Scandinavian cultures, and therefore set to find out more about the historical roots of the Danish civilization.
> The ancient items that took the attention of experts included more than one hundred thousand coins that are not part of the Danish history, Viking shipwrecks that Haupt believes their style of construction and the kind of trade they used to undertake differentiate them from those of their ancestors, clothes and accessories used today in some Scandinavian cities and villages, and red and blue colors included in the clothes of the residents under study.
> The findings prompted archeologists and anthropology enthusiasts to find out more about their ancestral roots, and where these items have originally come from. The first hypothesis that these items originated from southwestern Europe such as Spain was overruled with more studies.
> The next hypothesis focused on the northeastern countries in Europe, or more specifically Russia. Relics found in the excavations of the area have confirmed the existence of trade relationships between Denmark and Russia, but Haupt intends to get to the main roots. 
> She has followed her leads in Russia and has now come to the Iranian side of the Caspian Sea, hoping to prove that Eastern cultures had influenced the Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark."


What does Jastorf culture show links with? Oh that's right the Nordic Bronze Age. It developed out of the Nordic Bronze Age and had influences from Hallstatt to the south.

Nadia Haupt was looking at trade links between Vikings and Iran. You can find her blog online if you so wish. 

Another link from a different news site: https://en.mehrnews.com/news/10561/D...Iranian-museum
Here is Nadia's blog (it is in Danish): https://salamviking.wordpress.com/20...rokko-og-iran/

Also context again, besides being Vikings she is looking for the trade links and influences on the development of medieval Scandinavian civilizations, like Denmark from the Viking Age (Medieval) onward. 



> Please, you certainly know we are talking about what haplogroup and where its original land is.
> The Viking World, page 266:


Please? Ha. Read the study I linked, it discusses mt-Hg U And specifically U7. In far greater detail and accuracy than two books written PRIOR to the study.

That's a leap, especially considering the lack of autosomal DNA to corroborate. Also, again the context is a singular Viking Age woman, we know the Vikings were active in both the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Nadia Haupt investigated that and she isn't the only one who has investigated that, not once do they (the archaeologists, not journalists) say that Scandinavian civilizations come from Iran. 




> North Sea Archaeologies: A Maritime Biography, 10,000 BC - AD 1500, page 211:


He is describing modern distribution there and again you are ignoring the published study I linked about Haplogroup U and specifically U7. I even quoted the entire abstract. Read the abstract, hell, read the entire study.

For context again: your links are discussing a single Viking Age woman. This does not speak for the ethnogenesis of Germanic, the fact that you ignore pre-Iron Age data from Europe in regards to Northern Europe and the development of Germanic speaking areas screams that you are "biased".

----------


## Northener

> A Buddha certainly doesn't prove anything but if you also find Indian style of construction or Indian style clothes and accessories in Scandinavian cities and villages, and archeologists and anthropology enthusiasts relate them to Scandinavian ancestral roots, then it can be certainly said that Scandinavians had an Indian culture, the same thing can be said about all other peoples and cultures in the world. 
> 
> If Germanic culture existed in the north of Europe before 500 BC, there should be at least some evidences about it in the Germanic sources, but we see more than 800 years ago Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson also says about Asgard: https://pagan.wikia.org/wiki/Asgard "Aesir were "men of Asia", not gods, but the *speakers of the original Germanic language*, who moved from Asia to the north and intermarried with the peoples already there." And from another side we see several evidences which prove Germanic Asgard is the same ancient land of Asagarta (Hellenized as Zagros) in Iran, Snorri also says "Odin is the chief of Asagarth. On the border of Sweden the Great (Suedin in Mesopotamian sources) is a mountain range (Zagros) running from northeast to southwest. South of it are the lands of the Turks (Seljuks at the time of Snorri's writing), where Odin had possessions."


You certainly live in another paradigm than Spruithean or I do. The development of the Germanic language (like Celtic or Slavic) was a gradual development out of in the `german case the TRB and Single Grave (Bell Beaker) people mix. We have no books nor recordings so this proces is like with every prehistoric language difficult to reconstruct.

As said in the (proto) Germanic mythology there will be corresponding themes with he whole Indo-European world.

But your option of Iranian tribes with a 'Germanic package' neglects the historical developments out of Nordic Bronze age (proto-germanic) to iron age Germanic/Jastorf. Genetically there is also no evidence of your claim. But as Spruithean said you seem to be very biased in this respect. No cool reasonable logic IMO...

----------


## Northener

> The fact is I really love to read Germanic mytho-historical sources, I have two sons, one of is Odin and another one is Armin, two Irano-Germanic names.



Yes and Spruithean an I partly originated in exact the same region are in reality hugginn and muginn....they bring the news from the Germanic world ;)

----------


## Cyrus

> Please? Ha. Read the study I linked it discusses mt-Hg U And specifically U7.


I read it and it says "In conclusion, the Near East is the most likely ancestral homeland of U7." This articel says nothing about Germany and north of Europe but it just mentions some rare subclades of U7 in Mediterranean and Southeast Europe. Logically in 500 BC, people with Haplogroup U7 in Europe could be from nowhere except Iran, look at the map of U7:

----------


## spruithean

> I read it and it says "In conclusion, the Near East is the most likely ancestral homeland of U7." This articel says nothing about Germany and north of Europe but it just mentions some rare subclades of U7 in Mediterranean and Southeast Europe. Logically in 500 BC, people with Haplogroup U7 in Europe could be from nowhere except Iran, look at the map of U7:


Yeah, but you are ignoring the abstract and the conclusions within as they pertain to the U7 in Near East and Europe:




> *Human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup U is among the initial maternal founders in Southwest Asia and Europe and one that best indicates matrilineal genetic continuity between late Pleistocene hunter-gatherer groups and present-day populations of Europe.*_ While most haplogroup U subclades are older than 30 thousand years, the comparatively recent coalescence time of the_ *extant variation of haplogroup U7 (~16–19 thousand years ago) suggests that its current distribution is the consequence of more recent dispersal events, despite its wide geographical range across Europe, the Near East and South Asia.*_ Here we report 267 new U7 mitogenomes that – analysed alongside 100 published ones –_ enable us to discern at least two distinct temporal phases of dispersal, both of which most likely emanated from the Near East. The earlier one began prior to the Holocene (~11.5 thousand years ago) towards South Asia, while the later dispersal took place more recently towards Mediterranean Europe during the Neolithic (~8 thousand years ago).*These findings imply that the carriers of haplogroup U7 spread to South Asia and Europe before the suggested Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region.*


I will also quote:




> I*n conclusion, the Near East is the most likely ancestral homeland of U7. Our analyses reveal two temporally and geographically distinct signals of U7 expansion that disseminated from this region*. *The first signal dates shortly after the LGM and this dispersal is responsible for the spread of U7 towards South and Central Asia prior to the Holocene*, while the *more recent expansion explains its spread in Mediterranean Europe most probably during the early Holocene*. *These dispersals of hg U7 towards South Asia and Europe preclude any major association of U7 with the putative Bronze Age expansion of the Indo-European language family to these regions.*


Do you see what they are saying? They are saying that there are two distinct phases of dispersal, both of which come from the Near East, the earlier one headed toward South Asia 11.5kya and the second one dispersed into the Mediterranean area during the Neolithic 8000 years ago. This is all far older than Indo-Europeans and their migrations during the early stages of the Bronze Age and would seem to fit better with the spread of farming, and we know that farming likely spread out of the Near East. The study discusses these lineages in the context of the spread of farming.

I'm not saying that U7 didn't originate in the Near East, my point is that U7 originated and spread far earlier than Indo-European groups. This is why we must look to the Neolithic and try to understand the population movements and the events leading up to the Iron Age and beyond. You are also ignoring the fact that U7 is practically absent in Europe today, again phylogeny of these U7 haplogroups matter and this is what the study touched on. Besides the Iron Age samples you cite again are Iron Age Hallstatt, Hallstatt was not likely to be Germanic, now was it? How refined were the mtDNA haplogroup calls (was there enough quality genetic material left for in-depth haplogroup analysis) for these princely burials in the south of Germany? We see several Neolithic Farmer associated lineages (both Y-DNA and mtDNA) holding on in post-Bronze Age Europe, to conclude that U7 is a sign of migration from Indo-European speakers from Iran is not viable when the dispersals of U7_ "preclude any major association of U7 with the putative Bronze Age expansion of the Indo-European language family". 


_


> Logically in 500 BC, people with Haplogroup U7 in Europe could be from nowhere except Iran


No, logically people in 500 BC with this haplogroup would more than likely descend from Neolithic Farmer populations, especially considering the data from this paper I've linked.

This is why you can't ignore everything before the Iron Age and how it pertains to the ethnogenesis of Germanic in Europe, because the culture most likely to be associated with proto-Germanic, Jastorf, shows a direct link to the Nordic Bronze Age. If we see (_refer to Eurogenes posts shared earlier by Northener_) no major population change (admixture change) in Northern Europe from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age that is very telling that there was no Indo-European proto-Germanic migration from Iran, all signs point to proto-Germanic being a development out of Northern Europe.

I should add, the similarities we see in mythology between Indo-European people is simply that, similarities because they are rooted in a common Indo-European ancestral mythology. All Indo-European groups have similar mythos like Divine Twins or Horse Twins, Sky Gods, Storm Gods, etc.

----------


## Cyrus

> Yeah, but you are ignoring the abstract and the conclusions within as they pertain to the U7 in Near East and Europe:
> I will also quote:
> Do you see what they are saying? They are saying that there are two distinct phases of dispersal, both of which come from the Near East, the earlier one headed toward South Asia 11.5kya and the second one dispersed into the Mediterranean area during the Neolithic 8000 years ago. This is all far older than Indo-Europeans and their migrations during the early stages of the Bronze Age and would seem to fit better with the spread of farming, and we know that farming likely spread out of the Near East. The study discusses these lineages in the context of the spread of farming.
> I'm not saying that U7 didn't originate in the Near East, my point is that U7 originated and spread far earlier than Indo-European groups. This is why we must look to the Neolithic and try to understand the population movements and the events leading up to the Iron Age and beyond. You are also ignoring the fact that U7 is practically absent in Europe today, again phylogeny of these U7 haplogroups matter and this is what the study touched on. Besides the Iron Age samples you cite again are Iron Age Hallstatt, Hallstatt was not likely to be Germanic, now was it? How refined were the mtDNA haplogroup calls (was there enough quality genetic material left for in-depth haplogroup analysis) for these princely burials in the south of Germany? We see several Neolithic Farmer associated lineages (both Y-DNA and mtDNA) holding on in post-Bronze Age Europe, to conclude that U7 is a sign of migration from Indo-European speakers from Iran is not viable when the dispersals of U7_ "preclude any major association of U7 with the putative Bronze Age expansion of the Indo-European language family". 
> _No, logically people in 500 BC with this haplogroup would more than likely descend from Neolithic Farmer populations, especially considering the data from this paper I've linked.
> This is why you can't ignore everything before the Iron Age and how it pertains to the ethnogenesis of Germanic in Europe, because the culture most likely to be associated with proto-Germanic, Jastorf, shows a direct link to the Nordic Bronze Age. If we see (_refer to Eurogenes posts shared earlier by Northener_) no major population change (admixture change) in Northern Europe from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age that is very telling that there was no Indo-European proto-Germanic migration from Iran, all signs point to proto-Germanic being a development out of Northern Europe.
> I should add, the similarities we see in mythology between Indo-European people is simply that, similarities because they are rooted in a common Indo-European ancestral mythology. All Indo-European groups have similar mythos like Divine Twins or Horse Twins, Sky Gods, Storm Gods, etc.


As you said U7 is absent in Europe, not just nowadays but also 3,000 or even 6,000 years ago too, we just know 8,000 years ago a rare subclade of this haplogroup existed in the Mediterranean area, we are talking about people who live in the north of Europe, if you believe U7 existed in this region before 500 BC, you should show me your evidences (not what some people guess), otherwise the most possible thing is that this haplogroup came to this region from a land where it existed.
I'm interested to know that in your theory of Germanic origin what the role of Hallstatt culture was, especially if you believe it is a Celtic culture, do you believe Germanic is a mixture of Nordic and Celtic cultures? I think you believe Nordic is actually almost the same as proto-IE, does it mean Germanic sound shifts relate to Celtic language?!

----------


## Cyrus

> Yes and Spruithean an I partly originated in exact the same region are in reality hugginn and muginn....they bring the news from the Germanic world ;)


LOL, with no doubt most of what we know about the Germanic culture are from modern Germanic lands, of course this culture is actually a mixture of Nordic and proto-Germanic cultures, Nordic culture had certainly a longer history in Europe but proto-Germanic one came from Iran. Anyway we know an IE culture came to Scandinavia from the southeast, whether in 500 BC or 1500 BC.

----------


## Northener

> LOL, with no doubt most of what we know about the Germanic culture are from modern Germanic lands, of course this culture is actually a mixture of Nordic and proto-Germanic cultures, Nordic culture had certainly a longer history in Europe but proto-Germanic one came from Iran. Anyway we know an IE culture came to Scandinavia from the southeast, whether in 500 BC or 1500 BC.


Ok than greetings to my distant cousin


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Cyrus

> Ok than greetings to my distant cousin


Of course with an intervening time of 2,700 years! In Istanbul Turks and Greeks don't call each other cousin, whereas they had the same culture 500 years ago.
I think Germanic people should be really proud of their culture, they have migrated several times from a land to another land but generally they have never been under domination of others, for about 1,500 years they lived in the west of Iran, all of ancient known empires, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Elamite, Urartian, ... could never conquer their land, with invasion of Iranian tribes from different directions they had to migrate to Armenia and then Getae (west of Balck sea), about 513 BC Darius the Great attacked to subdue them, as Herodotes says all Thracian tribes in this region gave themselves up to Darius without a struggle but the Getae obstinately defending themselves, Herodotes call them the noblest people in this region, anyway Scythians also invaded from the east and they had to migrate to south Germany and finally as we know they intermarried with Nordic people and created a new kingdom in the north of Europe, a few centuries later ancient Romans also wanted to conquer their land but they also couldn't. After the Hunnic invasion, we also see that Germanic tribes again migrated from a land to another land.

----------


## Northener

> Of course with an intervening time of 2,700 years! In Istanbul Turks and Greeks don't call each other cousin, whereas they had the same culture 500 years ago.
> I think Germanic people should be really proud of their culture, they have migrated several times from a land to another land but generally they have never been under domination of others, for about 1,500 years they lived in the west of Iran, all of ancient known empires, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Elamite, Urartian, ... could never conquer their land, with invasion of Iranian tribes from different directions they had to migrate to Armenia and then Getae (west of Balck sea), about 513 BC Darius the Great attacked to subdue them, as Herodotes says all Thracian tribes in this region gave themselves up to Darius without a struggle but the Getae obstinately defending themselves, Herodotes call them the noblest people in this region, anyway Scythians also invaded from the east and they had to migrate to south Germany and finally as we know they intermarried with Nordic people and created a new kingdom in the north of Europe, a few centuries later ancient Romans also wanted to conquer their land but they also couldn't. After the Hunnic invasion, we also see that Germanic tribes again migrated from a land to another land.


It was a greeting with a smiley, because I do believe in a gradual development and mixtures but not in whatsoever tribe that brought in a fullgrown ‘Germanic culture’ package that migrated from west Iran, no evidence for that.

The only phase when Germanic tribes went from Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany to other parts in Europe was during the early middle ages.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Cyrus

> It was a greeting with a smiley, because I do believe in a gradual development and mixtures but not in whatsoever tribe that brought in a fullgrown ‘Germanic culture’ package that migrated from west Iran, no evidence for that.
> 
> The only phase when Germanic tribes went from Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany to other parts in Europe was during the early middle ages.


Germanic culture should first exist in the north of Europe and then it is gradually developed, there is actually no evidence of its existence in the north of Europe before 500 BC, the same Germanic culture which already exists traces its origin in Asia, in fact according to Germanic sources, all major cultural developments happened in Asgard which was in Asia.

----------


## nornosh

I don't know why they don't test for downclades of Persian R1b-L23* so we could discus its relation to European R1b, without this I think we can only speculate! Different theories demand evidences. If R1b-s28 tribes lived in W.Persia so recently then howcome theres none found in the region?

----------


## Cyrus

> I don't know why they don't test for downclades of Persian R1b-L23* so we could discus its relation to European R1b, without this I think we can only speculate! Different theories demand evidences. If R1b-s28 tribes lived in W.Persia so recently then howcome theres none found in the region?


R1b-s28 is an Italo-Celtic haplogroup, of course it is better to say it is an Etruscan haplogroup:



The fact is that mtDNA haplogroup U7 has been also found in Italy, it is just funny but it is interesting to read what this article says: *Mitochondrial DNA Variation of Modern Tuscans Supports the Near Eastern Origin of Etruscans*: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852723/



All aboriginal people in Europe are from Iran but Indo-European people who migrated there are not!!!

----------


## Cyrus

I just searched about Tuscan language and found that *voiceless labiovelar fricative* (xʷ) exists in Tuscan phonology, I thought it just existed in proto-Germanic and modern Luri and Kurdish phonologies in the west of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_phonology It is possible that proto-Germanic people first migrated to the north of Italy and then Germany, I should research more about it.

----------


## Cyrus

It is becoming more interesting! We see the same West Iranian and proto-Germanic sound shifts (/k/ → [h], /t/ → [θ], /p/ → [ɸ]) in Tuscan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuscan_dialect

It can be really a game changer, Tuscany is much closer to the Germanic lands than Iran.

----------


## nornosh

SORRY! I meant R-U106. If it once lived in Zagros region then we should find so many of its subclades in there!

----------


## Cyrus

> SORRY! I meant R-U106. If it once lived in Zagros region then we should find so many of its subclades in there!


There is a different story, it is certainly possible that subclades of R1b-U106 exist in the east of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, ... but it relates to Satem language of Carded Ware culture, especially Indo-Iranian, like subclades of R1a-Z282 which have been found both in Scandinavia and Pakistan, as I said in another thread we know Finnish people called people of Scandinavia as Aryan (Orya) and their land Vaejah (Vuoja). What we read in Avesta about Vaejah (original land of Aryans) can be certainly modern Scandinavia.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I just searched about Tuscan language and found that *voiceless labiovelar fricative* (xʷ) exists in Tuscan phonology, I thought it just existed in proto-Germanic and modern Luri and Kurdish phonologies in the west of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_phonology It is possible that proto-Germanic people first migrated to the north of Italy and then Germany, I should research more about it.


This change only took place in the last centuries. It just cannot date to a time when Ronance Tuscan did not even exist, because the entire region still spoke Etruscan. Standard Italian is based on late medieval Tuscan and lacks that feature. You may not want to believe it, but lenition from /k/ to /x/ is an extremely common sound change worldwide, and it did happen in different places in different timeframes, independently.

----------


## Cyrus

> This change only took place in the last centuries. It just cannot date to a time when Ronance Tuscan did not even exist, because the entire region still spoke Etruscan. Standard Italian is based on late medieval Tuscan and lacks that feature. You may not want to believe it, but lenition from /k/ to /x/ is an extremely common sound change worldwide, and it did happen in different places in different timeframes, independently.


As a Persian I myself can't pronounce Luri/Kurdish _xʷast_ "quest, want" correctly, in fact Persians pronounce this word as _xast_ or _xuast_, the interesting thing is Arabs who live in the southwest of Iran can pronounce this sound correctly, however it doesn't exist in Arabic phonology. I believe if the language of a people is changed culturally (not by a migration), their phonology won't change totally, this is the main reason that we see different Indo-European languages in different lands.

----------


## Cyrus

It is interesting to know that the earliest known Germanic inscription is *Negau helmet* which dates back to 450 BC  350 BC, it is in a North Etruscan alphabet and has been found in Slovenia. Elder Futhark runes, the oldest form of the runic alphabets, are also commonly believed to originate in the North Etruscan alphabets.

So it should be said that Aesir-worshippers migrated from Asagarta (Asgard/Zagros) to Tuscany in the north of Italia and from this land their culture spread to the north of Europe.

----------


## Cyrus

A newer study: *Mitogenomes from The 1000 Genome Project Reveal New Near Eastern Features in Present-Day Tuscans*: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365045/

"The present study adds further support to previously reported findings suggesting the presence of a significant Near East component in Tuscan mitogenomes, and points to Iran as the region in the Near East providing the main genetic signal to present day Tuscans."

----------


## nornosh

Look where\when pre-Akkadians lived? if we find this then it could solve the "semitic words in germanic vocabulary" case. Look Maykop culture located in N.Caucasia and pre-Semits too were living in S.Caucasia at the same time so they were neighbouring cultures, IMHO its in this time and location where Semitic vocabulary entered language of R-L51 or R-L151 tribes, after this encounter they(L51) moved to Europe, J1 tribes moved south to Levant then in 2200 BC conquered Sumerians to form the Akkadian empire.

----------


## Angela

I almost think it would be a public service to delete this whole thread, as it is so full of complete misinformation. 

I warned you, Cyrus. I told you I thought perhaps I should inform Maciamo you're back under a sock account.

----------


## spruithean

> As you said U7 is absent in Europe, not just nowadays but also 3,000 or even 6,000 years ago too, we just know 8,000 years ago a rare subclade of this haplogroup existed in the Mediterranean area, we are talking about people who live in the north of Europe, if you believe U7 existed in this region before 500 BC, you should show me your evidences (not what some people guess), otherwise the most possible thing is that this haplogroup came to this region from a land where it existed.
> I'm interested to know that in your theory of Germanic origin what the role of Hallstatt culture was, especially if you believe it is a Celtic culture, do you believe Germanic is a mixture of Nordic and Celtic cultures? I think you believe Nordic is actually almost the same as proto-IE, does it mean Germanic sound shifts relate to Celtic language?!


So you're just going to ignore what that study I cited says about two dispersal events that predate the Bronze Age movements of Indo-Europeans? Why because it doesn't suit you? My evidences? So you will disregard a genetic paper written by professionals (who are using real science and real mathematics) in the field when it doesn’t suit you? When did I ever say that Germanic sound changes came from Celtic? You’ve made that assumption without any indication otherwise.




> LOL, with no doubt most of what we know about the Germanic culture are from modern Germanic lands, of course this culture is actually a mixture of Nordic and proto-Germanic cultures, Nordic culture had certainly a longer history in Europe but proto-Germanic one came from Iran. Anyway we know an IE culture came to Scandinavia from the southeast, whether in 500 BC or 1500 BC.


Proto-Germanic did not come from Iran, we’ve been over this. Where is the archaeological evidence? Where is the genetic admixture (autosomal) evidence? There is no sign of such admixture in Neolithic or Bronze Age Scandinavians and again there are no signals of this in Migration Period Germanic aDNA samples that we have accumulated. Migration Period Germanic samples all show a strong affinity for North/Central Europe and Northern Europe, the women in several studies show higher mobility and more diverse origins but this is product of what we would expect with the migration period which brought various steppe people into Europe like the Huns, Alans, etc, we know several Germanic tribes took Hunnic wives, such as the Thuringii to name a specific tribe. The Goth from Crimea ancient DNA sample as stated by many was more likely a Pontic Greek as opposed to an ethnic Goth. We have a Gepid sample from Serbia which shows what we would expect for the Gepids, a mixture of Northern European, Steppe and Balkan ancestry. The Gepids were one of Attila's favoured tribes and we know the Gepids and Huns mixed, we know the Gepids likely mixed further with the Pannonian Avars as well, judging by their armour in certain burials. Even two of the chiefs of the Gepids were likely descended from Attila judging by their names (Giesmus and Mundus).




> Of course with an intervening time of 2,700 years! In Istanbul Turks and Greeks don't call each other cousin, whereas they had the same culture 500 years ago.
> I think Germanic people should be really proud of their culture, they have migrated several times from a land to another land but generally they have never been under domination of others, for about 1,500 years they lived in the west of Iran, all of ancient known empires, such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Elamite, Urartian, ... could never conquer their land, with invasion of Iranian tribes from different directions they had to migrate to Armenia and then Getae (west of Balck sea), about 513 BC Darius the Great attacked to subdue them, as Herodotes says all Thracian tribes in this region gave themselves up to Darius without a struggle but the Getae obstinately defending themselves, Herodotes call them the noblest people in this region, anyway Scythians also invaded from the east and they had to migrate to south Germany and finally as we know they intermarried with Nordic people and created a new kingdom in the north of Europe, a few centuries later ancient Romans also wanted to conquer their land but they also couldn't. After the Hunnic invasion, we also see that Germanic tribes again migrated from a land to another land.


Beating a dead horse here, proto-Germanic did not come from Iran. The Getae were not a Germanic tribe, the Getae were a Thracian people more closely related to Dacians and other neighbouring people in the Balkan region. We now have genetic evidence from Wielbark and Chernyakhov cultural complexes that the Goths most likely came from Southern Scandinavia before migrating to the Vistula and further toward the Steppe. They found a strong similarity between Jutland Iron Age people and those of the Wielbark culture in Poland, which is the likely home of Goths, Rugii and Gepids prior to their later migrations.




> Germanic culture should first exist in the north of Europe and then it is gradually developed, there is actually no evidence of its existence in the north of Europe before 500 BC, the same Germanic culture which already exists traces its origin in Asia, in fact according to Germanic sources, all major cultural developments happened in Asgard which was in Asia.


Using Snorri Sturluson as evidence is a poor choice, especially when modern scholars worth their salt do not take his works as evidence for much of anything. The etymology of Asgard from Old Norse is more akin to "Garden of the Gods" than anything else. Second, Snorri usually refers to Trojans as the ancestors of Scandinavians, however here is where the problem is, so do several other medieval people, many medieval people attach their history to that of a famous classical civilization as a means to fill in the blanks in a period of history that they do not know in regard to their own people. Snorri Sturluson is not a viable source for the ethnogenesis of Germanic cultures.




> I don't know why they don't test for downclades of Persian R1b-L23* so we could discus its relation to European R1b, without this I think we can only speculate! Different theories demand evidences. If R1b-s28 tribes lived in W.Persia so recently then howcome theres none found in the region?


They should have tested for the downstream SNPs of L23, however they didn’t but judging by YFull and private DNA projects at FTDNA the expected subclades of L23 are seen. R-U152 is very limited to a specific range in Europe.




> R1b-s28 is an Italo-Celtic haplogroup, of course it is better to say it is an Etruscan haplogroup:
> 
> [IMG]file:///C:\Users\gotadmin\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\ 01\clip_image001.gif[/IMG]
> 
> The fact is that mtDNA haplogroup U7 has been also found in Italy, it is just funny but it is interesting to read what this article says: *Mitochondrial DNA Variation of Modern Tuscans Supports the Near Eastern Origin of Etruscans*: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852723/
> 
> [IMG]file:///C:\Users\gotadmin\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\ 01\clip_image002.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> All aboriginal people in Europe are from Iran but Indo-European people who migrated there are not!!!


Again, haplogroups do not speak language, and why is U152 better said to be an "Etruscan haplogroup"?

Non-IE Europeans, those predating Indo-Europeans have their origins in hunter-gatherer populations of Europe combined with Early European Farmers who came from the Near East IIRC. This pre-dates Indo-Europeans. In the case of Etruscans this is an entirely separate issue and not related to proto-Germanic. What do Etruscans have to do with Germanic cultures? We already know where the futhark runes come from and that is not the only alphabet to have its roots in Old Italic Script or Cumae Greek both coming from Phoenician (a people who very adept at sea travel and trade and had many colonies throughout the Mediterranean).




> There is a different story, it is certainly possible that subclades of R1b-U106 exist in the east of Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, ... but it relates to Satem language of Carded Ware culture, especially Indo-Iranian, like subclades of R1a-Z282 which have been found both in Scandinavia and Pakistan, as I said in another thread we know Finnish people called people of Scandinavia as Aryan (Orya) and their land Vaejah (Vuoja). What we read in Avesta about Vaejah (original land of Aryans) can be certainly modern Scandinavia.


Again U106 is not found in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or India. The South/Central Asia pre-print was full of many errors and they’ve made corrections and we will see these corrections in the future when they release it sometime this year. Do we need to go over the calls again as to why Loebanr_IA is NOT U106? Furthermore the oldest samples of U106 in Europe like I have stated many times *PRE-DATE* the incorrect sample at Loebanr by quite a large margin.The oldest sample of U106 is in Lille Beddinge Sweden and dated to 2275-2032 BCE. The R-Z282 individuals you mention are on differing branches under R-Y17491 which formed 4600 years ago (Yamnaya and related time-frame).




> It is interesting to know that the earliest known Germanic inscription is *Negau helmet* which dates back to 450 BC � 350 BC, it is in a North Etruscan alphabet and has been found in Slovenia. Elder Futhark runes, the oldest form of the runic alphabets, are also commonly believed to originate in the North Etruscan alphabets.
> 
> *So it should be said that Aesir-worshippers migrated from Asagarta (Asgard/Zagros) to Tuscany in the north of Italia and from this land their culture spread to the north of Europe.*


Negau Helmet inscription is actually possibly dated to the 2nd Century BCE, which would make it younger than the helmet which is dated anywhere from 450 to 350 BCE. In response to the bolded part, why should this be said? Why is this your go to conclusion about a study of Tuscany and how it relates to Etruscans? What does Germanic mythology or ethnogenesis have to do with Etruscans and Tuscany? We've been over this, there is no evidence for a migration of Indo-European from the Zagros to Northern Europe. Why do we not see this admixture that we would expect from such a migration in Neolithic Scandinavia, Bronze Age Scandinavia or Migration Period Germanic samples from Europe if it really happened? Snorri Sturluson is not a viable source. 




> A newer study: *Mitogenomes from The 1000 Genome Project Reveal New Near Eastern Features in Present-Day Tuscans*: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4365045/
> 
> "The present study adds further support to previously reported findings suggesting the presence of a significant Near East component in Tuscan mitogenomes, and points to Iran as the region in the Near East providing the main genetic signal to present day Tuscans."


There is a new paper on Italy coming out soon and it will be very interesting. I do not see why you are making a connection of Etruscans with Germanic ethnogenesis.




> Look where\when pre-Akkadians lived? if we find this then it could solve the "semitic words in germanic vocabulary" case. Look Maykop culture located in N.Caucasia and pre-Semits too were living in S.Caucasia at the same time so they were neighbouring cultures, IMHO its in this time and location where Semitic vocabulary entered language of R-L51 or R-L151 tribes, after this encounter they(L51) moved to Europe, J1 tribes moved south to Levant then in 2200 BC conquered Sumerians to form the Akkadian empire.


I would be very wary of Vennemen’s theory, as it is not accepted by majority of linguists or relevant scholars and his Atlantic (Semitic) theory suffers from sparse misinterpreted data. Again, haplogroups do not speak languages, people do. Attributing certain haplogroups solely to a language is an error.

----------


## spruithean

> *I almost think it would be a public service to delete this whole thread, as it is so full of complete misinformation.* 
> 
> I warned you, Cyrus. I told you I thought perhaps I should inform Maciamo you're back under a sock account.


I am not opposed to this at all.

----------


## Cyrus

> I almost think it would be a public service to delete this whole thread, as it is so full of complete misinformation. 
> 
> I warned you, Cyrus. I told you I thought perhaps I should inform Maciamo you're back under a sock account.


I agree, the fact is that I knew nothing about Tuscans, they are the main people in Europe who relate to Gutians and other ancient people in the west of Iran, so I should focus on them.

----------


## hrvclv

> I agree, the fact is that I knew nothing about Tuscans, they are the main people in Europe who relate to Gutians and other ancient people in the west of Iran, so I should focus on them.


Typical !!! A pseudo-answer, completely off the mark, aimed once again at deflecting off the real purport of the post quoted. With the same unchanging obvious purpose: to keep the bl**dy thread alive, at all costs.

This is bare-faced t-rolling. I know the position backstage is to let all kinds of weirdos (including me!) express themselves on this forum, as long as they remain harmless. But isn't it about time you moderators took effective action here?

----------


## Cyrus

> Typical !!! A pseudo-answer, completely off the mark, aimed once again at deflecting off the real purport of the post quoted. With the same unchanging obvious purpose: to keep the bl**dy thread alive, at all costs.
> 
> This is bare-faced t-rolling. I know the position backstage is to let all kinds of weirdos (including me!) express themselves on this forum, as long as they remain harmless. But isn't it about time you moderators took effective action here?


I also know what your obvious purpose is, it really doesn't matter for me that this thread is deleted, I already know what I wanted to know, now you should wait for my work which will be published soon.

----------


## Cyrus

> In response to the bolded part, why should this be said? Why is this your go to conclusion about a study of Tuscany and how it relates to Etruscans? What does Germanic mythology or ethnogenesis have to do with Etruscans and Tuscany?


You yourself should research about it, Etruscans became Aesir-worshippers too.

----------


## hrvclv

> now you should wait for my work which will be published soon.


Keep me posted. I can't wait to read the hodgepodge of absurdities it's bound to be!

----------


## Angela

Could the rest of the people who posted on this thread let me know if they object to my deleting the thread? Many of you published important information, which is the only thing keeping me back. 

Or, I could just delete all of Cyrus' posts, but then your posts might not make sense.

----------


## torzio

Negau helmet information means zero in reference to populace

As an example . The illyrian helmet was made in the Peloponnese and sold to Macedonians tribes firstly............it was made in an area very close where where the Corinthian helmet was made ................finding helmets, shields, weapons etc in one area means zero, not every people made armour and weapons, there was not many places on manufacturers of armour in europe until after the dark ages

----------


## hrvclv

> Could the rest of the people who posted on this thread let me know if they object to my deleting the thread? Many of you published important information, which is the only thing keeping me back. 
> 
> Or, I could just delete all of Cyrus' posts, but then your posts might not make sense.


You must have guessed how I feel about it by now. :)

----------


## Cyrus

> Keep me posted. I can't wait to read the hodgepodge of absurdities it's bound to be!


I have deciphered some parts of ancient Jiroft inscriptions of Kerman, you will learn many new things about the history of Indo-Europeans, you just don't know who I am.

----------


## nornosh

Look friends please don't get overly angry when people post different theories in the forum just disagree with them by posting your own point of view with evidence which point to the contrary. Forums are where people of different theories, views want to discuss their subjects.

----------


## Northener

> Look friends please don't get overly angry when people post different theories in the forum just disagree with them by posting your own point of view with evidence which point to the contrary. Forums are where people of different theories, views want to discuss their subjects.


Right agree. But when fantasy replaces facts.....theory must have a fundament nornosh. 


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Ygorcs

> I also know what your obvious purpose is, it really doesn't matter for me that this thread is deleted, I already know what I wanted to know, now you should wait for my work which will be published soon.


Okay. Let us know about it when it's peer-reviewed and published in some reputable scientific publication. Good luck!

----------


## Cyrus

Vagheesh Narasimhan finally replied, don't mistake, he still believes in the same R1b and I2a2 haplogroups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan and in all probability we will see them in final paper. But I just hope they review the sample ID I1954 (Ganj_Dareh_N), I believe that is *R1b1a1a2a (R-L23)*, not R2a.

----------


## spruithean

> Vagheesh Narasimhan finally replied, don't mistake, he still believes in the same R1b and I2a2 haplogroups in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan and in all probability wewill see them in final paper. But I just hope they review the sample ID I1954 (Ganj_Dareh_N), I believe that is R1b1a1a2a (R-L23), not R2a.



Forgive me for being skeptical, but may I ask that you paste the entirety of Narasimhan's quote here? If you do post his quote, post it in its entirety; don't remove anything from his message.

Secondly, even if these haplogroups are to be seen in the final paper and they are deemed legitimate, there is a problem with your theory. Some of the oldest samples of R1b-U106 (Lille Beddinge, Sweden 2275-2032 BCE), I2a2a2a (3350-2750 BCE Alava, Spain Lipson _et al_ 2017) and I2a1a1a (3600-3000 BCE Balatonlelle, Hungary Lipson _et al_ 2017) are from Europe and pre-date the Swat, Sintashta and Geoksyur samples from Narasimhan _et al_, and actually their upstream SNPs (that define I2, I2a, I2a2, I2a1) are found in Europe before Indo-Europeans. Also it is worth mentioning the samples of I2a subclades listed within the excel sheet for the South & Central Asia paper from Narasimhan _et al_, specifically for I2a2a2a we have I4915 & I5401 given date ranges of 6340-5990 BCE & 7076-6699 BCE respectively from Iron Gates HG in Serbia. There is also I4878 from the same cultural sphere in Serbia dated to 5995-5710 BCE. There is also a Latvia HG sample of I2a2a2a dated to 5775-5666 BCE. There is also I3715 from Neolithic Ukraine who is I2a2a2a dated to 5636-5521 BCE. These all predate the Geoksyur sample. The I2a1a1a sample from Sintashta (I1003) is dated to 2050-1650 BCE, in Narasimhan _et al_ that sample is predated by other samples like a sample from Iron Gates HG Serbia I5236 which is labeled I2a1a1a and dated to 8290-7825 BCE. Another I5773 from Iron Gates Serbia again, also I2a1a1a is dated to 8240-7940 BCE. All of these dates pre-date the ones I listed previously (Alava & Balatonlelle) for I2a, they also predate the samples you believe to be your evidence. They can all be found the excel sheet that is provided in the supplementary data (not Ycall file), so again the presence of these I2a subclades in Europe is far older than the suspicious samples from the Ycalls file. 

I don't see how this supports your theory, since the oldest samples of these haplogroups exist in Europe how does it make sense for it to be proof of "_proto-Germanic_" migration from Asia? Especially when there is no supporting autosomal signal (autosomal DNA - auDNA), if there is "Iranian-like" admixture we should expect to see it from this proto-Germanic migration from Asia, yet why is it absent in Bronze Age Scandinavians and Iron Age Northern Europeans (in the vicinity of Scandinavia & Germany)? Why is it absent in Migration Period aDNA that we have from Alemanni, Longobards, Anglo-Saxons and other samples from this period? Not to mention the fact these I2a clades you tout as evidence of your theory are far older in Europe, and it really doesn’t make much logical sense for the European modern I2a groups to be derived from the younger ones from Narasimhan _et al_ when there was clearly a far older presence of these I2a clades in Europe. It also doesn’t make sense for R1b-U106 (which has its oldest sample in Lille Beddinge) in Europe to be derived from the younger one in Narasimhan _et al_, it’s clear that there was an older presence of R1b-U106 in Europe, it again doesn’t seem very logical for modern U106 to be derived from far younger alleged sample in Asia. 

In terms of autosomal admixture, why do Iranian populations from these time periods consistently plot away from Northern European populations on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) charts? Y-DNA is useful in tracking the movements of people under certain parameters, but we need to keep in mind that autosomal DNA (auDNA) provides an even clearer picture when paired with other data, and right now the data clearly shows that there isn't any Iranian-like admixture from the time period you are specifying in era specific Northern Europe from the Neolithic to the arrival of Bronze Age populations. 

Let’s actually look at some Migration Period PCAs from their respective papers, please note that PC2 axis are for smaller differences and PC1 axis are for larger differences between populations, this means that from top to bottom on the Y-axis the differences are smaller and differences on the X-axis from left to right are larger.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/cont...600&carousel=1
Please note that Graves 3b and 3c are already determined by the authors to have been of a Southern European origin and not of Northern European origin, hence why they plot with Southern Europeans.

In the Bavarian DNA study we see:
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/13/...b-figures-data
In this paper males in the Bavarian samples show Northwest European admixture for Bavarian males and females, Balkan admixture for elongated skull samples and finally, *KER_1* was from Crimea and judging by various other peoples G25 nMonte data; this individual was likely of Pontic Greek and Steppic origins. *VIM_2* is a sample of a Gepid from Serbia, who shows East Asian admixture, which makes sense given the Gepid tribe’s position as a vassal of Attila the Hun, and also it reflects what we already know about the Gepids in that they were likely a mixture of Hunnic-Turkic and Germanic after a certain point as evidenced by grave finds but also by names such as _Giesmus_ (_*gesm <*gésəm_, from Turko-Mongolic _kes/käs_) and _Mundus_ (from _Mundzuk_, from Turkic _*munʒu_).The Gepid from various calculations reflects a mixture of Northern/Central European + Balkan + Steppe. Rulers of the Gepids prior to Giesmus and his son Mundus had Germanic names, as well as other Gepids recorded by Byzantines (_Asbadus_ & _Usdibad_)

Also, the population that brought farming into Scandinavia, referred to as _Central European Agriculturalists_ were of Anatolian Neolithic Farmer origin. Anatolian Farmers entered Europe 8,200 years ago. Neolithic Farmer ancestry is shared by a lot of populations and so far does not coincide with Indo-Europeans (Steppe ancestry is what appears to be associated with IEans.) So again, I will repeat, if these proto-Germanic people migrated out of a region we would expect to see an autosomal signal of this migration and their presence in the Zagros region, but we do not see this autosomal admixture in the respective time periods for populations that gave rise to Germanic people. Are you implying that these proto-Germanic Zagros people were entirely endogenous? Are you saying they maintained a "Northern European-like" autosomal signature that didn't change? They just blended in when they arrived in Northern Europe? Explain yourself. How is it logical for the source of European clades of I2a and R-U106 to be derived from suspicious samples from Asia that are far younger than the ancient samples of those haplogroups found in Europe?


Here are some samples from Eurogenes K8 PCA (which is a few years ago) that plotted the data from Allentoft 2015, as it dealt with Battle Axe samples and the like: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...paS09aWEk/view - note that the axes in this PCA are flipped from other examples I have linked here, component 1 is on the Y and component 2 is on the X. Component 1 in this case would show great differences from top to bottom, and component 2 shows lesser differences from left to right.

Here is another post from Eurogenes that shows some more PCAs which pertain to the Battle-Axe Culture from Sweden: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...mong-late.html, same applies here PC1 is on the Y-axis for greater differences and PC2 is for smaller differences on the X-axis

Here is a video about the Genetic Distance of European populations and others: http://armchairprehistory.com/2017/10/01/european-ancient-dna-the-movie/ 
(small differences in this PCA are shown through top to bottom, greatest differences from left to right for this PCA in this video which is based off of Mathieson _et al_ 2017)

Also, I know you like to claim that the Gutians are the ancestors of the Goths, but why then do we find that the cultures associated with Gothic presence (Wielbark, etc) show affinity with Iron Age Jutland (Southern Scandinavia)? See: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43183-w. This mtDNA study on Goths is very specific in that they state that the data supports a Southern Scandinavian origin for Wielbark males (and Neolithic local origin for the females). If the Gutians were a proto-Germanic people from the Zagros who migrated to Northern Europe we would expect see this Iranian-like affinity in the context you propose, and we do not see it. What is your explanation for this?

I took a look at the Y-calls for Ganj_Dareh_N and he is most likely R2a-L226 (3 positive calls, 1 negative, no positive calls for upstream SNPs of the lone probable false positive at the L23 position).





> Considering I1 is rarely found outside of Europe it is safe to say it is strictly European in origin. Haplogroup I-M170, the upstream parent haplogroup, is extremely old with estimates placing its time of origin anywhere from 31,000 to 35,000 years old. Where it originated is unclear it could be anywhere from the Caucasus, Europe or SW Asia. I2, the sibling clade of I1 has its time of origin anywhere from 28,000-33,000 years ago (obviously it can't originate before I-M170!)





> I1 in Europe is likely part of a very early hunter-gatherer people who didn't have very large numbers who eventually made their way into Scandinavia where eventually the population rapidly expanded and diversified into the various subclades we see today with I1-DF29 being the most common. I1 is most likely not an Indo-European haplogroup. The origin of Germanic people is probably due to the fusion of Indo-European groups with these non-Indo-European groups in Northern Europe. We cannot say that if we are to figure out the origin of the Germanic people that we only need to solely look at I1. Germanic speaking Europe contains far more haplogroups and ancient Y-DNA samples show R-U106 as well as other haplogroups were present among Germanic peoples.




Indeed, it’s why Y-DNA isn’t the sole determinant of a population’s history, it is informative but it does not give the full picture, which is provided by the inclusion of autosomal DNA data (among other things), which so far shows that Germanic populations have an affinity to Northern Europe, NW Europe, Western Europe and Central Europe. OP in this thread is implying the ancestors of Germanic speakers in a proto-Germanic context came from Iran, and specifically from the Zagros region, despite the complete lack of corresponding ancient DNA (Y, mt and autosomal) evidence for this position, let alone the complete lack of archaeological evidence (again Arne, Nermen and Gowling works do not state a migration, they discuss trade). The genetic and archaeological data are quite clear on where Germanic populations likely originated, and it shouldn’t even be a debate. An interesting read on the linguistics of Germanic and the non-IE substrate https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf, which rejects Vennemann and ties the non-IE substrate to the Neolithic Farmer population that pre-date Indo-Europeans.

----------


## Cyrus

spruithean, you know what my theory is, I believe north of Europe was the original land of Indo-Iranians, not Germanic people. In fact satem-speaking Indo-Europeans lived in the north of Eurasia and centum-speaking people in the southern part.
Existence of R1b-U106 and I2a2 in the South Asia shows Indo-Iranian migration to this region, proto-Germanic language in Europe dates back to 500 BC.

----------


## Cyrus

> I took a look at the Y-calls for Ganj_Dareh_N and he is most likely R2a-L226 (3 positive calls, 1 negative, no positive calls for upstream SNPs of the lone probable false positive at the L23 position).


Mr. Narasimhan says "Our Y haplogroup assignments were done using yHaplo by @dpoznik, modified to deal with damage, contamination & missing data in ancient DNA." If they believe the sample from Loebanr is a subclade of R1b-U106, for the same reason that sample from Ganj Dareh should be R1b-L23, especially because another sample from this region is R1.

----------


## spruithean

So now your theory changes.

Yet, my points still stand. Why do Iranian-speaking populations not plot closely to Northern Europeans on PCAs? Refer to the PCAs (and video) I provided they very much show your theory is still false no matter which way you spin it.

Narasimhan's paper (and several others) argue for no such Indo-Iranian origin in Northern Europe and instead they remain consistent with relevant scholars.

----------


## MOESAN

Spruithean, you're a very kind fellow, as Ygorcs. I admire your patience.

----------


## spruithean

> Mr. Narasimhan says "Our Y haplogroup assignments were done using yHaplo by @dpoznik, modified to deal with damage, contamination & missing data in ancient DNA." If they believe the sample from Loebanr is a subclade of R1b-U106, for the same reason that sample from Ganj Dareh should be R1b-L23, especially because another sample from this region is R1.


Look at these calls, 3 positive calls for R2a for I1947 and 1 negative call, the mathematics lean toward a positive call. Secondly, S8998 has a negative call for upstream positions of the downstream call, and finally I1949 has 1 negative call and 1 positive call for R1, those calls negate each other. Look at the Ycall excel file, they show even more data than these charts you've posted and it is quite clear why the calls make no sense. 

He posted that information you've quoted on his Twitter page and many people have pointed out that the software they used was very new and it did not take upstream consistency into consideration, which is why there are several errors. We will see how things pan out when the final paper is published, however the pre-print itself does not support either of your theories.

----------


## Cyrus

> Look at these calls, 3 positive calls for R2a for I1947 and 1 negative call, the mathematics lean toward a positive call. Secondly, S8998 has a negative call for upstream positions of the downstream call, and finally I1949 has 1 negative call and 1 positive call for R1, those calls negate each other. Look at the Ycall excel file, they show even more data than these charts you've posted and it is quite clear why the calls make no sense. 
> 
> He posted that information you've quoted on his Twitter page and many people have pointed out that the software they used was very new and it did not take upstream consistency into consideration, which is why there are several errors. We will see how things pan out when the final paper is published, however the pre-print itself does not support either of your theories.


About Ganj Dareh, Narasimhan replies to me "that sample is 100% R2a. It is ancestral for 13 R1 SNPs." but the sample from Loebanr is ancestral for 12 R1 SNPs too. I see double standard, of course it is possible that they have some other info that we don't have.
Anyway there is another R1b haplogroup in Iran (Hajji Firuz Tepe) which can indicate Germanic presence in Iran in the early Bronze Age. Indo-Iranian migration from Europe to the South Asia should be discussed in another thread.

----------


## spruithean

R1b Hajji Firuz *does not at all* confirm your Germanic theory, it also *does not* confirm any "Germanic" presence in Iran.

Furthermore, nowhere on Narasimhan's twitter page does he say anything about still believing the Ycalls for the suspicious samples, he says the paper will hopefully be published with more samples + new analysis of samples reported in the pre-print. He seems to encourage people take a look at the Ycalls file themselves.

----------


## Cyrus

> R1b Hajji Firuz *does not at all* confirm your Germanic theory, it also *does not* confirm any "Germanic" presence in Iran.
> 
> Furthermore, nowhere on Narasimhan's twitter page does he say anything about still believing the Ycalls for the suspicious samples, he says the paper will hopefully be published with more samples + new analysis of samples reported in the pre-print. He seems to encourage people take a look at the Ycalls file themselves.


In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, please prove it.
In the excel file that Narasimhan gave its link to me a few days ago, we still see the same results, it means he believes they are not wrong, otherwise he would correct them.

----------


## spruithean

No it does not, he's providing the data for people to look at for themselves to help improve the process, they even deliberately asked for help from other people.

When the paper is finalized and all new data is published we will have a better view of things, until that time we can't really make any bold claims.

----------


## johen

> off-topic


Is the following fact about major european language normal or strange?





> What looks like something strange for me about linguistics is that major branches of European languages do not form a clade inside Indo-European. If most modern European languages came from SGBR cultures of LN/EBA then Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Italic and Celtic would form a separate definite clade inside IE languages, like Indian and Iranian IE languages do, but most linguists do not see such a big European language group.





> We assume that people of Yamnaya culture spoke the same language - IE common, maybe IE after split with Anatolian languages, and there are many linguistic reasons why. Let's say our questions is will or will not a group of people keep their common language and how much time will it take for dialiects and then languages to emerge. This depends on connection between the subroups - what is the distanse between the subroups, are there some geographic or cultural barriers between the subgroups, but not on a number of people.
> 
> 
> Most of those migrating West established single archeological culture - CWC (and single grave Bell Beakers). And we have 4 huge language groups for this culture, that do not form a clade (that's if we put aside Balkanic, Greek and Anatolian branches and all the IE migrating to Balkans, Anatolia and Middle East). While those migrating to the East had settled on larger territory, and still their languages form a single clade.


*
RE: SGBR
*http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...re-butthe.html

"in addition, many early bronze age ‘cultures’ directly following corded ware and bell beakers, such as the Únětice, mierzanowice, or nitra in central europe, the nordic ‘late neolithic’ and early bronze age in southern scandinavia, or wessex have also very similar burial rituals. all the burials connected to these different ‘archaeological cultures’ are basically variations over a common theme: highlighting the gendered individual; the association of weapons with males; the burial in a flexed position on their side; in or under kurgan-like burial mounds; and distinct rules of orientation and body placement."

----------


## Cyrus

> No it does not, he's providing the data for people to look at for themselves to help improve the process, they even deliberately asked for help from other people.
> 
> When the paper is finalized and all new data is published we will have a better view of things, until that time we can't really make any bold claims.


I don't know why Narasimhan doesn't want to reply my main question, I said for the same reason that he said about Ganj Dareh, the Pakistani sample is certainly R2, not R1b but he doesn't reply.

----------


## nornosh

> *In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic*, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, please prove it.
> In the excel file that Narasimhan gave its link to me a few days ago, we still see the same results, it means he believes they are not wrong, otherwise he would correct them.


How about Mittani in 1700 BC or group of them.

----------


## Cyrus

> How about Mittani in 1700 BC or group of them.


Mitanni was in the north of Syria, not Iran, we just see Indo-Aryan influence on the Hurrian culture of Mittani, the original Indo-Aryan culture existed in the east of Iran, much closer than Mitanni.

----------


## nornosh

ok so they were not in the zagros mountains precisly but the region in general.

----------


## spruithean

> In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, please prove it.


They most certainly were *not* Germanic. You keep arguing this despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a thing. If a population ancestral to that of Germanic peoples migrated from the Zagros region we would expect to see remnants of this in the autosomal admixture, and we do not. The archaeology doesn't even support your position either, it instead is consistent with a more northerly European origin for Germanic.




> I don't know why Narasimhan doesn't want to reply my main question, I said for the same reason that he said about Ganj Dareh, the Pakistani sample is certainly R2, not R1b but he doesn't reply.


What makes you think he does not want to reply? He may be busy, he may not necessarily be at liberty to discuss the results of the new analysis in a setting such as Twitter, and we likely have to wait until the paper is finalized to see the final and fixed haplogroup calls.

----------


## hrvclv

> In the bronze age there were either no Indo-European people in Iran or they were Germanic, if you believe they were another Indo-European people, *please prove it*.


It's a bit easy to produce nonsense, provide no, or if any, absurd "evidence", and then ask other people to disprove it.

----------


## Pip

Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.

Much of the problem is the thread title, which causes disagreement based mostly on semantics:
1. There is no such thing as "the" origin of Germanic people. Like all peoples, Germanics have multiple origins - they are a composite people. People disagreeing about this are probably all right in one way or another, but are just focussing on the question from a different perspective.
2. What are "Germanic people"? Does this mean German-speaking people, people who have adopted Germanic cultures or people who are typically German genetically? (The thread comes under y-DNA, so perhaps the question is intended to refer specifically to Germanic paternal genetics.) As such, there are many possible different interpretations of the question, all with different answers.

----------


## Jovialis

> You keep arguing this despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a thing.


Unfortunately, this seems to happen a lot in this hobby. People can say what ever nonsense comes to mind, and defend it as a "theory". It really is unfortunate, because it turns off sensible people from the conversation in general.

I personally think that garbage posts should be deleted.

----------


## Jovialis

> Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.


You can stop right there. This isn't some dumb conspiracy theory t-roll forum. *We do* in fact support academic peer-reviewed theories over nonsense that is peddled by laymen t-rolls.

----------


## MOESAN

> Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.
> 
> 
> 
> Much of the problem is the thread title, which causes disagreement based mostly on semantics:
> 1. There is no such thing as "the" origin of Germanic people. Like all peoples, Germanics have multiple origins - they are a composite people. People disagreeing about this are probably all right in one way or another, but are just focussing on the question from a different perspective.
> 2. What are "Germanic people"? Does this mean German-speaking people, people who have adopted Germanic cultures or people who are typically German genetically? (The thread comes under y-DNA, so perhaps the question is intended to refer specifically to Germanic paternal genetics.) As such, there are many possible different interpretations of the question, all with different answers.


I'm not a defender nor a destroyer of academic mainstream. But here you seem put every forumer in the same bag. Let's go further on.
I supposed, when I red the title, this thread was focusing on the genetic origin of the Germanics (so future Germanics) as a pop defined by the birth of their first separated and recognizable form of language clearly differentiated of other neighbouring and cognate languages, even if other cultural aspects was to be taken in account to identfy this pop. I've not red all the posts but it appears the genetic aspect has soon been put aside if ever considered; it seems a try to discuss again questions already discussed in other threads created by the same forumer.
And i think there as been a rather homogenous Germanic people at the beginning (not a "pure race" of course), before later expansions, whatever the shortness of this pre-expansions period. This pop, as always, is not by force exactly the picture given to us by elites DNA.

----------


## Cyrus

> Quite a depressing thread to read (reminiscent of Anthrogenica at its worst), with people trying to promote their own pet theories while slamming others for promoting their own pet theories. Deleting the thread on the basis of its "misinformation" would be an even worse move - this is supposed to be a forum for the free exchange of ideas, not a propoganda tool to enable the academic establishment to surreptitiously control opinion and stifle dissent.
> 
> Much of the problem is the thread title, which causes disagreement based mostly on semantics:
> 1. There is no such thing as "the" origin of Germanic people. Like all peoples, Germanics have multiple origins - they are a composite people. People disagreeing about this are probably all right in one way or another, but are just focussing on the question from a different perspective.
> 2. What are "Germanic people"? Does this mean German-speaking people, people who have adopted Germanic cultures or people who are typically German genetically? (The thread comes under y-DNA, so perhaps the question is intended to refer specifically to Germanic paternal genetics.) As such, there are many possible different interpretations of the question, all with different answers.


The fact is that I just wanted to know what genetics says about the origin of modern Germanic people. What I know is that a Germanic culture existed in the west of Iran from at least 3rd millinium bc to the first half of the 1st millennium BC, but geneticists should say what happened latter, it is possible that some people from this part of Iran migrated directly to the North Europe or they migrated to another part of Europe, like Tuscany, and from this land the Germanic culture spread to the north of Europe, ... 

If you believe that the Germanic culture didn't exist in Iran, you should either prove that Indo-Europeans never migrated to Iran before the 1st millennium BC or those who migrated couldn't be proto-Germanic people. For example you can say for these reasons an Indo-European language couldn't be changed to proto-Germanic in Iran. Why for example the German city of Munich/München is pronounced as Munix/Munxen in Iran, and probably Tuscany?

----------


## MOESAN

I correct my #399 post; Y haplo's have been considered in this thread. But I see the same mode od reasonning of Cyrus, inchanged. That said, I 've nothing against Cyrus as a person. He is very correct and it's not a crime to take tracks different from the offical ones, if not biased. Bit I stay surprised.

----------


## Pip

> You can stop right there. This isn't some dumb conspiracy theory t-roll forum. *We do* in fact support academic peer-reviewed theories over nonsense that is peddled by laymen t-rolls.


Yes sir! Maybe all laymen should be excommunicated from this forum, along with any dissenting academics, who should tow the establishment line or face deletion. Perhaps it is time for Government to step in and start regulating and censoring all posts on this website?

----------


## Pip

> The fact is that I just wanted to know what genetics says about the origin of modern Germanic people. What I know is that a Germanic culture existed in the west of Iran from at least 3rd millinium bc to the first half of the 1st millennium BC, but geneticists should say what happened latter, it is possible that some people from this part of Iran migrated directly to the North Europe or they migrated to another part of Europe, like Tuscany, and from this land the Germanic culture spread to the north of Europe, ... 
> If you believe that the Germanic culture didn't exist in Iran, you should either prove that Indo-Europeans never migrated to Iran before the 1st millennium BC or those who migrated couldn't be proto-Germanic people. For example you can say for these reasons an Indo-European language couldn't be changed to proto-Germanic in Iran. Why for example the German city of Munich/München is pronounced as Munix/Munxen in Iran, and probably Tuscany?


I'm not saying you are wrong. For one, there is a substantial shared R1a inheritance between Germans and Iranians going back to only about 3000 BC. But the question is still a conflation of language, culture and genetics. Regardless of what our academic overlords try to assert, there is no simple answer to it or refutation of it

----------


## Jovialis

> Yes sir! Maybe all laymen should be excommunicated from this forum, along with any dissenting academics, who should tow the establishment line or face deletion. Perhaps it is time for Government to step in and start regulating and censoring all posts on this website?


Don't be childish, that is a false equivalency. Asking people to substantiate their theories with academic peer-reviewed sources is not the same as your absurd comparison. Moreover, making baseless claims deserves the criticism it has received. Doing it to an excessive and disruptive volume is t-rolling.

----------


## Cyrus

> You can stop right there. This isn't some dumb conspiracy theory t-roll forum. *We do* in fact support academic peer-reviewed theories over nonsense that is peddled by laymen t-rolls.


Please stop these offensive accusations, I'm an academic historian and my works have been published in Iran.

----------


## bigsnake49

> Please stop these offensive accusations, I'm an academic historian and my works have been published in Iran.


1. Have you been published outside of Iran in a peer reviewed journal?
2. Even if you are a academic historian it does not qualify you as a geneticist

Now I have nothing against you but those are two questions that need to be asked when you are proposing theories that are way outside the mainstream.

----------


## Cyrus

> I'm not saying you are wrong. For one, there is a substantial shared R1a inheritance between Germans and Iranians going back to only about 3000 BC. But the question is still a conflation of language, culture and genetics. Regardless of what our academic overlords try to assert, there is no simple answer to it or refutation of it


I'm really interested that you prove I am wrong, for example you can say:

1. There is a consonant or vowel in proto-Germanic phonology which didn't exist in the west Iran.
2. There is a sound change in proto-Germanic which didn't happen in the west of Iran.
3. There is something in the Germanic culture which didn't exist in the west of Iran.
4. There is a paragroup among original Germanic people which doesn't exist in the west of Iran.
...

----------


## hrvclv

> Yes sir! Maybe all laymen should be excommunicated from this forum, along with any dissenting academics, who should tow the establishment line or face deletion. Perhaps it is time for Government to step in and start regulating and censoring all posts on this website?


We are all dissenters to a degree on this forum. No problem with that. But when somebody asks such questions as...




> What was the main haplogroup of Germanic-speaking people (not the people of modern Germanic lands) in the 6th millennium BC?


they can't hope to be taken seriously. Germanic people in the 6th millenium BC?!? Why not ask what was the predominant haplogroup of English people in the 6th millenium BC?

Up from a certain point you lose all credibility. Either you are totally lacking in any sense of chronology (a weakness in a "historian" for sure), or you are a t-roll.

----------


## Cyrus

> 1. Have you been published outside of Iran in a peer reviewed journal?
> 2. Even if you are a academic historian it does not qualify you as a geneticist
> 
> Now I have nothing against you but those are two questions that need to be asked when you are proposing theories that are way outside the mainstream.


I'm still researching and there are some things that I need more evidences for my theory, like ancient DNA evidences. Of course I'm not a geneticist but as a historian I can use genetic evidences in my work.

----------


## Cyrus

> We are all dissenters to a degree on this forum. No problem with that. But when somebody asks such questions as...
> they can't hope to be taken seriously. Germanic people in the 6th millenium BC?!? Why not ask what was the predominant haplogroup of English people in the 6th century BC?
> Up from a certain point you lose all credibility. Either you are totally lacking in any sense of chronology (a weakness in a "historian" for sure), or you are a t-roll.


What is wrong about this question? Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European which became extinct in the 6th millennium BC, if you believe it is not, please prove it.

It is meaningless that you compare it to English.

Indo-Europran > Germanic > West Germanic > Anglo-Frisian > Anglic > Old English > Middle English > English

----------


## Northener

I consider the Iron Age Jastorf culture of outmost NW Germany as the first Germanic culture. I'm no language expert but the development of Germanic out of Nordic Germanic Bronze Age (?) is mostly seen as bound to the Jastorf culture. This culture was very expansive. Especially at the end of the Roman period and the early middle ages.

The Germanic genotype can basically be traced back to LNBA Nordic. So the Nordic Bronze Age. I'm North Dutch and my family shares in G25 Eurogenes a Nordic LNBA genetic profile. This can have two reasons. One is that on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia there is a shared gene pool due to the same Ertebölle like HG, Neolithic Funnelbeaker, shared Single Grave Culture (Corded Ware) and NW Bell Beaker development. Or I have a pretty high chunk genes of the Anglo-Saxons that went to the North Dutch area the last biggest population influx (in my region), besides the influx during the last centuries from the same NW Germanic area (although a little bit more southwards like Emsland and Westfalia).

Maybe it's both: a shared basic layer in the gene pool and a Germanic influx during the early middle ages.

Large parts of that are now cultural and national German(ic) don't share this as a whole. For example an area like Bavaria had an early middle age Germanic influx, but the (pre-Germanic) indigenous population didn't share the same gene pool (with the North European Plan/ South Scandinavia) before that.

----------


## spruithean

> I'm not saying you are wrong. For one, there is a substantial shared R1a inheritance between Germans and Iranians going back to only about 3000 BC. But the question is still a conflation of language, culture and genetics. Regardless of what our academic overlords try to assert, there is no simple answer to it or refutation of it


A common paternal origin (partially) that traces back to the Steppe is not to be confused with OP's theory that "proto-Germanic" people migrated OUT of Iran. Alternate theories that still consider evidence (not cherry-picked evidence) are how the scientific field moves forward. Blatantly ignoring data, omitting portions of quotations when they don't suit ones needs and other displays of academic dishonesty do not make one any more convincing nor does it make ones theory more "legitimate". The motives of this forum and the earlier discussion about deleting misinformation is geared toward the t-roll-like nature of the misinformed theory as it is presented despite repeated references to legitimate peer-reviewed sources that state the actual accepted theories on the origins of "Germanic" people. 

I've never argued that the "Germanic" people were a homogeneous group, I am well aware they are heterogeneous, but their population sources are most definitely not migrants from a Bronze Age/Iron Age source of the Zagros region. 




> Please stop these offensive accusations, I'm an academic historian and my works have been published in Iran.


Your status as an academic historian does not make you some superior figure in genetics (or linguistics) and you should stop presenting it as such, and if anything, repeatedly omitting portions of quotations from papers that pertain to population genetics and the movements of humans, and ignoring scientific data simply discredits you, especially when you state that you are an academic historian. I do not intend to offend and let's be clear here, I have nothing against you, I do however vehemently disagree with your theory.




> I'm really interested that you prove I am wrong, for example you can say:
> 
> 1. There is a consonant or vowel in proto-Germanic phonology which didn't exist in the west Iran.
> 2. There is a sound change in proto-Germanic which didn't happen in the west of Iran.
> 3. There is something in the Germanic culture which didn't exist in the west of Iran.
> 4. There is a paragroup among original Germanic people which doesn't exist in the west of Iran.
> ...


You continue to ignore actual language laws and developments that preceded various aspects of a language, yet again you compare two Indo-European cultures that have parallels and you believe that to be evidence? All Indo-European cultures have similarities (Sky God, Storm God, Divine Twins, Horse Twins) and that shouldn't be a surprise really. Your last point makes no sense, what are you arguing with that? Are you referencing a paragroup like R1a/R1b or something along those lines and ignoring the specific phylogeny?




> We are all dissenters to a degree on this forum. No problem with that. But when somebody asks such questions as...
> 
> 
> 
> they can't hope to be taken seriously. Germanic people in the 6th millenium BC?!? Why not ask what was the predominant haplogroup of English people in the 6th century BC?
> 
> Up from a certain point you lose all credibility. Either you are totally lacking in any sense of chronology (a weakness in a "historian" for sure), or you are a t-roll.


Precisely.




> I'm still researching and there are some things that I need more evidences for my theory, like ancient DNA evidences. Of course I'm not a geneticist but as a historian I can use genetic evidences in my work.


Continuing to research, that's what everyone is doing, hence all of our collective interests in these topics, however using ancient DNA evidences and misconstruing them, misinterpreting them or disregarding the information as presented by scientific papers in pursuit of proving your own theory is really quite dishonest. An example from earlier was the earlier stated theory (by you) that the Gutians were somehow the ancestors of Goths yet a genetic paper on the cultural complexes in Poland (and further east) as they pertained to the Gothic people showed a genetic connection to Iron Age Jutland (in the male population) and supported the idea that the Goths came from Scandinavia. 

You are the one presenting a theory, the onus is on *you* to present the data and account for discrepancies in your theory, so I will ask again, if your theory is ever found to be true why do we not see autosomal admixture of Zagros populations in Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc Northern Europeans? Why does the archaeological record support a continuation of shared material culture of the Nordic Bronze Age in Southern Scandinavia/Northern Germany (Kinder & Hilgemann 2004 among others) as it relates to the origins of "Germanic" peoples? Why does the archaeological record not support a Zagros migration?




> What is wrong about this question? Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European which became extinct in the 6th millennium BC, if you believe it is not, please prove it.


He's not denying that Proto-Germanic is a descendant of PIE, but he was quoting you as your initial question there was anachronistic as it pertains to "Germanic" peoples.

----------


## matty74

> I'm still researching and there are some things that I need more evidences for my theory, like ancient DNA evidences. Of course I'm not a geneticist but as a historian I can use genetic evidences in my work.


What are your credentials as a historian? I've seen a couple other handles on other similar sites trying to make the same argument that you have.

----------


## Cyrus

> I consider the Iron Age Jastorf culture of outmost NW Germany as the first Germanic culture. I'm no language expert but the development of Germanic out of Nordic Germanic Bronze Age (?) is mostly seen a bound to the Jastorf culture. This culture was very expansive. Especially at the end of the Roman period and the early middles ages.
> The Germanic genotype can basically be traced back to LNBA Nordic. So the Nordic Bronze Age. I'm North Dutch and my family shares in G25 Eurogenes a Nordic LNBA genetic profile. This can have two reasons. One is that on the North German Plain and Southern Scandinavia there is a share gene pool due to the same Ertebölle like HG, Neolithic Funnelbeaker, shared Single Grave Culture (Corded Ware) and NW Bell Beaker development. Or I have a pretty high chunk genes of the Anglo-Saxons that went to the North Dutch area the last biggest influx, besides the influx during the last centuries from the same NW Germanic area (although a little bit more southwards like Emsland and Westfalia).
> Maybe it's both: a shared basic layer in the gene pool and a Germanic influx during the early middle ages.
> Large parts of which are now cultural and national Germanic don't share this as a whole area's like Bavaria had an early middle age Germanic influx, but the indigenous population didn't share the same gene pool before that.


You actually believe in three miracles:
1. Existence of a language almost the same as proto-IE in the north of Europe at least 3,000 years after extinction of this language in other lands.
2. A huge change in the phonology of this language in 500 BC without any substrate language.
3. Expiration of sound changes in this language.
I think the 3rd one is the most important one, for example when we see p>f/b in Arabic, like in proto-Germanic, it can't be said that this sound change just happened in the ancient times, so Arabs shouldn't pronounce Pepsi as Bibsi!

----------


## spruithean

> You actually believe in three miracles:
> 1. Existence of a language almost the same as proto-IE in the north of Europe at least 3,000 years after extinction of this language in other lands.
> 2. A huge change in the phonology of this language in 500 BC without any substrate language.
> 3. Expiration of sound changes in this language.
> I think the 3rd one is the most important one, for example when we see p>f/b in Arabic, like in proto-Germanic, it can't be said that this sound change just happened in the ancient times, so Arabs shouldn't pronounce Pepsi as Bibsi!


You've missed Northener's main points.

----------


## Northener

> You actually believe in three miracles:
> 1. Existence of a language almost the same as proto-IE in the north of Europe at least 3,000 years after extinction of this language in other lands.
> 2. A huge change in the phonology of this language in 500 BC without any substrate language.
> 3. Expiration of sound changes in this language.
> I think the 3rd one is the most important one, for example when we see p>f/b in Arabic, like in proto-Germanic, it can't be said that this sound change just happened in the ancient times, so Arabs shouldn't pronounce Pepsi as Bibsi!


Nothing of this all read it well please. The fata morgana is on your side.
I only mentioned the real thing.....not pepsi hahahah :Laugh:

----------


## Pip

> Don't be childish, that is a false equivalency. Asking people to substantiate their theories with academic peer-reviewed sources is not the same as your absurd comparison. Moreover, making baseless claims deserves the criticism it has received. Doing it to an excessive and disruptive volume is t-rolling.


In my opinion, it is childish to use a succession of pejorative words like "dumb", "conspiracy theory", "t-roll", "nonsense", "peddled" and "absurd". This is not the measured, academic approach that I am used to.

----------


## Pip

> 1. Have you been published outside of Iran in a peer reviewed journal?
> 2. Even if you are a academic historian it does not qualify you as a geneticist
> 
> Now I have nothing against you but those are two questions that need to be asked when you are proposing theories that are way outside the mainstream.


I don't see why you need to have published outside of Iran, to have "peers" agree with you or to have a certificate in order to be able propose an idea.

----------


## nornosh

> They most certainly were *not* Germanic. You keep arguing this despite the fact that there is no evidence of such a thing. If a population ancestral to that of Germanic peoples migrated from the Zagros region *we would expect to see remnants of this in the autosomal admixture, and we do not*.


which admixtures we would have seen if Cyrus's theories were right? because he says they(Germanics) were unmixed at the time they left Zagros region, so he makes it hard for others to contradict him lol.

----------


## Pip

> What is wrong about this question? Proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European which became extinct in the 6th millennium BC, if you believe it is not, please prove it.


So it appears we are talking principally about language, rather than genetics or culture.

I am interested in genetics, rather than language, but it seems Proto-Germanic had a very long gestation period (a formation directly from PIE somewhere between 4,500-2,500 BC and a TMRCA which Wikipedia estimates as 500 BC).

As far as I can see, all sorts of people contributed to the Germanic gene pool between these dates. Unless we have clear documentary evidence of the use of all the intermediate languages over this entire time period, I don't see we how we can know for sure exactly which combination of people living where each contributed how much to the development of this language.

As in many other areas, there is too much simplistic thinking, leading to over-confidence and unwarranted hostility towards people thinking differently.

----------


## nornosh

Who said the extinction of Common IE language was in 6th millenium BC, I would rather put it in 3rd millenium BC so then from 2500 BC to 500 BC could be the time of PreProtoGermanic now if you say why so long time it toke to the emergence of Common Germanic well its because I said earlier "the Germanics geography remained more or less the same" look languages become diverge when tribes immigrate far from eachother. Germanics only begin to diverge into bigger geography in 500 BC so from then on their language get diverged.

----------


## Cyrus

> You continue to ignore actual language laws and developments that preceded various aspects of a language, yet again you compare two Indo-European cultures that have parallels and you believe that to be evidence? All Indo-European cultures have similarities (Sky God, Storm God, Divine Twins, Horse Twins) and that shouldn't be a surprise really.


Generalization can't solve this issue, there are certainly some things which are common in almost all IE cultures, but if you believe for example Germanic and Indo-Iranian progenitor *Mannus* and his twin brother *Yima/Ymir* exist in other IE cultures, please mention them. Or Iranian allfather *Awtin* (Abtin) and Germanic allfather *Wodan* (Odin) and his wife *Franak* (Frya) and *Frigga* (Friyo) (More info) with the same names exist in other IE cultures, you should talk about them, also the chief gods *Asura/Aesir*, *Tir/Tyr*, ... these are so important and can fundamentally change my theory.

----------


## Cyrus

> So it appears we are talking principally about language, rather than genetics or culture.
> I am interested in genetics, rather than language, but it seems Proto-Germanic had a very long gestation period (a formation directly from PIE somewhere between 4,500-2,500 BC and a TMRCA which Wikipedia estimates as 500 BC).


I agree about what you said about the gestation period of proto-Germanic (2,500 BC - 500 BC) but it reached to the north of Europe through the *Late Hallstatt culture* (500 BC).

https://meeting.physanth.org/program/2012/session06/lee-2012-an-ancient-dna-perspective-on-the-iron-age-princely-burials-from-baden-wurttemberg-germany.html




> During the Iron Age in Europe, fundamental social principles such as age, gender, status, and kinship were thought to have played an important role in the social structure of Late Hallstatt and Early Latène societies. In order to address the question of kinship relations represented in the Iron Age “princely burials” that are characterized by their rich material culture, we carried out genetic analysis of individuals associated with the Late Hallstatt culture from Baden-Württemberg, Germany. Bone specimens of thirty-eight skeletal remains were collected from five sites including Asperg Grafenbühl, Mühlacker Heidenwäldle, Hirschlanden, Ludwigsburg, and Schodeingen. Specimens were subjected to DNA extraction and amplification under strict criteria for ancient DNA analysis. We successfully obtained mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region sequences from seventeen individuals that showed different haplotypes, which were assigned to nine haplogroups including haplogroups H, I, K, U5, *U7*, W, and X2b. Despite the lack of information from nuclear DNA to infer familial relations, information from the mtDNA suggests an intriguing genetic composition of the Late Hallstatt burials. In particular, twelve distinct haplotypes from Asperg Grafenbühl suggest a heterogeneous composition of maternal lineages represented in the “princely burials”. The results from this study provide clues to the social structure reflected in the burial patterns of the Late Hallstatt culture and implications on the genetic landscape during the Iron Age in Europe.


Would you please explain what it means in genetics?



Especially this subclade:

*U7b5*: Lur2_270/Lur/Iran & *U7b5a*: Tor747/German/Germany & *U7b5a1*: IrAz_F73/Azari/Iran

----------


## Northener

> What happened after 1934, in fact in 1935, is the establishment of the Nuremberg Laws (racial purity laws), we see all researches about the Germanic migration from Luristan were stopped and researchers focused on just the racial purity of the Germanic people. In fact a pro-Semitic hypothesis was changed to an anti-Semitic hypothesis. We can still see this type of ultra-nationalism in the Germanic lands, they actually don't want to research about these issues, I sent an email to one of these Germanologists and asked about the history of Germanic culture before 800 BC and mentioned my own hypothesis and he replied "I don't know and I don't want know!"


Fabolous so the Nurenberg laws did prevent your magnificent Luristan theory.....huh huh conspiracy conspiracy on the wall.

When I state in answers of the question of this topic what does genetics say about the origins of Germanic people that the ‘Germans’ as first used by the Romans to describe the people right of the Rhine are an amalgam or Ertebølle HG, Funnelbeaker Neolithic and Single Grave and NW Bell Beaker people and genetics. That’s the core thing.

No single sign of an Iranian influx. 

And as an answer we only get bla bla bla.

Sorry I’m mostly moderate to people who disagree with me but this kind of things is getting ridiculous. Even insulting.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## bigsnake49

> I don't see why you need to have published outside of Iran, to have "peers" agree with you or to have a certificate in order to be able propose an idea.


Because, first, we cannot have access to his papers if they are written in Farsi and second he could be part of a nationalistic agenda. He can propose all the ideas he wants but he has to be able to prove them.

----------


## Jovialis

> What are "Germanic people"? Does this mean German-speaking people, people who have adopted Germanic cultures or people who are typically German genetically? (The thread comes under y-DNA, so perhaps the question is intended to refer specifically to Germanic paternal genetics.) As such, there are many possible different interpretations of the question, all with different answers.






Being _Celto-Germanic_ in a genetic sense seems pretty damn quantifiable to me.

----------


## Cyrus

> Fabolous so the Nurenberg laws did prevent your magnificent Luristan theory.....huh huh conspiracy conspiracy on the wall.
> 
> When I state in answers of the question of this topic what does genetics say about the origins of Germanic people that the ‘Germans’ as first used by the Romans to describe the people right of the Rhine are an amalgam or Ertebølle HG, Funnelbeaker Neolithic and Single Grave and NW Bell Beaker people and genetics. That’s the core thing.
> 
> No single sign of an Iranian influx. 
> 
> And as an answer we only get bla bla bla.
> 
> Sorry I’m mostly moderate to people who disagree with me but this kind of things is getting ridiculous. Even insulting.
> ...


I think you don't want to deny that Germanic people are an Indo-European people, do you?
The original land of Indo-Europeans was somewhere around the Caspian sea, like Anatolia, Armenia, Caspian steppe, what if it is proved that this original land was even in Iran, is it an insult?!
The interesting thing is that some of the greatest geneticists are already talking about it, for example David Reich says: "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians".

----------


## Northener

> I think you don't want to deny that Germanic people are an Indo-European people, do you?
> The original land of Indo-Europeans was somewhere around the Caspian sea, like Anatolia, Armenia, Caspian steppe, what if it is proved that this original land was even in Iran, is it an insult?!
> The interesting thing is that some of the greatest geneticists are already talking about it, for example David Reich says: "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians".


Why should I deny this, but a Indo European influx from 2800 BC (CW/Single Grave) is something different not to be compared with importing a 'ready made' Germanic culture/language straight away from Iran thousand of years later.

----------


## Northener

So mister Cyrus you will still argue with dry eyes that Germans are an Irian tribe derivative and not born out of an amalgam between of Ertebølle HG, Funnelbeaker Neolithic and Single Grave and NW Bell Beaker people? Where could I found those tribes in my auDNA? Nada.

----------


## Cyrus

> Why should I deny this, but a Indo European influx from 2800 BC (CW/Single Grave) is something different not to be compared with importing a 'ready made' Germanic culture/language straight away from Iran thousand of years later.


Forget old theories, geneticists are already talking about Indo-European origin in Iran, it is possible the main haplogroup of Indo-Europeans was neither R1a, nor R1b but J2, so your European haplogroups of aboriginal Europeans probably didn't relate to the original Germanic people.

----------


## Northener

> Forget old theories, geneticists are already talking about Indo-European origin in Iran, it is possible the main haplogroup of Indo-Europeans was neither R1a, nor R1b but J2, so your European haplogroups of aboriginal Europeans probably didn't relate to the original Germanic people.


You are a historian? 

Germanic is a product of history. The Romans were the first that used that word. They described it for people living right of the Rhine. 

The Germans at that time were a result of mixing (see for the components ^^^). They were not a kind of coherent people that transferred from Iran to NW Europe et le voila the Germans (inc. language and culture) were there. That would be a kind of mediaval or very bad nineteenth century history writing. Long outdated and inadequate.

Do you really think an Iranian tribe came here and was responsible for a Germanic genetic profile and culture? Really?

Go fool someone else Cyrus these are 1001 night fairy tales.

And it's even worse this sentence 'this original land was even in Iran, is it an insult?!' implies IMO a kind of inferiority complex. In other postings this pops up reverse and is Iran the belly button of the world. 

I can tell you I don't give a dam if genetic parts of Germans came from Siberia, Swaziland or Chili or whatsoever but I don't like these biased kind of stuff.

----------


## Pip

> Because, first, we cannot have access to his papers if they are written in Farsi and second he could be part of a nationalistic agenda. He can propose all the ideas he wants but he has to be able to prove them.


He could still propose a reasonable idea, whichever language the idea is written in.
Whether he has nationalistic agenda is irrelevant to the requirement you seem to set that his ideas can only be validated by "peer review" and accreditation.
And if anything on this forum could truly be "proven", there would be no reason to have a forum for discussion at all.
This is supposed to be an exchange of ideas and information, not verbal combat.

----------


## spruithean

> Generalization can't solve this issue, there are certainly some things which are common in almost all IE cultures, but if you believe for example Germanic and Indo-Iranian progenitor *Mannus* and his twin brother *Yima/Ymir* exist in other IE cultures, please mention them. Or Iranian allfather *Awtin* (Abtin) and Germanic allfather *Wodan* (Odin) and his wife *Franak* (Frya) and *Frigga* (Friyo) (More info) with the same names exist in other IE cultures, you should talk about them, also the chief gods *Asura/Aesir*, *Tir/Tyr*, ... these are so important and can fundamentally change my theory.


I'm not a fan of citing Wikipedia, however even a cursory glance at ALL other Indo-European religions reveals parallels between all of the various branches of PIE, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-...pean_mythology, this doesn't not automatically mean that proto-Germanic speakers were from Iran. Cyrus, for the seemingly 1,000,000th time, why do you ignore the fact that there is no evidence for this proposed out of Iran migration for proto-Germanic? Why do Northern European populations (and Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc) plot farther away from Iranian populations? Your constant goalpost shifting is very tiring.
Also, you posted earlier



> I agree about what you said about the gestation period of proto-Germanic (2,500 BC - 500 BC) but it reached to the north of Europe through the *Late Hallstatt culture* (500 BC).
> https://meeting.physanth.org/program/2012/session06/lee-2012-an-ancient-dna-perspective-on-the-iron-age-princely-burials-from-baden-wurttemberg-germany.html
> 
> Would you please explain what it means in genetics?
> 
> Especially this subclade:
> *U7b5*: Lur2_270/Lur/Iran & *U7b5a*: Tor747/German/Germany & *U7b5a1*: IrAz_F73/Azari/Iran


Again, we've been over this. A published paper established TWO dispersal events for U7, both of which are BEFORE the Bronze Age. Read the paper again and actually try to understand it in a context outside of your pet theory. Uniparental markers are NOT the sole determinants of a populations history. Why do we not see this Bronze Age/Iron Age Zagros region admixture in Germanic populations or populations preceding Germanic populations (Iron Age Jutland, Bronze Age Scandinavia, etc)? 



> Being _Celto-Germanic_ in a genetic sense seems pretty damn quantifiable to me.


This will unfortunately be largely be ignored in favour of a biased pet theory...



> I think you don't want to deny that Germanic people are an Indo-European people, do you?
> The original land of Indo-Europeans was somewhere around the Caspian sea, like Anatolia, Armenia, Caspian steppe, *what if it is proved that this original land was even in Iran, is it an insult?!*
> The interesting thing is that some of the greatest geneticists are already talking about it, for example David Reich says: "the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians".


You've misunderstood Northener, yet again. You should read more of what David Reich, David Anthony and several others have to say about the PIE origins and the locations. None of them say that proto-Germanic came from Iran. There is no evidence for your theory and the onus is on you to present any evidence and present it in a way that explains the discrepancies. Can you do that for us? 



> Forget old theories, geneticists are already talking about Indo-European origin in Iran, it is possible the main haplogroup of Indo-Europeans was neither R1a, nor R1b but J2, so your European haplogroups of aboriginal Europeans probably didn't relate to the original Germanic people.


Uh huh, now we're shifting the haplogroup focus because the others don't quite fit your narrative, ah okay.



> which admixtures we would have seen if Cyrus's theories were right? because he says they(Germanics) were unmixed at the time they left Zagros region, so he makes it hard for others to contradict him lol.


We would expect to see Bronze Age or Iron Age Iran components in the autosomal DNA, this would make the PCA charts look very different, we'd see a higher affinity to Near East populations, and we don't see that. I shared a few links to several PCA charts a few posts back. Yes, of course that is his go to answer, because it leaves out the need for a real answer, the complete lack of evidence by saying that they were extremely endogenous lol. The archaeology supports a very different theory to Cyrus' and the genetic data we have so far is rather consistent with the archaeology and the various cultural spheres of prehistoric Europe.



> The fact is that I just wanted to know what genetics says about the origin of modern Germanic people. What I know is that a Germanic culture existed in the west of Iran from at least 3rd millinium bc to the first half of the 1st millennium BC, but geneticists should say what happened latter, it is possible that some people from this part of Iran migrated directly to the North Europe or they migrated to another part of Europe, like Tuscany, and from this land the Germanic culture spread to the north of Europe, ... 
> *If you believe that the Germanic culture didn't exist in Iran, you should either prove that Indo-Europeans never migrated to Iran before the 1st millennium BC or those who migrated couldn't be proto-Germanic people*. For example you can say for these reasons an Indo-European language couldn't be changed to proto-Germanic in Iran. Why for example the German city of Munich/München is pronounced as Munix/Munxen in Iran, and probably Tuscany?


Germanic culture did not exist in the west of Iran. What is your evidence for this? Where is the autosomal admixture evidence of Bronze Age/Iron Age Iran populations in Bronze Age/Iron Age samples of Northern Europe? You've yet to account for the large discrepancies in your theory, archaeology does not support your theory and neither does genetic data. Hell, even relevant linguists do not support anything remotely close to your theory.

----------


## spruithean

> He could still propose a reasonable idea, whichever language the idea is written in.
> Whether he has nationalistic agenda is irrelevant to the requirement you seem to set that his ideas can only be validated by "peer review" and accreditation.
> And if anything on this forum could truly be "proven", there would be no reason to have a forum for discussion at all.
> *This is supposed to be an exchange of ideas and information, not verbal combat.*


Sure, but when people throughout several threads on various topics have presented decent rebuttals with solid backing information and it is largely ignored or taken out of context, it ruins discussions, hell the OP's seemingly deliberate removals of parts of quotes from various sources is also a cause for concern.

----------


## Pip

> Being _Celto-Germanic_ in a genetic sense seems pretty damn quantifiable to me.


I'm not keen on these scatter diagrams, which seem a bit primary school to me. We could judge quantifiability better if we were presented with actual numbers.

That said, I agree regarding quantifiability if we stick to genetics.

----------


## Pip

> Sure, but when people throughout several threads on various topics have presented decent rebuttals with solid backing information and it is largely ignored or taken out of context, it ruins discussions, hell the OP's seemingly deliberate removals of parts of quotes from various sources is also a cause for concern.


Yes, although ignoring presented information or taking it out of context seems to cut both ways - it looks endemic on this thread and on these forums generally, more's the pity. You have to wade through a mass of pointless slanging matches in order to reach the odd useful piece of information hidden within them.

----------


## Cyrus

> You are a historian?
> 
> 
> Germanic is a product of history. The Romans were the first that used that word. They described it for people living right of the Rhine.



I'm a historian and I know the exact word "Germani" was first used by Herodotus in the 5th century BC as a people who lived in Iran, not Europe.





> The Germans at that time were a result of mixing (see for the components ^^^). They were not a kind of coherent people that transferred from Iran to NW Europe et le voila the Germans (inc. language and culture) were there. That would be a kind of mediaval or very bad nineteenth century history writing. Long outdated and inadequate.



The Germanic culture in Europe certainly differed from the original one in Iran, we see strong influences especially from ancient Roman and Nordic cultures, but I think almost all nationalist people in the world believe that their own ancestors created their own cultures in their own lands, ok but we can't write history based on their inclination.





> Do you really think an Iranian tribe came here and was responsible for a Germanic genetic profile and culture? Really?



Not Iranian tribes but Germanic tribes, Iran is just a land where different people have lived there, in the ancient times Germanic tribes lived and now different Iranian, Turkic, Arab, ... people live. It never means Germanic culture is the same as Iranian culture or vice versa.





> Go fool someone else Cyrus these are 1001 night fairy tales.



I don't want to fool anyone, I just believe before 500 BC Germanic people lived in my country and I'm researching about it.





> And it's even worse this sentence 'this original land was even in Iran, is it an insult?!' implies IMO a kind of inferiority complex. In other postings this pops up reverse and is Iran the belly button of the world.



You yourself talked about insult, we are all humankind and our original land was actually in Africa.





> I can tell you I don't give a dam if genetic parts of Germans came from Siberia, Swaziland or Chili or whatsoever but I don't like these biased kind of stuff.



What are these biased kind of stuff?!

----------


## Cyrus

spruithean, what is the major difference between what I say and what you believe? I don't think that you want to deny what David Reich and other geneticists say about the original land of Indo-Europeans in present-day Iran, do you believe they migrated from Iran to the north of Europe in 2,000-1,500 BC, not 1,000-500 BC? We know ancient Gutians lived in Iran from at least 25th century BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people so even in your theory it is still possible that the same Gutians migrated to the north of Europe, isn't it?

----------


## Northener

The name is a coincidence. The Germanii he mentions inhabited the region called "Carmania" or Karmania.

The Germanic tribes have no direct genetic connection with people from Karmania.

So you have no hard evidence. The conclusion: wishful thinking and so very heavy biased.

I’m also a historian and I say this is not evidence based history writing. IMO all rubbish.

----------


## Cyrus

> The name is a coincidence. The Germanii he mentions inhabited the region called "Carmania" or Karmania.
> The Germanic tribes have no direct genetic connection with people from Karmania.
> So you have no hard evidence. The conclusion: wishful thinking and so very heavy biased.
> I’m also ahistorian and I say this is not evidence based history writing. IMO allrubbish.


Please read my previous post, there is not really a big difference between what I say and what you say.

----------


## Northener

> Please read my previous post, there is not really a big difference between what I say and what you say.


There is a huge difference.

I plot genetically close to the early Germanic tribes and to Nordic LNBA.

I don't plot close to the people of Karmenia, it's up to you to show that they plot close to the Germani. But no evidence of that.

Between LNBA and nowadays there is no major shift in Germanic genetics. So no Germani coming in from Persia. *They left no traces.*

No trace, no story!

This is all in category Aryanism, 'also sprach Zarahustra....' Romantic (or even worse) schwaermerei (to say it in German).

----------


## Cyrus

> There is a huge difference.
> I plot genetically close to the early Germanic tribes and to Nordic LNBA.
> I don't plot close to the people of Karmenia, it's up to you to show that they plot close to the Germani. But no evidence of that.
> Between LNBA and nowadays there is no major shift in Germanic genetics. So no Germani coming in from Persia. They left no traces.
> No trace, no story!
> This is all in category Aryanism, 'also sprach Zarahustra....' Romantic (or even worse) schwaermerei (to say it in German).


Ok, between LNBA and nowadays there is no major shift in Germanic genetics but Nordic LNBA dates back to 1,600 BC, almost 1,000 years after the earliest mentions of ancient Gutians in the Mespotamian sources, from another side, we know the original land of Germanic people, as an Indo-European people, was in Iran, so even in your theory it is certainly possible that Goths, Germans, ... came from Iran. If we assume that your theory is correct, it can be said about my theory that in the 1st millennium bc Germanic people still lived in Iran.

----------


## Northener

> Ok, between LNBA and nowadays there is no major shift in Germanic genetics but Nordic LNBA dates back to 1,600 BC, almost 1,000 years after the earliest mentions of ancient Gutians in the Mespotamian sources, from another side, we know the original land of Germanic people, as an Indo-European people, was in Iran, so even in your theory it is certainly possible that Goths, Germans, ... came from Iran. If we assume that your theory is correct, it can be said about my theory that in the 1st millennium bc Germanic people still lived in Iran.


No prove, nothing sure.
About 2800 BC was the Corded Ware Single Grave influx, they were Indo European, this is for the whole North European plain and Southern Scandinavia. The chances are bigger that these people went also to the Iran area. Than that there was an Iran-North Europe axis.

When these people liver in Iran 1000 BC and they went afterwards let’s say 500 BC to NW Europe there has to be genetic smilarites. There aren’t.

But you are a believer, so (genetic) facts obviously don’t matter.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Cyrus

> No prove, nothing sure.
> About 2800 BC was the Corded Ware Single Grave influx, they were Indo European, this is for the whole North European plain and Southern Scandinavia. The chances are bigger that these people went also to the Iran area. Than that there was an Iran-North Europe axis.
> 
> When these people liver in Iran 1000 BC and they went afterwards let’s say 500 BC to NW Europe there has to be genetic smilarites. There aren’t.
> 
> But you are a believer, so (genetic) facts obviously don’t matter.....
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum


I believe in what geneticists say but it seems modern studies don't matter for you and you prefer to believe just the old ones.

----------


## Northener

> I believe in what geneticists say but it seems modern studies don't matter for you and you prefer to believe just the old ones.


This says nothing I can draw some lines on a map too.....
You are willing to believe that Germans have Iranian roots, everything that is against it is ignored. But evidence of it is not there.
So dream on.

----------


## johen

Considering a similarity between geman and iranian, nostratic language theory is very persuasive. It seemed to be caused by ANE descendants, even if the nostratic has seriously theoretical problems.

According to dr. yates book old world roots of the cherokee, 
Greek, not french, not english, has some similarity to cherokee.

----------


## nornosh

When the mainstream theory says IEs colonized Europe, Middle east, C.Asia from 2500-1700 BCs from Pontic steppes then why Cyrus don't accept this its not very far from his theory of 1st millenium BC in time, geography? Pontic steppe, W.Persia are located in Eurasia anyways. When we say Pontic steppes/Caucasus it encompasses the entire region anyhow.

----------


## Pip

> Ok, between LNBA and nowadays there is no major shift in Germanic genetics but Nordic LNBA dates back to 1,600 BC, almost 1,000 years after the earliest mentions of ancient Gutians in the Mespotamian sources, from another side, we know the original land of Germanic people, as an Indo-European people, was in Iran, so even in your theory it is certainly possible that Goths, Germans, ... came from Iran. If we assume that your theory is correct, it can be said about my theory that in the 1st millennium bc Germanic people still lived in Iran.


What if it were the other way round? (That some Germanics moved into Iran during the first millennium BC, rather than Iranians moving into Germany.)
This better fits the genetic data:
1. North European R1a-M417 appears in Iran
2. Baltic-like autosomal DNA appears in Iran then (in an Indo-Iranian migration apparently later than the first Indo-Aryan migration)
3. I cannot see any obvious yDNA or autosomal DNA moving in the opposite direction

The Mesopotamian mentions of Gutians might have been a reference to a Germanic-related group that came down from the North Western Steppe/Eastern Baltic during the first wave of Indo-Aryans. The Indo-Iranian wave appears to have come later, but from the same source, having similar NE European autosomal profiles.

----------


## johen

> When the mainstream theory says *IEs colonized Europe, Middle east, C.Asia from* 2500-1700 BCs from *Pontic steppes* then why Cyrus don't accept this its not very far from his theory of 1st millenium BC in time, geography? Pontic steppe, W.Persia are located in Eurasia anyways. When we say Pontic steppes/Caucasus it encompasses the entire region anyhow.


That is why people are concerned about IE theory, not b/c of just migration, but b/c of colonizing almost whole eurasia. That is why I always think that another third party participated in this IE theory project. 20 years later, maybe India?

ANE descendant (or EHG group) dominated steppe of central asia til EMBA. Later, their power expanded to central europe and china by seima turbino with brutality and super tin weapon. 



Under the circumstances, how do we think IE relay-race migration *always* all the way to altai and finally india? democratic society at that time?

----------


## Cyrus

> When the mainstream theory says IEs colonized Europe, Middle east, C.Asia from 2500-1700 BCs from Pontic steppes then why Cyrus don't accept this its not very far from his theory of 1st millenium BC in time, geography? Pontic steppe, W.Persia are located in Eurasia anyways. When we say Pontic steppes/Caucasus it encompasses the entire region anyhow.


What do you mean by IEs? We know IEs were initially divided into two different groups: Satem and Centum. Corded Ware culture could be either the land of satem-speaking people (Balto-Slvaic, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, ...) or centum-speakign people (Anatolian, Hellenic, Germanic, ...). It is impossible to deny that all IE words in proto-Uralic are from Satem languages (especially Indo-Iranian), not Centum, so they were certainly satem-speaking people who lived in the north of Eurasia, especially Scandinavia.

I don't know why we should believe in the most impossible miracles, how an absolute Centum language like Germanic can be come out from a satem language (Corded Ware culture)?

----------


## Pip

> I don't know why we should believe in the most impossible miracles, how an absolute Centum language like Germanic can be come out from a satem language (Corded Ware culture)?


One doesn't necessarily come out of the other; both could have had a common root. Conflating genetics, language and culture can lead to premature conclusions.

Autosomal genetics suggest that people regarded as Germanics are essentially CW-descendant people infused with some DNA from dominant R1b and I1 paternal lineages. It looks like several groups of them did not succumb or fit in and migrated away. They would have adopted different dialects and cultural practices, depending on intra-group balances and on the environments and peoples they joined elsewhere.

----------


## Cyrus

> One doesn't necessarily come out of the other; both could have had a common root. Conflating genetics, language and culture can lead to premature conclusions.
> 
> Autosomal genetics suggest that people regarded as Germanics are essentially CW-descendant people infused with some DNA from dominant R1b and I1 paternal lineages. It looks like several groups of them did not succumb or fit in and migrated away. They would have adopted different dialects and cultural practices, depending on intra-group balances and on the environments and peoples they joined elsewhere.


In the ancient times people didn't fly from a land to another land, all linguistic evidences show that in the 3rd millennium bc there was just Satem language in the north of Eurasia, when you say Germanics are essentially CW-descendant people, it means they were originally a Satem-speaking people but Germanic language is certainly a Centum language, like ancient Anatolian languages in the northwest of Iran.

The same things can be said to those who claim in the 3rd millennium bc there were Indo-Iranian or Armenian people in the west of Iran, all linguistic evidences show that in this period there was just Centum language in this region, not Satem, so the original people of this region were certainly a Centum-speaking people.

----------


## johen

> In the ancient times people didn't fly from a land to another land, all linguistic evidences show that in the 3rd millennium bc there was just Satem language in the north of Eurasia, when you say *Germanics are essentially CW-descendant people*, it means they were originally a Satem-speaking people but Germanic language is certainly a Centum language,


any chance of german language to be from R1b BB culture? 

I don't know the language, but centum celtic/gemanic/greek seems to be R1b, but different clade, which means different origin. Likewise satem slavic and indo-iranian is R1a, but different clade. Even if heaven collapses, archaeology does not allow CW to connect to sintashta.

----------


## Pip

> In the ancient times people didn't fly from a land to another land.


No, they went on foot, by boat and on horseback. It didn't have to be the long gradual process that many assume.

----------


## Pip

> In the ancient times people didn't fly from a land to another land, all linguistic evidences show that in the 3rd millennium bc there was just Satem language in the north of Eurasia, when you say Germanics are essentially CW-descendant people, it means they were originally a Satem-speaking people but Germanic language is certainly a Centum language, like ancient Anatolian languages in the northwest of Iran.
> The same things can be said to those who claim in the 3rd millennium bc there were Indo-Iranian or Armenian people in the west of Iran, all linguistic evidences show that in this period there was just Centum language in this region, not Satem, so the original people of this region were certainly a Centum-speaking people.


I'm talking genetics, not languages. Just because Germanics look mostly CW autosmally, this didn't prevent their ancestors from adopting a centum language, presumably mainly from the R1b-U106 people with whom they admixed and traded. Nor did it prevent several groups of them from migrating south eastwards towards the Caspian at various points in their development history. Genetic data suggests this happened at around the time you consider they were moving in the opposite direction. Yes, I suppose it's quite likely that some moved back to the Baltic, bringing the odd Iranian with them.

----------


## Cyrus

> any chance of german language to be from R1b BB culture? 
> I don't know the language, but centum celtic/gemanic/greek seems to be R1b, but different clade, which means different origin. Likewise satem slavic and indo-iranian is R1a, but different clade. Even if heaven collapses, archaeology does not allow CW to connect to sintashta.


I don't see any reason for considering Bell Beaker culture as Indo-European, R1b has the highest frequency among Basques who are not an Indo-European people. As another member said in this thread, I also believe just subclades of R1b-Z2103 relate to original Indo-Europeans.

----------


## johen

> I don't see any reason for considering Bell Beaker culture as Indo-European, R1b has the highest frequency among Basques who are not an Indo-European people. As another member said in this thread, I also believe just subclades of R1b-Z2103 relate to original Indo-Europeans.


you're correct. I don't mean that all R1b people were speaking IE, but I *just* mentioned that R1b seems to a connecting point of centum celtic, greek and gemanic. Those language has not common clade, hence, german could be a line of L51. Ancient greek could be with Z2013, but we don't know celtic clade. Actually it is just my *guess*.

----------


## Cyrus

> I'm talking genetics, not languages. Just because Germanics look mostly CW autosmally, this didn't prevent their ancestors from adopting a centum language, presumably mainly from the R1b-U106 people with whom they admixed and traded. Nor did it prevent several groups of them from migrating south eastwards towards the Caspian at various points in their development history. Genetic data suggests this happened at around the time you consider they were moving in the opposite direction. Yes, I suppose it's quite likely that some moved back to the Baltic, bringing the odd Iranian with them.


R1b-U106 seems to be originally a Rhaetian haplogroup, not Indo-European. R1b existed in Europe from at least 14,000 years ago, when geneticists talk about Indo-European origin in modern Iran, it doesn't mean almost the whole people of Europe migrated from Iran.

----------


## nornosh

> R1b-U106 seems to be originally a Rhaetian haplogroup, not Indo-European. R1b existed in Europe from at least 14,000 years ago, when geneticists talk about Indo-European origin in modern Iran, it doesn't mean almost the whole people of Europe migrated from Iran.


oh if R1b-U106 too is originally from Europe then which(Germanic) ydna hgs migrated in 500 BC from Zagros then, I am very confused?

This Satem, Centum thing is much less important than people give them, if one IE language diverge to hundreds of languages then how come CW satem cannot change to Germanic Centum with some Celtic influence" their new neighbours in West Europe"? Has Thor, Zeus guaranteed Centum remain centum, satem remain satem lol

----------


## Cyrus

> oh if R1b-U106 too is originally from Europe then which(Germanic) ydna hgs migrated in 500 BC from Zagros then, I am very confused?


In 500 BC Europe is a well-populated area and we shouldn't expect to see a huge change in DNA, anyway you think the same haplogroup R1b-Z2103 that I mentioned, also J2, Q, ... came from which land?




> This Satem, Centum thing is much less important than people give them, if one IE language diverge to hundreds of languages then how come CW satem cannot change to Germanic Centum with some Celtic influence" their new neighbours in West Europe"? Has Thor, Zeus guaranteed Centum remain centum, satem remain satem lol


What is your imagination about Indo-European sound changes?!! For example proto-IE *gʷ is changed to dʒ/ in Satem languages but b in Celtic, how these sound could be changed to kʷ in proto-Germanic?!
Without any doubt proto-Germanic is a direct descendant of proto-Indo-European.

----------


## Pip

> R1b-U106 seems to be originally a Rhaetian haplogroup, not Indo-European. R1b existed in Europe from at least 14,000 years ago, when geneticists talk about Indo-European origin in modern Iran, it doesn't mean almost the whole people of Europe migrated from Iran.


Are you saying Germanic U106 also came into Europe from Iran in the 1st millennium BC, but speaking a wholly different (Rhaetian) language to other Germanic (IE) migrants from Iran?
If so, how is there an early 2nd millennium BC Swedish U106 sample? Why would phylogeny suggest U106 development around Sweden and the Western Baltic pre-2,000 BC?
And why would Swedish Bronze Age samples be such a close match to modern Germanic U106 samples autosomally?

----------


## Cyrus

> Are you saying Germanic U106 also came into Europe from Iran in the 1st millennium BC, but speaking a wholly different (Rhaetian) language to other Germanic (IE) migrants from Iran?
> If so, how is there an early 2nd millennium BC Swedish U106 sample? Why would phylogeny suggest U106 development around Sweden and the Western Baltic pre-2,000 BC?
> And why would Swedish Bronze Age samples be such a close match to modern Germanic U106 samples autosomally?


R1b1a is an European haplogroup and it came from Europe to Iran, not vice versa. We know even in the first centuries of the 1st millennium AD, some different non-Indo-European peoples, such as Etruscans, Iberians, Basques, ... lived in Eurupe and R1b was the main haplogroup of these people. U106 actually became a Germanic haologroup after adopting the Germanic culture in 500 BC.

----------


## Northener

Cyrus, you missed the best work about the Germanic tribe the Frisii a very old culture more than 4000 years old, the founding fathers of the Greek and Latin world....all written down in worlds best history book the Oera Linda Book in authentic Frisian. Have you read it?

When you have read it you will see the light, you never talk about German tribes spreading their Germanic culture 500 BC from Iran again, for sure.

https://eden-saga.com/en/dutch-mytho...inda-boek.html

----------


## Northener

Now serious....Dear administrator this is getting ridiculous. Please can this kind of crap be cut!
Thanks.

About the Oera Linda Book
It was meant as an irony. But it was getting serious business especially when Himmler was getting this kind of stuff serious. Even today some esoteric people and pagans believe it.....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oera_Linda_Book

What Cyrus is putting forward here is from the same kind of level. A historian must not copy paste mythical or ancient sources without criticism or putting them in a right context. The idea of a Persian tribe bringing in Germanic culture 500 BC has no fundament and is therefore ridiculous.

----------


## nornosh

I thought Cyrus theory is about big number of Germanics come from W.Persia yet he says only minor but culturaly very important hgs settled W.Europe which are R1b-Z2103, J2, some Q so they today make very minor percentages, so there shouldn't be seriuos problems then because they could have indeed settled W.Europe from even Schythia if not proper Persia.

----------


## Northener

Side kick remark. When I was a few years ago with my family in a little village in the Rif mountains Maroc people stared at us (my sons and I are pretty robust) and shouted Allemani Allemani! ;) In many parts of the world this is the usual word for 'Germans' even in Persian ;) 

Wiki: 
" The names for Germany in modern Arabic (ألمانيا), Catalan (_Alemanya), Welsh (Yr Almaen), Cornish (Almayn), French (Allemagne), Persian (ألمان), Portuguese (Alemanha), Spanish (Alemania), and Turkish (Almanya) all derive from Alamannia.'_

----------


## Northener

> I thought Cyrus theory is about big number of Germanics come from W.Persia yet he says only minor but culturaly very important hgs settled W.Europe which are R1b-Z2103, J2, some Q so they today make very minor percentages, so there shouldn't be seriuos problems then because they could have indeed settled W.Europe from even Schythia if not proper Persia.


Yes and even for the minor no prove, bad history writing.

----------


## Pip

> R1b1a is an European haplogroup and it came from Europe to Iran, not vice versa. We know even in the first centuries of the 1st millennium AD, some different non-Indo-European peoples, such as Etruscans, Iberians, Basques, ... lived in Eurupe and R1b was the main haplogroup of these people. U106 actually became a Germanic haologroup after adopting the Germanic culture in 500 BC.


So Germanic people were only _partly_ of Iranian descent, with at least the substantial part descending from U106 people being indigenous European after all? So are you saying the only Germanic yDNA of 500 BC Iranian descent was I1? If so, its impact on Germanic autosomal DNA looks to have been negligible, as present-day Germanic DNA is largely the same as it was in the Bronze Age. And surely U106 must have migrated from Rhaetia or wherever to the Baltic long before 500 BC too, as archaeological and phylogenic evidence indicates?

I'm not denying that you might have some valid points on a cultural or linguistic level, but it does not seem to fit the data I have seen on a genetic level. As I have mentioned previously, genetics, culture and language are three different things - to conflate them is simplistic and potentially misleading.

----------


## spruithean

> I'm a historian and I know the exact word "Germani" was first used by Herodotus in the 5th century BC as a people who lived in Iran, not Europe.
> The Germanic culture in Europe certainly differed from the original one in Iran, we see strong influences especially from ancient Roman and Nordic cultures, but I think almost all nationalist people in the world believe that their own ancestors created their own cultures in their own lands, ok but we can't write history based on their inclination.
> Not Iranian tribes but Germanic tribes, Iran is just a land where different people have lived there, in the ancient times Germanic tribes lived and now different Iranian, Turkic, Arab, ... people live. It never means Germanic culture is the same as Iranian culture or vice versa.
> I don't want to fool anyone, I just believe before 500 BC Germanic people lived in my country and I'm researching about it.
> You yourself talked about insult, we are all humankind and our original land was actually in Africa.
> What are these biased kind of stuff?!


Herodotus was referring to _Germanioi_ (Latinized _Carmanii_) *not* the _Germani_ of the Roman period.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/germanioi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmania_(region)
You've not convinced anyone of a Germanic presence in Western Iran, where is the archaeology for this? Where is the autosomal admixture? Where is the evidence? This isn't a nationalist issue, this is a discussion about your differing theory and you've yet to provide concrete evidence. 



> spruithean, what is the major difference between what I say and what you believe? I don't think that you want to deny what David Reich and other geneticists say about the original land of Indo-Europeans in present-day Iran, do you believe they migrated from Iran to the north of Europe in 2,000-1,500 BC, not 1,000-500 BC? We know ancient Gutians lived in Iran from at least 25th century BC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people so even in your theory it is still possible that the same Gutians migrated to the north of Europe, isn't it?


Reich and others propose that the PIE homeland is likely the Pontic-Caspian steppe, this in some circles pertains to PIE minus the Hittite branch, as there is evidence that Hittite broke off much earlier than the others making it almost a sister language. 
In my theory is there still a possibility of Gutians migrating to Europe? No. I don't see it being possible for Gutians to have migrated to Northern Europe because there isn't any strong genetic evidence for such a thing, we would expect Bronze Age and Iron Age Northern Europeans of a "Germanic" persuasion to have some more Iran autosomal components. Secondly, the Gutians are NOT the ancestors of the Goths IMO, as the Goths (male graves specific to Wielbark and related cultural complexes) show a genetic affinity to Iron Age Jutland (which plots closer to Nordic Bronze Age and related complexes, and not near geographical Iran components, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, BA, IA). 



> R1b-U106 seems to be originally a Rhaetian haplogroup, not Indo-European. R1b existed in Europe from at least 14,000 years ago, when geneticists talk about Indo-European origin in modern Iran, it doesn't mean almost the whole people of Europe migrated from Iran.


U106 is Rhaetic? It some how became Germanic by 500 BCE? Care to explain the ancient samples of U106 from Northern Europe, with a sample from Sweden dating to the 2275-2032 BCE?



> In 500 BC Europe is a well-populated area and we shouldn't expect to see a huge change in DNA, anyway you think the same haplogroup R1b-Z2103 that I mentioned, also J2, Q, ... came from which land?


Haplogroup Q in Europe has a very specific phylogeny and this was discussed in a study on Haplogroup Q that I linked several pages back. https://link.springer.com/article/10...438-017-1363-8



> R1b1a is an European haplogroup and it came from Europe to Iran, not vice versa. We know even in the first centuries of the 1st millennium AD, some different non-Indo-European peoples, such as Etruscans, Iberians, Basques, ... lived in Eurupe and R1b was the main haplogroup of these people. U106 actually became a Germanic haologroup after adopting the Germanic culture in 500 BC.


Yet, R1b-U106 is found in ancient samples from Scandinavia prior to 500 BCE? Explain your reasoning, provide evidence please.

----------


## spruithean

> So Germanic people were only _partly_ of Iranian descent, with at least the substantial part descending from U106 people being indigenous European after all? So are you saying the only Germanic yDNA of 500 BC Iranian descent was I1? If so, its impact on Germanic autosomal DNA looks to have been negligible, as present-day Germanic DNA is largely the same as it was in the Bronze Age. And surely U106 must have migrated from Rhaetia or wherever to the Baltic long before 500 BC too, as archaeological and phylogenic evidence indicates?
> I'm not denying that you might have some valid points on a cultural or linguistic level, but it does not seem to fit the data I have seen on a genetic level. As I have mentioned previously, genetics, culture and language are three different things - to conflate them is simplistic and potentially misleading.


This.
In regards to I1, it being the result of Iranian-speakers is a strange suggestion. So far aDNA of I1 (or pre-I1**) have been found exclusively in Europe (oldest pre-I1 in Paleolithic Spain, Mesolithic Sweden and Neolithic Hungary, followed by pre-I1/I1 in Bronze Age Sweden). **Please note that pre-I1 is part of the same lineage as modern I1 that diverged from I-M170 some 27,500 years ago, however as of yet we do not know the chronological order _(did M253 come before L840?)_ of the 312 defining mutations that define modern I1. Most I1 today is I1a-DF29, with a small percentage being I1b-Z131 and I1c-Z17925.
I don't think any ancient I1 has been found outside of Europe (the list of ancient I1 is short). Though we see I1 in areas that saw Germanic settlement/activity, Viking Activity and Norman/European involvement (I1 in Turkey, could be from Varangians, Normans or Medieval European people, Crusaders and the like).

----------


## Pip

> This.
> In regards to I1, it being the result of Iranian-speakers is a strange suggestion. So far aDNA of I1 (or pre-I1**) have been found exclusively in Europe (oldest pre-I1 in Paleolithic Spain, Mesolithic Sweden and Neolithic Hungary, followed by pre-I1/I1 in Bronze Age Sweden). **Please note that pre-I1 is part of the same lineage as modern I1 that diverged from I-M170 some 27,500 years ago, however as of yet we do not know the chronological order _(did M253 come before L840?)_ of the 312 defining mutations that define modern I1. Most I1 today is I1a-DF29, with a small percentage being I1b-Z131 and I1c-Z17925.
> I don't think any ancient I1 has been found outside of Europe (the list of ancient I1 is short). Though we see I1 in areas that saw Germanic settlement/activity, Viking Activity and Norman/European involvement (I1 in Turkey, could be from Varangians, Normans or Medieval European people, Crusaders and the like).


Agreed. I can't see any genetic signs of a significant 500 BC migration of people from Iran to North Central Europe. I only mentioned I1, because I wondered whether that was what Cyrus was suggesting and because its development looks more recent.

I can see signs, however, of possible migration in the opposite direction; and am open to the idea that Iranian cultural and possibly linguistic traits, and even some minor genetic admixture, could have been brought back to Europe by North Westerners who raided or traded South of the Caspian.

----------


## Cyrus

I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?

----------


## spruithean

> Agreed. I can't see any genetic signs of a significant 500 BC migration of people from Iran to North Central Europe. I only mentioned I1, because I wondered whether that was what Cyrus was suggesting and because its development looks more recent.


I1 has a star-like expansion right around the same time as other European haplogroups, right around the Bronze Age. So for some odd 20,000 years I1 was in a bottleneck and eventually expanded in the Bronze Age, as to what caused that, I'm not exactly sure. Razib Khan and a few others have presented the idea that I1 may have benefitted by association with R1b populations in the north. However most seem to agree that modern I1 developed in Northern Europe, where the initial split from I-M170 occurred is unknown, though judging by the earliest samples of pre-I1, usually labeled I1 in papers, it could have been somewhere in mainland Europe (perhaps Western or Central Europe).




> I can see signs, however, of possible migration in the opposite direction; and am open to the idea that Iranian cultural and possibly linguistic traits, and even some minor genetic admixture, could have been brought back to Europe by North Westerners who raided or traded South of the Caspian.


There was a fair bit of European activity in the Near East from the Roman era and much later, so of course there may be minor genetic admixture, but that wouldn't quite lend itself to the theory that is being presented in this thread.




> I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?


We're all tired of this discussion, because it does not end. Several people have provided solid information that you've pushed aside since it does not favour your theory. This is not about "_belief_", this is about verifying a theory with the data we have available, and it does not point in your favour. 

Where is the evidence for a Germanic language/culture in Western Iran? Please provide some actual well-documented evidence.

----------


## Pip

> I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?


I'm sorry if my comments have contributed to frustrating you. I'm quite prepared to accept that there might have been linguistic and cultural associations between Western Iran and Northern Europe during this period. There are also indications of significant genetic links, but with the flow of DNA i_n the opposite direction_. Unfortunately, it appears there is little interest from anyone in giving this observation any consideration.

----------


## Pip

> I1 has a star-like expansion right around the same time as other European haplogroups, right around the Bronze Age. So for some odd 20,000 years I1 was in a bottleneck and eventually expanded in the Bronze Age, as to what caused that, I'm not exactly sure. Razib Khan and a few others have presented the idea that I1 may have benefitted by association with R1b populations in the north. However most seem to agree that modern I1 developed in Northern Europe, where the initial split from I-M170 occurred is unknown, though judging by the earliest samples of pre-I1, usually labeled I1 in papers, it could have been somewhere in mainland Europe (perhaps Western or Central Europe).


Extant I1 had an extremely long formation period, so it was most likely located all over the place - to try to pinpoint it is pointless. But it is not the only haplogroup that looks close to R1b-L51. Unetice looks R1b Beakerish autosomally, despite it including the Caucasian haplogroup I2c2, so migration from NW Iran is not out of the question; it's just that this would look to have pre-dated 500 BC by some way.

----------


## Cyrus

> I'm sorry if my comments have contributed to frustrating you. I'm quite prepared to accept that there might have been linguistic and cultural associations between Western Iran and Northern Europe during this period. There are also indications of significant genetic links, but with the flow of DNA in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, it appears there is little interest from anyone in giving this observation any consideration.


I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (_namru_ "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.

----------


## Pip

> I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (_namru_ "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.


Gutians also look like newcomers, being represented as ignorant of the gods and culture.

They first appear at pretty much exactly the time that both SNP and STR analysis estimate that a branch of R1a-M417 (Z94) started developing rapidly South of the Caspian.

Autosomal analysis also suggests that Iran received a substantial amount of Northern autosomal DNA post-Chalcolithic (fitting with Armenian, Georgian, Southern Steppe Yamnayan and Baltic) - a result which is replicated in similar Indo-Aryan descendant populations like Punjabis. I see good fits for minor contribution from several kinds of early Baltic people, including Latvian Corded Ware, Lithuanian Corded Ware, Latvian Neolithic and Swedish Battle Axe. It is not too difficult or unlikely for Northern people to have made this journey - the Vikings followed exactly the same trail down the Volga to Iran.

It is reasonable to hypothesise that some indigenous Iranian DNA might have returned to the Baltic with these people, although I can see no substantial trace of that in the DNA.

----------


## spruithean

> I have said several times in this thread that when we know ancient Gutians were a fair skinned people (_namru_ "blond" in the ancient Akkadian sources), it is certainly possible that they originally lived in the north of Europe, in fact the formation of the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia could be a good reason for the migrations of different people to this region. Anyway we know R1b1a is an European haplogroup, so as I said they were Europeans who originally migrated to the west of Iran, not vice versa. *They adopted an Indo-European culture and came back, so we don't see major genetic differences.*


That's a strong cop out. If this is your counter, it's not very good. Are you literally saying that these so-called "_proto-Germanic_" people in the Zagros just stuck to themselves in an endogenous fashion? That would be even more pronounced genetically, why don't we see that exactly? I don't see any convincing evidence for Germanic (or Celtic) origins in the parts of Iran or in the contexts of which you propose.

As to the "_fairness_" of the Gutians, it is debated. Their alleged "_light-skinned_" appearance cannot be equated with being blond. Realize that different cultures have different definitions of "_fair_" or "_light-skinned_".

----------


## Pip

> Are you literally saying that these so-called "_proto-Germanic_" people in the Zagros just stuck to themselves in an endogenous fashion? That would be even more pronounced genetically, why don't we see that exactly? I don't see any convincing evidence for Germanic (or Celtic) origins in the parts of Iran or in the contexts of which you propose.


It is possible that groups can be endogamous, particularly if they only stay for a short period. Don't we know the Celts were in Asia Minor for a time? But we see little evidence of this in either European or Anatolian DNA.
The Guti appear to be of Northern provenance, of which we do see signs in DNA. We also see Gauti in the Baltic and Geti halfway between the two. We see Caspians in Iran, and Kasabians in the Baltic. I wouldn't rule out connections.

----------


## Northener

> I really became tired of this endless discussion, when you don't want to believe that there was a relation between two cultures which are almost the same, it should be said that there were two Germanic languages/cultures, one of them existed in the west of Iran from the 3rd millennium BC to 500 BC and another one existed in the north of Europe from 500 BC to the present, does it solve this problem?


The solution is simple. There is only one unique Germanic language/ culture and that is situated in NW Europe. This Germanic language/culture is (partly) rooted in a wider Indo-European language/ culture.

The acceptance of that solves endless discussion ;)

----------


## spruithean

> It is possible that groups can be endogamous, particularly if they only stay for a short period. Don't we know the Celts were in Asia Minor for a time? But we see little evidence of this in either European or Anatolian DNA.
> The Guti appear to be of Northern provenance, of which we do see signs in DNA. We also see Gauti in the Baltic and Geti halfway between the two. We see Caspians in Iran, and Kasabians in the Baltic. I wouldn't rule out connections.


I doubt the Celtic population in Asia Minor was ever large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Asia Minor populations whether they were endogenous or not. Is there any specific evidence that states the Guti were of "northern provenance"? I would be very wary of drawing connections between people based on demonyms (be they exonyms or endonyms). We know for some time it was believed that the Getae were related to the Goths, however the Getae are a Thracian people more closely related to the Dacians, while the Goths are a Germanic people with an attested Germanic language. In regards to the Caspians and Kashubians, from what I've seen the Caspian people are often regarded as a pre-Indo-European people linked to the Kassites. Kashubians are a Slavic people in the Baltic region, living in Pomerania (literally, _by the sea_). Now if the Gutians were indeed Indo-European, from what I've read, they were probably more like Tocharians than Germanic people, secondly I think we'll be hard-pressed to find anything that definitively proves whether they were IE people, we lack a corpus of their language and a kings list does not tell us much about their language. 

If we cannot rule out connections, we also shouldn't assume there are connections either, especially when the evidence is weak, or based off of the seeming similarity of names. We also should be very careful of interpreting medieval "historical" (more like pseudo-historical) works as having any semblance of truth.

I'm all for finding new connections throughout history, however they need be backed by solid evidence.

----------


## Pip

> I doubt the Celtic population in Asia Minor was ever large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Asia Minor populations whether they were endogenous or not.


So, in just the same way, there could have been a small Germanic population in Iran that was not large enough to leave a significant impact on the genetics of Iran populations.




> Is there any specific evidence that states the Guti were of "northern provenance"?


That they were "pale" suggests they were likely to be of Northern provenance, compared to the people who described them as such. That they were ignorant of local practices suggest they were most likely newcomers. Combined with genetic estimates that Northern autosomal DNA arrived in the region at about that time, and a branch of the Northern haplogroup R1-M417 began developing there also at that time. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting the contrary, so on the balance of probabilities, I would suggest a Northern provenance is most likely.




> I would be very wary of drawing connections between people based on demonyms (be they exonyms or endonyms). We know for some time it was believed that the Getae were related to the Goths, however the Getae are a Thracian people more closely related to the Dacians, while the Goths are a Germanic people with an attested Germanic language. In regards to the Caspians and Kashubians, from what I've seen the Caspian people are often regarded as a pre-Indo-European people linked to the Kassites. Kashubians are a Slavic people in the Baltic region, living in Pomerania (literally, by the sea). Now if the Gutians were indeed Indo-European, from what I've read, they were probably more like Tocharians than Germanic people, secondly I think we'll be hard-pressed to find anything that definitively proves whether they were IE people, we lack a corpus of their language and a kings list does not tell us much about their language.


I don't believe in conflating language with genetics - language can be adopted. Most views about these various tribes are speculative, and I am as wary of these as I am of conclusions drawn on the basis of demonyms. However, we know from more recent populations that denonyms can be significant, even when they are separated by up to 2,000 years - Danish Anglians and English East Anglians, Dutch Franks and French, German Goths and Spanish Zaragoths, Italian Romans and Romanians. Why not the Guti, Getae and/or Gauti likewise? They don't have to have the same language, culture or genetics to be related.




> If we cannot rule out connections, we also shouldn't assume there are connections either, especially when the evidence is weak, or based off of the seeming similarity of names.


Agreed. We should neither assume, nor rule out.




> We also should be very careful of interpreting medieval "historical" (more like pseudo-historical) works as having any semblance of truth.


I am sure there is some semblance of truth in some medieval works. To work on the basis that there isn't any is denying yourself access to data that helps build a picture.




> I'm all for finding new connections throughout history, however they need be backed by solid evidence.


Solid evidence is hard to come by. If we only relied upon what was definitely proven and ignored all circumstantial evidence and balance of probabilities, we would have very little indeed.

It might not be that Iranian Guti, Ukrainian Getae and Eastern Baltic Gauti descend directly from each other, but the question is could they have a root in common (possibly reflected in their names), which could be a genetic, a cultural or a linguistic one? Genetically, I suspect they have a relatively recent common root in R1a-Z645, which (according to yfull estimates) only arose in the early third millennium BC. And it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they had a common ancestor significantly later than this (on the collapse of Corded Ware circa 2,400 BC), which by the way probably also spawned the Kashubian Slavs, the Thracians and the Caspian Indo-Aryans (in admixture with various other people).

----------


## Northener

> When you want to look at the Indo-European component in the Germanic culture initially brought in by Corded Ware (Single Grave Culture) people than Davidski has made this connection....not exactly Iran but still.


Totally agree!

----------


## VladimirTaraskin

> Around 3000 BC, L51 and its subclades were pastoralist tribes roaming the steppes north of the Black and Caspian seas.
> 
> At some point in time between 2800 and 2500 BC, they started moving en masse into Europe. They were organized in patrilineal tribes.
> 
> Even if it were proved that Gutians were L51, it would simply mean that one of the tribes who were on the steppes chose to cross southwards over the Caucasus and into Zagros instead of expanding westwards. 
> 
> Only genetic analysis of those ancient Gutians, and their autosomic results, will tell whether they were in any way related to the tribes (ancestral to Goths ?) that moved west.
> 
> Language won't help at this stage, because almost nothing is known of the Gutian Language, and most of what is alleged is highly conjectural. And also because it is blatantly obvious to any linguist that Germanic languages developed in situ, through Grimm's Law and Verner's Law, gradually evolving over time in their own specific way, as all languages do. The velars in Indo-Iranian did not yet exist in PIE. They developed on their own, through gradual change. The same happened in Germanic, independently. The probability that it happened otherwise is zero.
> ...


I totally agree. A very convincing theory.

----------


## VladimirTaraskin

> What is the relation between the western branch of the Corded Ware culture and Pakistan?



Map is wrong. Z283 is an ancestral branch to Z284, Z280, M458, which could well exist in the place of contact with Z93

----------


## Pip

> I totally agree. A very convincing theory.


Yes, as with Cyrus' posts, there are grains of truth in it, but there is little basis for its confident conclusions, which in my view are essentially misleading.

For example, L51:
We cannot possibly know that all (or indeed any) L51 people around 3,000 BC were pastoralists, nor that they roamed the Steppe, as there are no samples of it at or before this date.
There is no evidence that they moved into Europe at that point from anywhere else, nor that they moved en masse. There is no evidence that they were organised into patrilineal tribes. There is no evidence that they chased away Corded Ware people from the East, with Corded Ware people fleeing straight into their path. There is no evidence that their admixture with Corded Ware people was gradual. There is no evidence to show what language they spoke.

The limited data that we do have supports different conclusions about what is most likely:
Ancient Pontic Steppe people have far too much WHG with their EHG, and ancient Caspian Steppe people far too much CHG with their EHG, for either to have been ancestors of the earliest L51 samples. These earliest samples clearly fit better with prior samples from the Balkan Chalcolithic. I have asked on several threads for people to present any data that demonstrates anything different, but have never received any response.
Phylogenic analysis supports an early (pre-3,000 BC) most likely coalescence point for L51 in France. Z2103 (almost certainly accompanied by brother L51) was already in Croatia circa 2,850 BC. M269 (associated autosomally with L51) was already present in Northern Spain circa 3,400 BC (and this population is strongly associated autosomally with a Basque-speaking non-IE modern population). A sample very similar autosomally to Yamnayan brother Z2103 was already at the Latvian Baltic circa 2,885 BC. L51 is associated with G-PF3345, with E-V13, and autosomally with I2a and I2c in Unetice. Any hypothesis that L51 was only organised in patrilineal tribes, only moved into Europe 2,500 BC and only spoke centum IE seems unsupported by the actual data.

Unfortunately, most orthodox opinions regarding historical genetics are like this - little more than unevidenced mantras that have only become widely ingrained through constant repetition and hostile reaction to anyone who dares to question them.

----------


## Northener

> Yes, as with Cyrus' posts, there are grains of truth in it, but there is little basis for its confident conclusions, which in my view are essentially misleading.
> 
> For example, L51:
> We cannot possibly know that all (or indeed any) L51 people around 3,000 BC were pastoralists, nor that they roamed the Steppe, as there are no samples of it at or before this date.
> There is no evidence that they moved into Europe at that point from anywhere else, nor that they moved en masse. There is no evidence that they were organised into patrilineal tribes. There is no evidence that they chased away Corded Ware people from the East, with Corded Ware people fleeing straight into their path. There is no evidence that their admixture with Corded Ware people was gradual. There is no evidence to show what language they spoke.
> 
> The limited data that we do have supports different conclusions about what is most likely:
> Ancient Pontic Steppe people have far too much WHG with their EHG, and ancient Caspian Steppe people far too much CHG with their EHG, for either to have been ancestors of the earliest L51 samples. These earliest samples clearly fit better with prior samples from the Balkan Chalcolithic. I have asked on several threads for people to present any data that demonstrates anything different, but have never received any response.
> Phylogenic analysis supports an early (pre-3,000 BC) most likely coalescence point for L51 in France. Z2103 (almost certainly accompanied by brother L51) was already in Croatia circa 2,850 BC. M269 (associated autosomally with L51) was already present in Northern Spain circa 3,400 BC (and this population is strongly associated autosomally with a Basque-speaking non-IE modern population). A sample very similar autosomally to Yamnayan brother Z2103 was already at the Latvian Baltic circa 2,885 BC. L51 is associated with G-PF3345, with E-V13, and autosomally with I2a and I2c in Unetice. Any hypothesis that L51 was only organised in patrilineal tribes, only moved into Europe 2,500 BC and only spoke centum IE seems unsupported by the actual data.
> ...


The point is also point that some see "germanic' (could also be celt or slave) as a coherent folk or people (genetics, culture, language all 1:1). IMO that's not the point it are all regional specific bricolages. The reality is more messy than coherent.

Germanic is the description of the people/ tribes roughly right of the Rhine in the Roman period.It's a large area but they shared some basic Germanic language and a kind of Nordic LNBA genetic profile.

But that wasn't ts due to a (mass) migration from Iran to NW Europe. It was a result of a mix between HG (Ertebølle), Neolithic Farmer (TRB) and Indo-European/Steppe (SGC/BB). All had their share so not "en bloc" so to say.

----------


## Pip

> The point is also point that some see "germanic' (could also be celt or slave) as a coherent folk or people (genetics, culture, language all 1:1). IMO that's not the point it are all regional specific bricolages. The reality is more messy than coherent.
> Germanic is the description of the people/ tribes roughly right of the Rhine in the Roman period.It's a large area but they shared some basic Germanic language and a kind of Nordic LNBA genetic profile.
> But that wasn't ts due to a (mass) migration from Iran to NW Europe. It was a result of a mix between HG (Ertebølle), Neolithic Farmer (TRB) and Indo-European/Steppe (SGC/BB). All had their share so not "en bloc" so to say.


I broadly agree with this measured post with two provisos -
1. The most substantial contributors of Germanic DNA as a whole look most likely Corded Ware (mainly steppic autosomally) and Bell Beaker (mainly Balkanic autosomally), with Balkanic EEF probably contributing more than TRB.
2. There is insufficient evidence to identify any particular contributor as Indo-European.
But while there seems no significant trace in genetics of a first millennium BC Iran-to-Scandinavia migration, whether there was a linguistic or cultural migration is another matter. It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there. There are many people across the world speaking English and adopting aspects of western culture who have no West European DNA in them whatsoever.
When you ask an ambiguous question, you can get a variety of potentially valid answers.

----------


## Northener

> I broadly agree with this measured post with two provisos -
> 1. The most substantial contributors of Germanic DNA as a whole look most likely Corded Ware (mainly steppic autosomally) and Bell Beaker (mainly Balkanic autosomally), with Balkanic EEF probably contributing more than TRB.
> 2. There is insufficient evidence to identify any particular contributor as Indo-European.
> But while there seems no significant trace in genetics of a first millennium BC Iran-to-Scandinavia migration, whether there was a linguistic or cultural migration is another matter. *It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there.* There are many people across the world speaking English and adopting aspects of western culture who have no West European DNA in them whatsoever.
> When you ask an ambiguous question, you can get a variety of potentially valid answers.


1. TRB is a mixture of EEF and HG. And indeed CW c.q. Bell Beaker (overlapping in Yamna ancestry) are the major contributors.
2. I can uphold different stories, but '*It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there.'* is IMO a real star trek story.....beam me up scotty, really I want to accept out of the box theories but this sounds a little bit too wild amigo!

----------


## Pip

> 1. TRB is a mixture of EEF and HG. And indeed CW c.q. Bell Beaker (overlapping in Yamna ancestry) are the major contributors.
> 2. I can uphold different stories, but '*It is quite possible that a Germanic people ventured to the Caspian and brought back language and culture with them without them necessarily having interbred with the locals while there.'* is IMO a real star trek story.....beam me up scotty, really I want to accept out of the box theories but this sounds a little bit too wild amigo!


It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.

----------


## Northener

> It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
> We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
> You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.


Pip to me science and common sense requires some prove, some evidence. Not the other way around, I state something, no clear evidence, but ok until there is any or no prove it’s a possibility. Than every option is a possibility, makes no sense.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

----------


## Pip

> Pip to me science and common sense requires some prove, some evidence. Not the other way around, I state something, no clear evidence, but ok until there is any or no prove it’s a possibility. Than every option is a possibility, makes no sense.....
> Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum


It makes perfect sense. There is no proof of which languages everyone spoke in every location thousands of years ago. There is no record of Yamnayans speaking IE, but it doesn't stop you asserting it. Where there is clear evidence (e.g. that Bell Beaker is closer autosomally to Balkan Chalcolithics than to Yamnayans or TRB), it doesn't stop you or anyone else asserting the contrary.
Ancient history is a jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing. There is no absolute scientific proof.
But there is plenty of evidence of Germanic people venturing widely, often leaving little or no genetic trace. Examples - Vandals to Andalusia, Goths to Aragon, English to India, Danes to Greenland, Varangians to the Caspian, Normans to Sicily, crusaders to Jerusalem. Why write off the possibility that there was some sort of link with Iran? And even if there wasn't, why the hostility and ridicule?

----------


## spruithean

Hostility and ridicule? Not so IMO, just criticism of a theory that despite everything is continuously pushed in this thread and others with no citations, cherry-picked quotes, quotations with contradictory aspects removed, etc. I can see that getting some people a little past disagreement to hostility.

----------


## MOESAN

> oh if R1b-U106 too is originally from Europe then which(Germanic) ydna hgs migrated in 500 BC from Zagros then, I am very confused?
> 
> This Satem, Centum thing is much less important than people give them, if one IE language diverge to hundreds of languages then how come CW satem cannot change to Germanic Centum with some Celtic influence" their new neighbours in West Europe"? Has Thor, Zeus guaranteed Centum remain centum, satem remain satem lol


I agree with your first statement concerning U106. That said, the switching from satem to centum is not an easy thing, not so easy as the contrary I think.
And more generally, the adoption of new languages are not so easy themselves as some forumers seem thinking: it implies certain conditions and takes some generations, and almost always it comports modifications of the adopted languages;

----------


## bigsnake49

> It's not my theory. I'm just saying it's a possibility. Until there is clear evidence, it's better if minds remain open.
> We know Celts went to Anatolia and returned, and that Vikings/Normans went to the Caspian and the Southern Mediterranean and returned. It's hardly science fiction.
> You're missing my point about TRB. The EEF in Germanics fits better with Balkan EEF than Baltic. Just as the EHG in Bell Beaker fits better with Balkan EHG than with Yamnaya. However, nobody acknowledges this, and nobody produces any data that refutes it.


Some Celts actually stayed in Anatolia in the province called Galatia.

----------

