Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

origin of the Germanic tribes

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

  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Haganus
    According to a lot of Scandinavian linguists and onomatologists there is no indication of pre-(indo)germanic substratum in Scandi-navia. So this must be a prove that Scandinavia was inhabited
    milenia befor Chr by germanic speaking tribes.
    The primary source for the paleo-european substrate in Saami languages is Aikio et al 2004. It may be downloaded here.
    Last edited by Noaide; 28 June 2008, 01:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    It appears there is support for a close proto-uralic and proto-indo-european homeland.

    "In the scholarly history, the Uralic linguistic homeland has most often been located either in the southern taiga zone of western Siberia (Castren, Hajdu, Janhunen) or in the Middle Volga region (Aminoff, Toivonen, Carpelan & Parpola). At the present, the paleolinguistic argumentation by Carpelan & Parpola (2002) seems most convincing. As there are established borrowings from Proto-Indo-European in Proto-Uralic, the latter must have been spoken in the vicinity of the former. The Proto-Indo-European homeland, in turn, can be located by cart and wheel vocabulary and the archaeological findings connected with early cart and wheel culture in the Ukrainian steppe (cf.
    Mallory 1989). Thus, the Uralic linguistic homeland must have been situated north of this territory, in the Middle Volga region. In addition to loan contacts, this explains the areal distribution of the Uralic languages. It also fits in with the palaeolinguistically meaningful vocabulary reconstructable in Proto-Uralic." (Source: Saarikivi et al 2006).

    So maybe there is not suprising to see N3 among baltic speakers.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    I just ordered it

    I just ordered the book recommended by Mr. Peterman. It'll be a pleasure to read, I'm sure.

    R1a1* & U5b2

    Leave a comment:


  • T E Peterman
    replied
    Stevo,

    If the split between R1a & R1b happened after about 4,000 BC, the satem/ centum split theory that you & I have supported still holds.

    I visited briefly with the lady who maintains the charts for ISOGG at the NGS conference in Kansas City last May. My suggestion is that current estimated dates for important mutations/ splits be included. Yes, the dates might change with time, but an estimate would be better than nothing.

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    what did they speak before IE?

    What did the first speakers of Indo-European speak before they started speaking Indo-Euopean? I recall seeing somewhere that they may have spoken a Uralic tounge.

    R1a1* & U5b22

    Leave a comment:


  • Stevo
    replied
    Originally posted by T E Peterman

    One thing that is obvious to students of y-DNA is that R1b is too old for them to have shared in the PIE founding.
    I guess you have been out of circulation for awhile, Tim.

    The age estimates for R1, R1b and especially R1b1b2 (R-M269) have come way down. Karafet et al recently dated R1 (M173) at 18.5k years old.

    Ken Nordtvedt and others date the S116+ MRCA to the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age.

    It seems more likely than ever that R-M269 is responsible for the spread of centum Indo-European to Europe, and I still think there is every reason to attribute Proto-Germanic to R-U106 in the Harpstedt and Jastorf cultures of the Netherlands and NW Germany.

    Btw, on the subject of the age of a y haplogroup and PIE: why would a haplogroup associated with the spread of a language have to be the same age as the language itself? Who would expect that?

    Are we envisioning the first baby born with M269 or M17 babbling his first words in Proto-Indo-European?

    A language could arise among a people who were mostly of this haplogroup or that, and the haplogroup itself could be very much older than the new language that arises among them.
    Last edited by Stevo; 27 June 2008, 06:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • T E Peterman
    replied
    I just finished reading a book called, "The Horse, The Wheel, and Language; How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World", by David W. Anthony, 2007. Anyone who really wants to discuss this topic in a meaningful way should take a look at this book (ie, read it from cover to cover).

    Germanic languages are described as having a combination of attributes from:

    1. the Italic/ Celtic diasapora, which came a millenium or so before:

    2. the Balto-Slavic diaspora

    Anthony doesn't mention any influence in Germanic languages from the Paleo-European languages (ie, Saami, etc). However, at the PIE base, he says there is evidence of borrowing both from early Caucasian & early Uralic languages, which suggests that the PIE speakers were neighbors of the two.

    Anthony pins things down really good & I think this book will prove hard to refute. He maintains that, before breaking into seveeral languages, PIE was spoken for about a millenium between say 4500 BC & 3500 BC in the steppes of the Ukraine from about the Dniestr River to the Volga River. The people there hunted horses; got exposed to agricultural ideas (cattle, hogs, goats, sheep domestication, along with cereal grains) from Neolithic farmers in Transylvania & Moldavia, who had migrated there from Anatolia before 6000 BC; and once exposed to agriculture, decided to domesticate the horse for riding.

    The mastery of horseback riding gave the PIE folk a technological skill, which enabled their language to spread to other groups.

    Although this population was consistent with the R1a y-haplogroup, Anthony never talks much about genetics & doesn't correlate PIE with any DNA groups.

    One thing that is obvious to students of y-DNA is that R1b is too old for them to have shared in the PIE founding. The PIE language must have begun among a distinct population that in 4500 BC. If any y-DNA group broke off earlier (such as R1b), they must have spoken a language that is now extinct. I maintain that such a language may have belonged to the same family as PIE, just like English, Russian, & Hindi all belong to the same family (Indo-European) today.

    One thing that I question is Anthony's suggestion that the settlers of Old Europe (6000 BC to 4000 BC) spoke a Semitic language. He suggests this because numerous archaeological finds suggest the people of Old Europe came from Anatolia & comprised the wave of Neolithic farmers that brought agriculture to Europe. Implicit here is the notion that the founders of agriculture in Anatolia or Syria must have spoken a Semitic language. If, as Anthony described, the Indo-European family originated in 4500 BC, just how old is the Semitic language family? I wouldn't assume that Semitic languages were spoken, in even Mesopotamia, before the 1st Babylonian Empire. Jared Diamond suggests in "Guns, Germs, & Steel" that Semtic languages originated in North Africa & spread from there to the Middle East. If so, I am inclined to correlate them withe E3b.

    Timothy Peterman

    Leave a comment:


  • Haganus
    replied
    lack of substratum in Scandinavia

    According to a lot of Scandinavian linguists and onomatologists
    there is no indication of pre-(indo)germanic substratum in Scandi-
    navia. So this must be a prove that Scandinavia was inhabited
    milenia befor Chr by germanic speaking tribes.

    What is the prove of the substratum of a non Indo-European
    names? If there is some prove of this substratum, I am interested
    in information about this subject. But realize that Finnland is
    not real Scandinavia like Denmark or Sweden.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    my R1a1 in Mongolia

    I was just browsing down thru my R1a1 Y-DNA Haplogroup section on my FTDNA personal page, and noticed a three step mutation (12 Marker) from Mongolia. I don't recall seeing that before. My ancient ancestors really got around! Actually, I forgot to notice if it was R1a or R1a1.

    R1a1* & U5b2

    Leave a comment:


  • Noaide
    replied
    Originally posted by Haganus
    But if there is no substratum in Germanic languages, when does the Germanic language arise? And where? In Scandinavia? If the Germanic language arose at the European continent, then other non indo-european languages must be spoken in Scandinavia before.
    Correct, the lingustists have proven heavy influence of so called "paleo-european" languages in all the Saami languages from central-Scandinavia to the Kola Peninsula in Russia, these languages are of non-indo-european and non-uralic origin, there has been detected some common paleo-european vocabulary between Saami and old-norse.

    Leave a comment:


  • jaynegen
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
    I can see that "Hotlen" is a good, solid west Norwegian name. But did one of my immigrant forebears change to that name from e.g. Olsen?
    PDHOTLEN, my guess is that Hotlen may have been a farm name in Norway. My Norwegian ancestors were Pedersens but when they came over from Norway they took the farm name Overgaard as their surname. (They settled in Monroe and Vernon Counties in WI, BTW).

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    but am I a Hotlen?

    I can see that "Hotlen" is a good, solid west Norwegian name. But did one of my immigrant forebears change to that name from e.g. Olsen?

    I recall sunday afternoon drives in the southern Wisconsin countryside, and my father pointing out (Norwegian) old-timers sitting on their front porches and playing their "Hardanger" fiddles.

    I think Norwegians were very patriotic for Norway, because Norway was part of Sweden, then Denmark, before it gained it's independence around 1901. When my Norwegian forebears came to the USA, presumably after the Civil War, Norway was not independent.

    R1a1* & U5b2

    Leave a comment:


  • Eki
    replied
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN
    Although I do think my paternal ancestors were from Norway, my last name "Hotlen" may have been assumed after the move to the USA. I more or less dismissed a comment made by my father, when I was little, that our name was originally Olsen (or Olson), since my parents had a habit of telling "white lies" when it suited their agendas. But maybe it was true, since I can't find anything about Anders Hotlen - the furthest back I can trace (Wisconsin).

    R1a1* & U5b2
    I think your father was telling the truth. In Finland, most ordinary people were known just as someone's son or daughter and had no surname until the 19th century. I think it was the same in Sweden and maybe Norway too. Icelanders still use that naming convention.

    However, familysearch.org knows two persons named Hotlen in Norway, so it's possible that your ancestors brought a surname with them from Norway.



    International Genealogical Index - Norway
    16. ASBIORN HOTLEN - International Genealogical Index / NO
    Gender: Male Marriage: 01 JUL 1725 Hafslo, Sogn Og Fjordane, Norway
    17. Britha Johnsdotter Hotlen - International Genealogical Index / NO
    Gender: Female Birth: 13 DEC 1837 Hafslo, Sogn Og Fjordane, Norway
    Last edited by Eki; 18 June 2008, 12:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    not sure about my name origin

    Although I do think my paternal ancestors were from Norway, my last name "Hotlen" may have been assumed after the move to the USA. I more or less dismissed a comment made by my father, when I was little, that our name was originally Olsen (or Olson), since my parents had a habit of telling "white lies" when it suited their agendas. But maybe it was true, since I can't find anything about Anders Hotlen - the furthest back I can trace (Wisconsin).

    R1a1* & U5b2

    Leave a comment:


  • PDHOTLEN
    replied
    Picts & Sykes book

    Don't forget the book by Bryan Sykes: "Saxons, Vikings and Celts" (2006), also titled "Blood of the Isles" in the UK. He goes into the Pict subject.

    R1a1 & U5b2

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X