Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

origin of the Germanic tribes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Germanic tribes

    I understand that the ancient Germanic tribes had haplogroup
    R-U106. Did the Germanic tribes in east Germany the same haplogroup?
    When did the Germanic tribes with R-U106 settle in Harpstedt area?
    From 5000 BC? Where did the haplogroup R U 105 come from?
    Like R 1b from soutwest Francia/north Spain?
    So the ancient Germanic tribes lived during the Ice Age in southwest
    France?

    When did the Germanic tribes establish in Denmark and Sweden?
    Was there a substratum before the arrival of Germanic tribes?
    Maybe Sami? Who can answer me these difficult question?
    In advance many thanks!

    Comment


    • #77
      Iron Age

      The Iron Age arrived rather late to northern Europe (Google) - in the 6th century BC.

      There's a crude map in my "Empires of the Word" book that shows language groups in Europe in 500 BC. Germanic runs in a swath from the Low Counties and Denmark, etc. southeastward in a narrowing swath all the way to the northeast corner of the Black Sea. Slavic is in the Baltic region, and "Baltic" is inland in what is now NW Russia. Gaulish is a block that includes central and southern Germany. The British Isles are another form of Celtic (Irish & Welsh). The Balkans are a mess of various groups, as is the Mediterranean region in general.

      R1a1* & U5b2
      Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 28 June 2008, 11:04 PM.

      Comment


      • #78
        Germanic tribes

        But many archaelogists think that the arrival of the Indo-European
        languages was nothing more than acculturalitation and adoption and had nothing to do with an immigration. So most of the genes of the Germanic tribes must be indigenous. So they probably are descendants of the Cro-Magnon/ Aurignac tribes from southwest France.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Haganus
          I understand that the ancient Germanic tribes had haplogroup
          R-U106. Did the Germanic tribes in east Germany the same haplogroup?
          When did the Germanic tribes with R-U106 settle in Harpstedt area?
          From 5000 BC? Where did the haplogroup R U 105 come from?
          Like R 1b from soutwest Francia/north Spain?
          So the ancient Germanic tribes lived during the Ice Age in southwest
          France?

          When did the Germanic tribes establish in Denmark and Sweden?
          Was there a substratum before the arrival of Germanic tribes?
          Maybe Sami? Who can answer me these difficult question?
          In advance many thanks!
          There have been a number of developments recently. Among them is a change in the whole "Iberian LGM Refugium" idea. Many researchers no longer believe R-M269 was in Iberia during the last Ice Age. It is more likely to have spread to Europe from Western Asia during the Neolithic Period.

          R-U106 may have arisen in Eastern Europe sometime during the late Neolithic/early Bronze Age. It seems likely that Proto-Germanic arose among them from a Pre-Germanic form of Indo-European.

          Before that, R-U106 may have formed a substantial component of the Corded Ware/Battle Axe culture.

          The early Germanic-speaking peoples would have expanded into Scandinavia probably during the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by T E Peterman
            Stevo,
            John McEwan suggested last year that the MRCA for R1b1c [old style] lived perhaps 7500 to 8000 years ago. That is long before the origin of PIE, as demonstrated by Anthony. I don't know if John McEwan still stands by these dates.

            Timothy Peterman
            That has been revised downward by Ken Nordtvedt and others based on much better haplotype data (more and longer haplotypes) and recent SNP developments like rs34276300 (S116).

            Dr. McEwan has been in Tasmania on a research project for the past year (he last updated his SNP table last summer, for example).

            When gets back he will have a lot of catching up to do.

            Comment


            • #81
              RE paleo-substrate languages

              There was tailk on this or another thread about substrate influence on Germanic, Scandinavian, et al. I was browsing in my "Empire of the Word" book, and saw a similar view about British Celtic. It seems that the indigeonous paleo-people prior to the Celts influenced the Celtic language that developed there. They seem not to have learned the new Celtic language fully, and used their old familiar sentence structure, etc.

              It's probably easier to take up a new vocabulary than it is a new syntax.

              There was also mention of the Lusitanean (paleo-Portuguese) language and how it could not have been Celtic. I wonder what those paleo-languages in Iberia were related to; Basque? Or something entirely different.

              U5b2 & R1a1*
              Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 29 June 2008, 03:51 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
                There was tailk on this or another thread about substrate influence on Germanic, Scandinavian, et al. I was browsing in my "Empire of the Word" book, and saw a similar view about British Celtic. It seems that the indigeonous paleo-people prior to the Celts influenced the Celtic language that developed there. They seem not to have learned the new Celtic language fully, and used their old familiar sentence structure, etc.

                It's probably easier to take up a new vocabulary than it is a new syntax.

                There was also mention of the Lusitanean (paleo-Portuguese) language and how it could not have been Celtic. I wonder what those paleo-languages in Iberia were related to; Basque? Or something entirely different.

                U5b2 & R1a1*
                That sort of thing is very controversial. Celtic is Celtic. There are two types, apparently: Q-Celtic and P-Celtic. Q-Celtic is older and was spoken in Iberia and Ireland. P-Celtic, which includes Brythonic, is newer and was spoken in Britain and on the European continent outside of Iberia.

                "Substrate" theories seem to be a dime-a-dozen.

                Lusitanian, as I recall, is believed to have been an Indo-European language.

                There is no evidence that the Basque or Vasconic language extended beyond NE Spain and SW France.

                Since there is some evidence that Basque is related to some of the Caucasian languages, and a recent study of the T-13910 lactase persistence allele showed that the Basques are ~92% lactase persistent, it seems likely the Basques migrated to where they are now from the Caucasus sometime during the Neolithic Period. The T-13910 allele is believed to have arisen out on the Eurasian steppe or in the Caucasus less than 10,000 years ago.
                Last edited by Stevo; 29 June 2008, 04:06 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Celtic v. Germanic

                  Which is La Tene? The S29/U198 clade seems to be on the Northern fringes of La Tene. I have heard it suggested that S29/U198 is associated with Anglo Saxons, but I have also heard it suggested that S29 is "downstream" of S21, which some associate with La Tene. A culture is not an allele and neither is a language. Why does the differentiation into "Germanic" languages v. "Celtic" languages matter? In UK I knew of villages in the same county that spoke dialects so different from one another than villagers from both villages had a difficult time following each other's brogue. Yet there is no question the villages had been there for generations. Did S29 flow out of S21 TO the Netherdlands or out of the Netherlands Across the Northern Rine? How come it turns up in Russia and Bohemia but not to the South of the Alps? I guess I am asking for answers for which the research has not been done given I am aware of only 41 people who match the clade S29, but is S29 related to S21 and if it is how do we know that? How come no one is saying to me it is closely related to S28. How do we know it is not? Is it an accident of designation or are S21, 28, 29 closer related to each other than they are to say, R1a? I also have 4 of the 6 Kohani markers, but that has never come up either? I am trying to understand on what basis these distinctions are made and what, really, does it mean in time an place for one's distant ancestor (say 3,500 years ago ... or 2,500 years ago for that matter) to have been S29 ...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    We know the place of S29 on the phylogenetic tree because every S29+ man is S21+, but not every S21+ man is S29+. That simply means S29 is downstream, phylogenetically, of S21. S29 is also known as U198.

                    Check out the 2008 ISOGG Y-Haplogroup R Tree to see what I mean.

                    While it is true that y haplogroups predate ethnic and linguistic distinctions, it is still possible to detect broad associations between them.

                    That doesn't mean there were no U106/S21+ La Tene Celts but that, in general, there is a better connection between U152+ and the La Tene Celts than there is between U106+ and the La Tene Celts.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      The more I think about paleo-Europeans & which y-haplogroups they may correspond with, the more I suspect that it would have been G (instead of I or IJ). G has a hotspot in the Caucasus & has been reported in western Austria, among probable descendants of the Raeti, who were supposedly related to the Etruscans. Some have suggested that both Basque & Etruscans are linguistic cousins (or members of) the Caucasian language family.

                      Looking at the y-map of Europe (McDonald, 2005), I see G in Italy, Iberia, & Algeria (less than 5%), G in Anatolia (about 10%), and G in Georgia (about 25%). The map doesn't report any G north of this. I find the correlation to the Ice Age refugia to be interesting.

                      The descendants (if any) of the Aurignacian & Magadalenian cultures must have moved southward during the Ice Age. Much of northern Europe was wiped clean of any human population. After the meltdown, I suspect that members of IJ & R were situated in the Near East & north of the Black Sea, becoming more proficient at agriculture. Europe may have been sparsely populated by G hunter-gatherers, which were overwhelmed in numbers by R and IJ, as farming spread from Anatolia into Europe.

                      Timothy Peterman

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by T E Peterman
                        The more I think about paleo-Europeans & which y-haplogroups they may correspond with, the more I suspect that it would have been G (instead of I or IJ). G has a hotspot in the Caucasus & has been reported in western Austria, among probable descendants of the Raeti, who were supposedly related to the Etruscans. Some have suggested that both Basque & Etruscans are linguistic cousins (or members of) the Caucasian language family.

                        Looking at the y-map of Europe (McDonald, 2005), I see G in Italy, Iberia, & Algeria (less than 5%), G in Anatolia (about 10%), and G in Georgia (about 25%). The map doesn't report any G north of this. I find the correlation to the Ice Age refugia to be interesting.

                        The descendants (if any) of the Aurignacian & Magadalenian cultures must have moved southward during the Ice Age. Much of northern Europe was wiped clean of any human population. After the meltdown, I suspect that members of IJ & R were situated in the Near East & north of the Black Sea, becoming more proficient at agriculture. Europe may have been sparsely populated by G hunter-gatherers, which were overwhelmed in numbers by R and IJ, as farming spread from Anatolia into Europe.

                        Timothy Peterman
                        That's an interesting theory, although I think that I and E are good candidates for at least part of the pre-LGM European population. I had never thought of G before, but you make a good case that should be considered.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          I wonder if the lack of diversity in R in the western regions of Europe occured because people of that haplogroup repopulated those regions first from Iberia after the LGM. Once hunting gathering populations filled the niche, selection would have reduced haplotype diversity closer to the western fringes. By the time haplogroup R filled up the hunting gathering niche in Eastern Europe, neolithic acculturation would have moved the migrations westwardly again with a greater population potential than before. Amerindians assimilaed to the new culture and quickly became reistant to Old World diseases and they were much more isolated than what meolithic Europeans were. Nevertheless, Y-DNA Haplogroup Q from Mexico is still over ten percent and mtDNA haplogroups A, B. C. and D are dominant. Other Latin Amercians also contain high percentages of these haplogroups. The migrations from Neolithic populations into Western Europe were much slower and less intense than what Latin America has faced in the last 500 years. I know these are different cultures and a direct comparison can't be made, but it's worth consideration.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            R-M269 is not old enough to have been in Iberia during the last Ice Age. R (M207) and R1 (M173) are NOT Western European, and there's no real evidence R1b (M343) or R1b1 (P25) were either.

                            R-M269's greatest diversity is in Anatolia and other parts of Asia. Its closest relatives are out in Asia, too.

                            Where the relatives are, that's usually where the cradle will be found.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by MMaddi
                              That's an interesting theory, although I think that I and E are good candidates for at least part of the pre-LGM European population. I had never thought of G before, but you make a good case that should be considered.
                              There's some G in the Basque DNA Project, too.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Any Cro-Magnon languages identified?

                                If Lusitanian was Indo-European, then it must've been at the leading edge. The "Empires of the Word" book (now getting old) said that letter order was not like Celtic, although it was not a written language.

                                A couple of other pre-Roman languages in Iberia, shown on the same map were
                                "Iberian" and "Tartessian." Then there is the strong observation that there was a Phoenecian/Carthaginian/Punic trding system all along the Atlantic, which seems to have had some kind of linguistic effect; a lingua franca possibly based on CeltIberian.

                                DNA was being churned even way back then.

                                R1a1* & U5b2

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X