PDA

View Full Version : Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics



WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 08:54 PM
Who Is Germanic? Germanic Origins in Northern Europe and the Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics as Measured by Population Genetic Studies

Table of Contents:

Motivation
Germanic Origins - Identification of Germanic Types [Coon]
Definition of Germanics based on their Origins in Northern Europe
Germanic Expansions and Racial Integrity [Coon]
Population Genetic Studies
Dupuy et al [Article in Press] on the Genetic Differentiation between Norwegians and other European Populations
Results [Dupuy et al, Article in Press]
Identification of Modern Germanic Populations and of their Genetic Distance to other European Populations [Dupuy et al, Article in Press]
Implications of Y-Chromosome and mtDNA Polymorphisms for Individual Countries
Who Is Germanic? Summary and Conclusions

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 09:03 PM
MOTIVATION

Even though Skadi is a “Free Speech Forum for Germanic preservationists” which does not
discriminate against philosophies, religions, ideologies, cultures, ethnicities, sub-races, or ideas within the wider framework of Germanic preservationthere seems to be quite a bit of uncertainty among Skadiites as to who or what actually is Germanic. Threads such as

“English, Dutch, German: more Celtic than Germanic”
“Question: Is Scotland Germanic?”
“Are the Netherlands Germanic?”
“Britain is not Germanic” etc etc keep popping up all over the place and Skadi does little to allay the apparent confusion. No attempt at defining ‘Germanic’ is made; instead, it is implied that it is intuitively obvious that all the following are Germanics: Germans, Dutch, Flemings, South Flemings, Frisians & Afrikaners, English, Scots, French, Swedish, Danish, Norwegians, Icelanders, Eastern Germanics, Americans, Confederates, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans.

The general attitude seems to be that any Western European nation that is within a stone’s throw of Germany as well as all the major former British colonies should be considered Germanic … why exactly remains something of a mystery. Much talk is made of ‘Germanic culture’, but I fail to see why for instance Purcell, Voltaire, Rubens or Haydn should necessarily be more representative of ‘Germanic culture’ than any number of other widely admired cultural protagonists such as Botticelli, Calderon, Tchaikovsky or Yeats who have not yet been appropriated by Skadi as Germanics.

Instead of proclaiming everything under the sun as Germanic at whim I think it makes a whole lot more sense to establish a frame of reference for what actually constitutes ‘Germanic’. To do so I propose taking a look at Germanic origins in Northern Europe a couple of millennia ago; this should enable a reasonable basis for defining ‘Germanics’ to be established. By considering subsequent migrations and other developments affecting the Germanic peoples it should then be possible to determine which modern-day populations can reasonably be considered Germanic and which cannot. The following questions present themselves:

Who are the original Germanics? Are they racially distinct from other populations?
What were the areas in which the Germanics originated? Did they predominate there?
Have there been major population shifts in those areas? (if not, the present day racial composition of those areas may serve to define what constitutes a Germanic population)
In what other areas did Germanics settle?
To what extent were these newly colonized areas previously inhabited by other populations? To what extent did these populations diverge racially from the invading Germanics?
To what extent did the invading Germanics mix with the indigenous populations?
To what extent do present-day populations in the areas colonized by Germanics retain Germanic characteristics? (This question is easily answered by referring to studies which investigate Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms. Historical traditions are of little value; neither are the imaginative constructs and antiquated methodologies of would-be anthropologists or propagandists such as Gunther, McCullough etc etc etc ad nauseam who either don’t seem familiar with the scientific method or who aren’t intelligent enough to apply it)Two readily available sources of information enable us to answer most of these questions quickly and easily.



Coon’s article on ‘The Germanic People’ [originally posted by Siegfried … thanks for that!] provides an overview of the physical evidence as to Germanic origins. http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41670 (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41670) It enables us to determine who the original Germanics were, where they originated, what their racial characteristics were, and to what extent they retained these characteristics during the first two or three centuries after invading neighboring lands.


A recent study of Y-chromosomal variation at five biallelic markers (Tat, YAP, 12f2, SRY10831 and 92R7) and nine multiallelic short tandem repeat (STR) loci in a Norwegian population sample (Dupuy et al. December 2005) enables the genetic proximity of various European populations to Norwegians to be established (Y-chromosomes only). By assuming Norwegians (and other Scandinavians) to represent the most prototypical modern-day Germanics this enables an assessment of the degree to which other modern populations can be considered Germanic.

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 09:05 PM
GERMANIC ORIGINS - IDENTIFICATION OF GERMANIC TYPES [COON]

Coon provides us with answers to the following questions:
§ Who are the original Germanics?
§ What were the areas in which they originated?
§ Are they racially distinct from other populations?

Based on the archaeological evidence, Coon identifies the ancient Germanics as being of four distinct but related types which originated in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. Each of these types constitutes a separate population which is characterized by precisely identifiable physical characteristics and which shows little divergence over centuries. As confirmed by population genetic studies the genetic distance between these Germanic populations was not significant. Germanics also spoke closely related languages and shared a similar culture which presumably reflected their common racial origin.

The physical characteristics of the indigenous peoples in areas invaded by Germanics (such as Bavaria, Baden, France, Belgium and Britain) can also be precisely identified. These differed greatly from those of the invading Germanics. Consequently, Germanics are easily distinguishable from the indigenous peoples they conquered and it is possible to trace the extent to which Germanics intermarried with the natives over time.

This enables a determination of the extent to which Germanics retained their physical characteristics even in ancient times. For instance, some tribes such as the Goths, Gepidae and Bajuvars retained their physical characteristics over centuries; others, such as the Saxons in Britain, show a mixed behavior, with some intermarriage from earliest times, and yet again others such as the Franks, Burgundians and Alemanni completely assumed the physical characteristics of the tribes they conquered in as short a time as a couple of generations.


Coon may be off in his interpretations and assumptions [for instance, population genetic studies will enable a much superior assessment of the degree of relatedness of the four Germanic types than is provided by Coon’s assumptions]; however, his descriptions of the finds are presumably accurate.

The four Germanic types identified by Coon are:

Danish/Thuringian:


The Danish series is the most extensive, with 42 adult male crania[71] (see Appendix I, col. 39); of these only one has a cranial index of over 78. The series is strongly dolichocephalic, with a mean of 72.3. There is no trace of the brachycephalic element which had been so important in Denmark from the beginning of the Neolithic through the Bronze Age.

The Thuringians were purely dolichocephalic. In none of these groups has a single round-headed skull been found. The skulls are, in fact, longer headed than the normal Anglo-Saxon and Hanoverian basic type and bear certain resemblances to the original Iron Age Danish group, and, at the same time, to the Hallstatt crania of the same region in which they are found.


Norwegian:


The most extensive Iron Age series from Norway is that of Schreiner, which contains 27 male crania.[73] (See Appendix I, col. 41.) These are quite different from those of either Denmark or Sweden. They are larger and much more rugged, with heavy browridges and strong muscular markings. Metrically, they approach the Upper Palaeolithic series of Morant; and they could fit easily into the range of the central European Aurignacian group. The Mesolithic crania of Stångenäs and MacArthur's Cave would not be out of place here. Yet in most dimensions, they fall a little short of the Upper Palaeolithic mean.

They are purely dolichocephalic, with a cranial index of 71.7. On the whole, they are just what one would expect from a Danish Iron Age - Upper Palaeolithic cross, with the latter in the majority, and this explanation agrees well with the archaeological data. The stature, 169.5 cm., fits both types. There is another possibility, however, that they had a strong Corded element. That some Corded blend entered into this mixture was indeed likely, but it is impossible to substitute the Corded for the Palaeolithic element, since the high vault of the former is not in sufficient evidence, and the faces of the Norwegians are wider than either Corded or Nordic.

The central coastal Norwegians of the Iron Age must have been in part true descendants of the Upper Palaeolithic people of central Europe, who moved northward and westward with the retreat of the last ice, and remained relatively undisturbed in the centers of its last melting until the arrival of new immigrants in the Iron Age. There must, however, have been regional differences of type in Norway at this time which persisted until the modern period; late Viking Age series from Jaeren, Tønsborg, and Skien[74] in the south show the presence of a brachycephalic type, massive in build and of great cranial size, which is metrically related to the Borreby group of Denmark and northern Germany. These may represent colonists or refugees from Denmark.



Swedish/East Germanic, including Ostrogoths and Gepidae:



The Swedish population of the Iron Age, best represented by a smaller group of 14 males[72] (see Appendix I, col. 40), was essentially the same as that in Denmark. There are, however, a few differences - the vault is higher, the face wider, the upper face shorter. Perhaps these more peripheral Scandinavians showed a little of the older blood.




A series of Goths from the Chersonese north of the Black Sea, dated between 100 B.C. and 100 A.D., includes three male and eight female skeletons.[76] All of these are long headed, and they belong to a large, powerful Nordic type which reflects their Swedish origin, for they are no different from the Swedish Iron Age crania which we have already studied.

A later group of Gepidae dated from the fifth or sixth centuries in Hungary shows the persistence of this same type; despite historical blending with the Huns, of eight skulls at our disposal, all but three fail to show definite traces of mongoloid mixture, and in these three the non-Nordic traits are not manifested metrically. One is forced to the conclusion from this series, as from that of the Goths in the Chersonese, that the East Germanic peoples who took part in these wanderings preserved their original racial characteristics so long as they retained their political and linguistic identity.

and Visigothic/West Germanic including Saxons and Frisians


The same conclusion results when one examines the Visigothic skulls from northern Spain which date from the sixth century A.D.[77] Here a series combined from several cemeteries shows us exactly the same Nordic type, with tall stature and with a high-vaulted skull, a long face, and a broad law; in this respect resembling, in a sense, the earlier Hallstatt crania, but more particularly those of the western Germanic group, especially the Hannover Germans and the Anglo-Saxons.




The prototype of the western German peoples who migrated from the region about the mouth of the Elbe is well represented by a series of skulls from Hannover which includes 41 male crania.[78] (See Appendix I, col. 42.) Metrically, these differ from the Danish Iron Age skulls in being slightly longer, somewhat broader, and considerably higher. The foreheads are broader, and the face is wider, and in many cases a bit longer. These skulls deviate from the normal Nordic type of central European origin with which we are familiar in their greater size and robusticity, and particularly in their greater vault height.

The skulls of the Anglo-Saxons who invaded England in the fourth and fifth centuries of the present era[79] (see Appendix I, col. 43) are almost identical with this Hannover group. It is to this same specific category that the Spanish Visigothic skulls to which we have already referred belong. To it must be added two series of old Frisians from northern Holland,[80] which are identical in every respect. The skulls of these old Saxons, old Hanoverians, and old Frisians differ in a number of ways from those of other Nordics which we have studied. They arc larger than the Aunjetitz group and the Danes, and in fact any other series of Indo-European speakers that we have met, except the Norwegians. They lack the low vault and sloping forehead common to the earlier Nordics of Denmark, the Gauls, and the Scyths. The vault is moderately high; while the cranial index is on the border of dolicho- and mesocephaly. Compared with the other Nordics, the forehead is relatively straight, the browridges are greater, the muscular markings more pronounced, the cranial base wider, the face longer and somewhat wider.

The type represented by these three groups and by the Visigoths seems to be a variant of the Nordic type to which the early Indo-European speakers belonged. Its difference is one of size, and it appears to have attained this distinction through a mixture, in southern Scandinavia and Germany, between the older local population, consisting of a combination of Megalithic, Corded, and Borreby elements, and the purely Nordic Danish Iron Age group. The resultant type approaches in some respects, but does not even approximate in size, the coastal Norwegian population which we have already studied, and it deviates far less from the central European Nordic than does the Norwegian group.

This physical type is accompanied by tall stature, of about 170 cm., and by a considerable heaviness and robusticity of the long bones. The bodily build was clearly heavier and thicker set than that of the previously studied Nordics. That it was characteristically blond is attested by the pigmentation of living examples as well as by numerous early descriptions.

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41670 (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41670)

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 09:11 PM
DEFINITION OF GERMANICS BASED ON THEIR ORIGINS IN NORTHERN EUROPE

Based on the preceding discussion, the four original Germanic racial types can be identified as:

Danish/Thuringian
Norwegian
Swedish/East Germanic
Visigothic/West Germanic and the original Germanic homelands can be identified as

Denmark/Thuringia
Norway
Sweden/Northeastern Germany
Northwestern GermanyEver since the first emergence of Germanics there has been little racial upheaval in some of these Germanic homelands. This is true in particular of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Northwest Germany; therefore, we can assume these areas to have preserved the original types quite well [given the vagaries of evolution such as selection and genetic drift etc].

Nevertheless, none of these areas is populated exclusively by one of Coon’s four Germanic types. In defining Germanics it therefore makes sense to distinguish between Germanic individuals and Germanic populations.

An individual is Germanic if his phenotype corresponds to that of one of the four original Germanic types and if his genotype closely matches one of those prevalent in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, or NW Germany. Other individuals may be Germanic if they show little genetic differentiation from such individuals.

A population is Germanic if it is genetically close to that of either Denmark, Norway, Sweden, or Northwest Germany (as these are the four Germanic homelands which have not experienced any significant racial upheaval since the emergence of Germanics)However, it should be noted that Germany includes many areas which were colonised by Germanics but which are not originally Germanic. Since most genetic studies regard Germany as a unit (some studies exclude Bavaria) it is therefore preferable not to use Northwest Germany as a point of reference until more detailed genetic studies are available. Consequently, it is best at present to limit the definition of Germanics to the three Scandinavian countries. Other populations [including German populations] should only be considered Germanic if they are genetically close to one of the Scandinavian populations. The definition of a Germanic population can therefore be restated as follows:

A population is Germanic if it is genetically close to that currently prevalent in either Denmark, Norway or Sweden.The following discussion will focus on Germanic populations rather than on Germanic individuals.

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 09:20 PM
GERMANIC EXPANSIONS AND RACIAL INTEGRITY [COON]

Germanics invaded and settled in various adjacent lands, including but not limited to Iceland, England, Scotland, Ireland, Central and Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Most of these regions had pre-existing indigenous populations which were largely unrelated to the invading Germanics. The extent to which these areas are now Germanic depends on various factors, including

the extent to which the indigenous populations were genetically related to the invading Germanics
whether the invading tribes retained their original racial characteristics at the time of the invasions
whether the invaders brought their wives along with them or whether they mixed with the indigenous populations
the relative population density of invaders and original inhabitants. Coon provides some insight into these factors. For instance, he shows that

the Franks who settled in Belgium and France and the Alemanni who settled in Baden were not Germanic even though they spoke Germanic languages. Unless other Germanic tribes also settled in these areas there is therefore no reason whatsoever to consider France, Belgium and Baden Germanic.
Austria, Bavaria, England, and Switzerland were invaded by Northwestern Germanics. Prior to the Germanic invasions these areas were populated by various Bronze Age, Celtic and Illyrian peoples who were genetically distinct from the invading Germanics to a significant extent. Each of these areas should therefore be investigated separately to determine the degree to which it can now be considered Germanic. Here is the overview of Germanic expansions provided by Coon.

The Danes and Saxons who invaded Britain were of the same ‘Northwest Germanic’ racial type [this has been confirmed genetically by Capelli et al. (2003); however, it is not true of the Norwegians who Coon here includes with the Danes].


The Saxon invasions of the British Isles were followed by those of the Danes, who began raiding the British Isles in the eighth century. The Danes, many of whom were actually Norwegians, took the part of England in which the Saxons had become densely settled, but they also raided extensively in the north of Scotland and in Ireland. Very few skulls of these Danes are available for study, but they belong, almost without exception, to the expected northwestern Nordic variety[88] Neither a series of six males from the Orkneys, nor of fourteen from various places in Ireland, differs from the type of the Saxons.[Note the limitations of physical anthropology: Coon here fails to distinguish Norwegian from Danish or Saxon skulls; however, population genetic studies can easily distinguish between Norwegian and Danish/Saxon ancestry (Capelli et al 2003)]


However, it seems that some of these Northwestern Germanic invaders quickly assimilated with the local population. This led to a loss of their physical characteristics:


A number of individual cemeteries, which date from the earliest period of Saxon invasion, give us a lively picture of the manner in which the first Saxon raiders and settlers operated. One of these is the graveyard at East Shefford, Berkshire; containing eight male and twelve female adults, as well as eight infantile and juvenile specimens.[86] All of the adult males thirty years of age or older represent a single type, the classical Saxon, and all are long headed. One of the females belongs to this same type, and she was buried differently from the other women, with horse trappings in her grave. The rest of the women were rounder headed, with cranial indices going up to 82.4, and some of them were planoccipital. They had wider, shorter noses, some prognathism, and shorter, shallower jaws. The adolescent women seem to be a blend of these two types. Although many of these differences may be due to sex and age, others, such as the fundamental head form, are clearly racial.


Others retained the original type for a longer period of time:


the total Saxon group studied by Morant, both males and females belong to the same clearly differentiated type, and there is no confusion between them and the Iron Age form. They thus preserved their racial identity at least until the end of the eighth century.


However, the Saxons did not eliminate the original population. This led to more extensive assimilation further on:


Hence it is necessary, in studying early Saxon remains, to distinguish between mixed communities in which raiders had taken native women to wife, and pure Saxon settlements in which whole families and villages had emigrated at the beginning of the period of serious settlement.

The Saxons occupied, for the most part, empty country. This was because they were accustomed to low-lying land with a deep, rich soil, and had formed, in their earlier home, the habit of tilling this in strips with deep ploughs drawn by eight oxen. The Kelts, whose agriculture was more cursory in character, preferred the uplands already made treeless by nature, and cultivated in square fields. They remained for the most part on territory frequented by the Bronze Age and Neolithic men before them. The Saxons, who liked forests as well as lowlands, cleared the marshes and river valleys of trees, and drained and planted them. Owing to this fundamental difference in methods of agriculture, the two peoples overlapped little at first, and the Saxons and Britons occupied adjoining territories in many parts of England for several centuries until at length the Saxon social and political domination submerged the language and culture of the earlier inhabitants beneath its own pattern.


Note that the indigenous Britons were of a Bronze Age type which was very distinct from that of the invading Germanics:


The excavation of a round barrow at Dunstable in Bedfordshire throws further light on the survival of the Bronze Age physical type into the Saxon period.[87]

This series contains a hundred skulls, of which those of 52 males are suitable for study. This extensive series resembles the British Bronze Age means in most dimensions, but through the narrowing of the cranial vault, it indicates a certain degree of mixture with the Iron Age Keltic people. This excellent series, in agreement with that from Berkshire, proves conclusively that the Bronze Age people did not die out in England but kept on mixing steadily with the Keltic invaders and survived racially into Saxon times.



The Hessians were of the same Northwest German type as the Saxons. Coon makes no reference to the indigenous population of Hessia if in fact there was any.


The ancestors of the Hessians, if we may judge by a few examples, were apparently likewise dolichocephals[90] of the usual North German form.


The Bajuvars and Lombards were also similar to the Northwest German type, though Coon suspects some Celtic admixture in some of the smaller groups:


The Bajuvars, the ancestors of the Bavarians, retained the original Germanic head form in their new home, with the cranial index mean of 75 to 76 in various series.[89] (See Appendix I, col. 44.) Their stature, about 168 cm., was moderately tall, and their cranial type, in most if not all metrical and morphological features, was reminiscent of their northern ancestors; but in a few of the smaller groups an approximation to the Keltic form may be suspected. In every local series, however, the head form remains constant, and there are very few brachycephals in any of them.

A study of the Austrian crania of the centuries of Germanic settlement, including for the most part those of Bajuvars, shows them to have been largely Nordic, of the usual northern type.[94] A small series of special interest is that of 26 Lombard crania from two sites: from Nikitsch in the Oberpullendoff district of Burgenland, and Vinzen, near Regensburg, in Lower Austria; both dating from the fifty year interval which the Lombards spent north of the mountains before their final burst into Italy in 568 A.D.[95] Eight skulls are those of the usual Germanic variety of Nordics, with some exceptionally tall- and large-skulled individuals,


The areas invaded by the Bajuvars were previously inhabited by racially distinct Celts and Illyrians


The West Germans who invaded Bavaria, southwestern Germany, northern Switzerland, and Austria, transformed previously Keltic and Illyrian regions into permanent areas of Germanic speech and culture.


In Austria, there was additional Mongoloid, Armenoid or Dinaric and presumably also Scotch and Syrian admixture:


while five others [skulls] ranging in cranial index from 77 to 93, show in their flat faces and broad nasal bones clear traces of mongoloid mixture. A single male, in the Nikitsch series, was strikingly different from the others; a short-statured Armenoid or Dinaric, with typfral brachycephalic skull, occipital flatten-ing, sloping forehead, and other Near Eastern features. He was obviously a stranger incorporated into the composite Lombard camp, either a local Dinaric or an Asiatic. In earlier times, the Roinans had stationed both Syrians and Scotchmen in the Tullnerfeld as garrisons;[96] hence the ethnic heterogeneity in this region was chronic


Whereas the Alemanni in Switzerland [densely populated by Celts] retained more of a Germanic element, the Alemanni in Baden were absorbed in the local population and assumed Celtic characteristics:


The series from Baden, while retaining the usual Germanic cranial index, assumes in other respects the metrical character of the Keltic peoples whom the Alemanni succeeded, and who, as a matter of fact, possessed the same cranial index mean of 75 to 76. One must interpret this evidence from Baden as an indication that these Germanic invaders were to a large extent absorbed by previously settled Kelts, at least in the village which used this cemetery and its immediate neighborhood.


The Franks and Burgundians also assumed Celtic characteristics:


On the opposite frontier of France, at Collognes, near the western end of Lake Geneva,[98] the descendants of the Burgundians had become brachycephalic, and almost indistinguishable from their Neolithic predecessors who had lived at Vaureal, a few kilometers away.

Aside from these marginal and collateral groups, the Franks themselves did not differ greatly from place to place. The most extensive Belgian series is that from Cipley in Hainaut, that of France is Mrs. Wallis's series drawn from most of the Frankish territory in the northern part of the country.[99] (See Appendix I, col. 45.) These series show clearly that the Franks were a moderately variable group, but differing as a whole from the basic North German type from which they were presumably derived. Although individuals belonged to this type, the Franks as a whole re-sembled the Keltic peoples who had occupied Belgium and northern France before them. This resemblance included the common possession of a cranial index of about 76, and a cranial vault height of 132 mm. No particular difference can be found between the Merovingian Franks and the local Kelts in cranial dimensions or form, except for one important fact: instead of falling between the Kelts and the other Germans, in many metrical criteria the Franks slightly exceed the Kelts themselves. This is true of facial and cranial vault indices. The stature of the Franks, furthermore, is on a Gaulish level, with a mean of 166 cm. for males from Belgium, and indications that in France it was even lower.

The conclusion to be drawn from this comparison is that the Franks acquired their Keltic-like major physical form in the Rhineland, or the southwestern part of Germany in general, before the Saxons drove them to France and to the Low Countries. Here, whatever mixture took place between them and the previously installed Keltic population made little or no racial difference. This conclusion is supported by the evidence from Baden, that the Alemanni had likewise, from the beginning of their so-journ in southwestern Germany, succumbed to Keltic mixture. Except along the Channel coast, the Germanic invasions of France and southeastern Belgium furnished nothing novel to the ultimate racial composition of these countries. That of the Kelts, on the other hand, reënforced by these Merovingians, was of some importance.


SUMMARY


The summary of our information concerning the racial origins and dispersion of the early Germanic peoples may be stated briefly and simply. At the beginning of the local Iron Age, a new people, bearing a Hallstatt type of culture, entered northwestern Germany and Scandinavia. These invaders were of the usual central European Nordic type associated in earlier centuries with the Illyrians. Through mixture with the local blend of Megalithic, Corded, and Borreby elements, these newcomers gave rise to a special sub-type of Nordic which was characterized by a larger vault and face, a heavier body build, and a skull form on the borderline between dolicho- and mesocephaly.

The Germanic tribes that wandered over Europe during the period of migrations belonged essentially to this new type. Exceptions were the Alemanni and Franks, who, in southwestern Germany, assumed a Keltic physical guise, which they spread to Belgium, France, and Switzerland, countries already familiar with the Kelts in person. Other exceptions were the coastal Norwegians, to whom for the first time civilization was now brought in significant quantity. In the shelter of their chilly fjords the new Nordics blended with the hunters and fishermen left over from the age of ice, who, through this new genetic vehicle, were assured permanent survival.

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 09:27 PM
POPULATION GENETIC STUDIES

As the preceding discussion has shown ‘Germanic’ properly denotes any one of four distinct but related subracial types. However, since no country today is composed exclusively of individuals corresponding to one of these types it makes sense to define a ‘Germanic nation [or region]’ as ‘one with only little genetic divergence from one of three core Germanic nations’, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

Population genetic studies provide the gold standard with which to determine which populations fulfil this criterion. It does not seem particularly useful to refer to Coon or other physical anthropologists for this purpose. In determining the genetic origins and relatedness of modern populations, Coon and other physical anthropologists have a very poor record when compared to the more objective methods currently available.

Population genetic studies generally use Fst calculations to measure how much genetic variation is between populations:


Many measures of divergence or ‘genetic distance’ are in use today, the most common being FST, originally developed by the late population geneticist Sewall Wright. FST is a statistic that describes the proportion of variance within a species that is due to population subdivision. It can be estimated in a variety of ways (e.g., by AMOVA [79] or theta [80]), but the general expression is FST = (Ht-Hs)/Ht where Ht is the genetic diversity within the total population, and Hs the average diversity within subpopulations. Its value can be considered inversely proportional to gene flow, or indicative of the length of time two populations have been evolving separately, and may vary according to which locus or family of loci are under study.



Keeping the preceding caveats in mind, these are qualitative guidelines suggested by Sewall Wright for interpreting FST:

The range 0 to 0.05 may be considered as indicating little genetic differentiation.
The range 0.05 to 0.15 indicates moderate genetic differentiation.
The range 0.15 to 0.25 indicates great genetic differentiation.
Values of FST above 0.25 indicate very great genetic differentiation.” [81]

http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html (http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html)

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 09:39 PM
DUPUY et al [Article in Press] ON THE GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN NORWEGIANS AND OTHER EUROPEAN POPULATIONS

Dupuy et al have recently [December 2005] conducted a comprehensive study which investigates the Fst values for 23 European populations with respect to each of 7 regions in Norway. Fst values obtained for the genetic differentiation of modern European populations from Norwegians enable us to determine which countries show little genetic differentiation from Norwegians, Danes and Swedes and therefore enable us to determine which countries [or regions] can properly be considered ‘Germanic’. Dupuy et al’s article:


Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway
Berit Myhre Dupuya, Margurethe Stenersena, Tim T. Lub and Bjørnar Olaisena
aInstituteof Forensic Medicine, University of Oslo, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
bInstituteof Medical Informatics and Statistics, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel,Germany,
Available online 7 December 2005

will consequently provide the basis for the following discussion.

Besides enabling us to determine what countries can be considered ‘Germanic’, the Fst values obtained by Dupuy et al also enable us to determine how closely other populations such as Slavs, Balts, Celts and Finns are related to Germanics.

I will first provide a brief overview of Dupuy et al's methodology before proceeding to discuss their results.

This was the purpose of Dupuy et al's study:


Several studies of Y-chromosome variation in Norway have been published (Supplementary Data Online, Table 1), but this is by far the largest and most comprehensive study, analyzing a total of 1766 Norwegian samples at five biallelic markers and nine Y-STR loci. The aim is to map the haplotype and haplogroup distribution at the national level, to compare it with other European populations, and to study the regional distribution within the country and relate the findings to other genetical and historical data.
To achieve this objective, Dupuy et al subdivided Norway into 7 regions and sampled each:



2.1. Material

The material consists of 1766 unrelated Norwegian males involved in consecutive paternity cases during the years 1993–1999. Males with obvious non-Norwegian surnames were omitted as well as males whose oldest known patrilineal relatives (index persons), as reported in the National Register, were born abroad. The latter represented 3% of the population sample. Males with surnames of Scandinavian or German origin whose index person was born in Norway were included. The material includes males from confirmed father–son pairs only and is part of a large mutation study of Y-STRs [28]. The geographical origin of each sample is based on the place of birth of the index person whose median year of birth is 1942 (Supplementary Data Online, Fig. 1). The geographical distribution of these index persons reflects fairly well that of the population at that time (Table 1). For statistical analyses, the population sample was grouped according to geographical principles as described by Hartmann et al. [29]. Initially, the material was divided into regions: East, South, West, Middle and North. The capital, Oslo and the main city on the west coast, Bergen, were also separated as independent regions for a total of seven regions. Alternatively, the population was divided at the county level into 20 regions (Supplementary Data Online, Fig. 2) with each county representing from one to four “fogderier”, the main administrative centre until 1891 (e.g. [30]).



2.5. Phylogenetic and statistical analysis
We used the Arlequin package [45] for analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) and for calculation of population pairwise FSTs and RSTs (FST analogue taking into account the (mostly) stepwise mutation mechanism of STRs). AMOVA was performed on haplotype frequencies.

In order to better visualize the genetic landscape in Norway and Europe, principal coordinates were identified from the FST and RST estimates between regions (7 samples), counties (20 samples) and countries (23 samples) by multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS) using the R statistical computing platform [50] with the packages MASS [51] and VEGAN [52].

For the comparison of Norway to other European countries, a dissimilarity matrix was from computed with the Bray–Curtis distance using the comprehensive Norwegian Fst values.

To generate raster plots for the geographical representation, surface interpolation using inverse distance squared weighting was done using Geographical Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) software [53]. Masking of the European shoreline was provided by the GTOPO30 (30-arcsec topographical) data set, publicly available at the US Land Processes Distribute Active Archive Center [54]. Genealogical depths or time to the most recent common ancestor, TMRCA, were calculated as the average across loci of the square differences, ASD, in STR repeat numbers between two haplotypes [55] and [56], one being defined as the ancestral haplotype [57].
Dupuy et al (2005) then proceed to identify haplogroup, haplotype and lineage distribution in Norway and Norwegian regions and to discuss AMOVA and genetic structure.



The analysis of AMOVA shows that the main source of variation is within the population. The percentage of variation found between regions is only 0.47 while it is 99.53 within the population, however the P-value was significant (0.00347 ± 0.00055, 10,000 permutations), indicating substructuring between regions in the Norwegian population sample. Signs of regional substructuring were also observed when using population pairwise FSTs.





3.4. Comparison to other European populations


FST data demonstrated significant differences of haplogroup frequencies in Norway to all other European countries (Supplementary Data Online, Table 10). Nevertheless, FST values were low when the Norwegian population sample was compared with samples from Iceland, Germany and Sweden (Supplementary Data Online, Table 10, Column 2). A geographical presentation is given in Fig. 6. The large Norwegian sample size implies that smaller FST values would become significant. At the regional level, FST values were low when Oslo, Bergen, West and South, were compared to Iceland and Germany. The southern region showed in addition low FST values when compared to haplogroup frequencies in the Netherlands and Denmark.

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 09:55 PM
RESULTS [DUPUY et al, Article in Press]

The seven regional subdivisions of Norway for which Dupuy et al obtained separate results include South, Bergen, Oslo, East, West, Middle, North:

48752

Dupuy et al (2005) then determined the genetic differentiation of Norwegians from 23 European populations (as measured by Fst values) separately

for each of these regions
for Norway as a wholeSouth, Bergen, Oslo, and West did not show significant differences from the German and Icelandic samples. South also did not show significant differences from the Dutch and Danish samples.

Overall, Iceland (Fst = 0.00796), Germany (Fst = 0.01911) and Sweden (Fst = 0.02434) were closest to Norway:


Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway
Berit Myhre Dupuy1, Margurethe Stenersen1, Tim T. Lu2 and Bjørnar Olaisen1
1Institute of Forensic Medicine, University of Oslo, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
2Institute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany


Supplementary data

Table 10

Pairwise FST of Y-haplogroup frequencies in Norway and the Norwegian regions compared with European populations (compiled data)



Norway

Oslo
Bergen
South
Middle
West
North
East




Scotland


.18349

.20575
.20823
.16020
.25941
.16835
.23210
.24314




Netherlands


.05173

.02891
.04133
.00687*
.08117
.02551
.07068
.07243




Wales


.24914

.31290
.31604
.27781
.34148
.25082
.30412
.31749




England


.13875

.12317
.13440
.07821
.19458
.10789
.17650
.18357




Estonia


.12331

.13909
.12379
.19093
.12698
.15620
.07972
.12005




Latvia


.11266

.14388
.10901
.20808
.11871
.15165
.07150
.11854




Lithuani


.18008

.20990
.18788
.27818
.19197
.22410
.12874
.18211




Spain


.13661

.12403
.12413
.09814
.17925
.11037
.15431
.17078




Ukraine


.08337

.11912
.08844
.18415
.06497
.12749
.05944
.07147




Hungaria


.05153

.07999
.03944
.12562
.04247
.07594
.04270
.05514




Poland


.08732

.13226
.08184
.18976
.07228
.12443
.07454
.08960




Germany


.01911

.00186*
.01286*
-.00270*
.03793
.00432*
.03161
.03015




Basque


.24995

.28057
.28142
.25849
.31480
.23343
.27829
.29842




Iceland


.00796

.00127*
-.00263*
.00491*
.02001
-.00176*
.02091
.02006




Orkeney


.11516

.11796
.10163
.09711
.15630
.09246
.13755
.15424




Shetland


.12338

.12751
.10233
.11744
.15824
.10207
.13818
.16014




Ireland


.25813

.33438
.34284
.28177
.37692
.27427
.34141
.34817




Gotland


.04814

.04209
.07189
.07121
.04692
.06362
.04859
.03054




Sweden


.02434

.01885
.03971
.04494
.02550
.03683
.02361
.01255




Saami


.18157

.19526
.21154
.24635
.20340
.21896
.14032
.17720




Finland


.31524

.37542
.38711
.43178
.36459
.37286
.28442
.33157




Denmark


.05871

.03391
.04961
.01032*
.09035
.03185
.07650
.07958




* These results do not show significant differences

48754


This is how Dupuy et al (2005) evaluate their results:



The observed similarities at the haplogroup and haplotype level between the Nordic countries are most probably signs of our common ancestors. It is common opinion that different cultures (e.g. Ahrensburgian and Swiderian) directly or indirectly emerged from the three ice age refugia located in Iberia, Balkan and Ukraine, and that they migrated, little by little, to the north as the ice melted. The people of these cultures are thus thought to be the pro-Germans that later populated Norway from the south [63], [64] and [65]. The observed similarity to Germany may have been strengthened by the important trade between the countries in the 12th century. This is probably reflected in the observed regional differences between Bergen and the rest of the regions in the pairwise comparisons of haplotypes within haplogroup R1a (Supplementary Data Online, Table 8). The similarity to Iceland is probably explained by the fact that the country was partly populated by Norwegians in the eighth century as many petty kings and their men were forced to leave the country after the union of the Norwegian kingdom. It is also obvious that the severe epidemics that raged in the country in the 12th and 13th centuries must have led to important bottlenecks and influenced the distribution of Y-chromosomes.
Genealogical depths of haplogroups in Norway have been calculated using lineage specific mutation rates (DYS385 omitted) [28] and a generation time of 20 years. We estimated a date for Norwegian P*(xR1a) coalescence of 4000 (95% CI 19,900–2200 BP). For BR(xDE, J, N3, P), R1a and N3 coalescences of 5000 (95% CI 15,000–3000 BP), 2500 (95% CI 5700–1600 BP) and 2100 (95% CI 0–700 BP) were estimated, respectively. All confidence intervals overlap and do not support different waves of settlers. However, postglacial population expansion from Franco-Cantabria could have contributed mainly BR(xDE, J, N3, P). The spread of Ahrensburgian and Swederian Mesolithic technologies associated with the recolonization after the last glacial maximum could have brought P*(xR1a) to the population, while R1a might represent the spread of the Corded Ware and Battle-Axe cultures from central and east Europe. Finally, N3 is interpreted as a signature of Finno-Ugric speaking males migrating to the north.

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 10:26 PM
IDENTIFICATION OF MODERN GERMANIC POPULATIONS AND OF THEIR GENETIC DISTANCE TO OTHER EUROPEAN POPULATIONS [DUPUY et al 2005]


Dupuy et al [2005] provide a visual representation of the degree to which different European populations are related to Norwegians as determined by Fst values:

48755



Fig. 6. Multidimensional scaling analysis of pairwise Y-SNP based FST between 23 European countries. Data were gathered only from the geographical coordinates indicated. Map coloration is the result of algorithmic interpolation and must be interpreted appropriate skepticism.


According to this visual representation, the following countries are related or somewhat related to Norwegians in terms of Y-chromosomes:

Iceland, Germany, Sweden, Gotland, Hungary, Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Ukraine, Estonia and LatviaThe following countries are singled out as not sharing a common genetic heritage with Norwegians:

Lithuania, Saami, Spain and Portugal
England, Scotland, France (these are countries which Skadi considers Germanic, presumably in deference to historical traditions which are proving ever more untenable)The following countries are even further removed genetically:

Wales, Ireland, Basque
FinlandDupuy et al’s “Table of Pairwise FST of Y-haplogroup frequencies in Norway compared with European populations Supplementary Data” provides a more detailed insight. I have rearranged the rows in this table to reflect the degree of genetic divergence of European populations from Norwegians and have provided a list of towns where the samples were taken based on the map provided:



A1
1 Iceland .00796 Reykjavik
2 Germany .01911 Erfurt/Thuringia
3 Sweden .02434 Östersund


A2
4 Gotland .04814 Visby
5 Hungaria .05153 Budapest
6 Netherlands .05173 Amsterdam
7 Denmark .05871 Copenhagen


B
8 Ukraine .08337 Первомайск
9 Poland .08732 Włocławek


C
10 Latvia .11266 Riga
11 Orkney .11516
12 Estonia .12331 Tartu
13 Shetland .12338


D
14 Spain .13661 Madrid
15 England .13875 Leicester/East Midlands


E
16 Lithuania .18008 Vilnius
17 Saami .18157
18 Scotland .18349 Glasgow


F
19 Wales .24914
20 Basque .24995
21 Ireland .25813 Cloghan


G
22 Finland .31524 Kajaani




Based on the historical origins of Germanics, we earlier identified Denmark, Norway and Sweden as the most prototypical Germanic countries. Other countries are Germanic if they show little genetic divergence from one of these Scandinavian countries. Obviously, a country is Germanic if it is less divergent from a Scandinavian country than these are from each other.

The greatest genetic distance observed between Scandinavian countries is that between Norway and Denmark (Fst = 0.05871). This defines the range of genetic differentiation for Germanic countries for the loci under study; consequently, countries with Fst values of less than 0.05871 are Germanic.

Fst values obtained by Dupuy et al (2005) indicate that Iceland, Germany and Sweden are the countries with the least genetic divergence from Norway [Group A1; genetic distances up to 0.02434]; other countries that fall within the Danish-Norwegian range include Gotland, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Denmark [Group A2]. These 8 countries/regions are consequently Germanic in terms of Y-chromosomes.

According to Sewall Wright, a range in Fst values from 0 to 0.05 indicates little genetic differentiation and the Germanic countries satisfactorily fulfil this criterion.

Results show that the Slavs as exemplified by Poland and the Ukraine are the population group most closely related to Germanics [Group B]. This comes as little surprise considering that Slavs and Germanics are the only population groups with native Nordic types.

Fst values for these Slavic countries were almost equidistant from Norway [range 0.08337-0.08732]. As

Germanics constitute a group of people who are closely related genetically [Fst < 0.05871 for the studied loci]
Slavs are more differentiated from Germanics than Germanics are from each other [Fst > 0.08337 for the studied loci]
Slavs are the population group most closely related to Germanics
Slavs are not Germanics it would make little sense to consider other populations ‘Germanic’ if they show more genetic differentiation from Scandinavians than the Slavic group does.

Latvia, Orkney, Estonia and Shetland [Group C; range 0.11266-0.12338] are noticeably more divergent from Germanics than the Slavic countries. Perhaps Danish settlement in Estonia is accountable for the vast difference in Fst values between Estonia and Finland. Similarly, extensive Russian settlement in Latvia may account for the difference in Fst values between Latvia and the significantly more divergent Lithuania.

Interestingly, Spain and England are genetically about equidistant to Norway [Group D; range 0.13661-0.13875]. Perhaps the Visigothic genetic impact on Spain was about equal to that of the Anglo-Saxons on England. Spain can’t be considered Germanic by any stretch of the imagination and genetically the English sample from Leicester/East Midlands is also way beyond the Germanic range. Both Spain and England approach great genetic divergence from the Germanic countries.

Lithuania, Saami and Scotland show great genetic divergence from Germanics [Group E; range 0.18008-0.18349] and Wales, Basque and Ireland approach very great genetic differentiation [Group F; range 0.24914-0.25813]. It would be very silly to consider any of these countries Germanic. Most genetically divergent is Finland [Group G; range 0.31524].

Results for Ireland and Finland provide a clear indication that depigmentation is not a sufficient indicator of race. Apparently, over time a northern climate leads to depigmentation among all Europeans no matter what their racial origins.

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 11:03 PM
IMPLICATIONS OF Y-CHROMOSOME AND mtDNA POLYMORPHISMS FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES

Based on Y-chromosome polymorphisms the following nations/regions can be considered Germanic as they are within the range of genetic differentiation identified between Norway and Denmark (Dupuy et al [2005]; Fst values measure the genetic distance from Norway):

Norway [Fst = 0.00000]
Denmark [Fst = 0.05871]
Iceland [Fst = 0.00796]
Germany [Fst = 0.01911]
Sweden [Fst = 0.02434]
Gotland [Fst = 0.04814]
Hungary [Fst = 0.05153]
The Netherlands [Fst = 0.05173]The following countries/regions should not be considered Germanic:

Ukraine, Poland [Fst = 0.08337-0.08732]
Orkney, Shetland [Fst = 0.11516-0.12338]
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania [Fst = 0.11266-0.18008]
Spain, England, Scotland [Fst = 0.13661-0.18349]
Wales, Basque, Ireland [Fst = 0.24914-0.25813]
Saami, Finland [Fst = 0.18157-0.31524]According to Coon, the Franks and Alemanni were not Germanic; therefore, countries/regions colonized by the Franks/Alemanni should not be considered Germanic either even though Fst values for these countries were not obtained by Dupuy et al [2005]. This includes

France
Belgium
BadenA more detailed look at individual countries is indicated.

DENMARK, NORWAY, SWEDEN
These Scandinavian countries provide benchmarks with which to determine what other countries or regions are Germanic. The most detailed studies so far have been conducted for Norway, including

Different genetic components in the Norwegian population revealed by the analysis of mtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms Giuseppe Passarino*,1,2, Gianpiero L Cavalleri2, Alice A Lin2, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza2, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale3 and Peter A Underhill2 European Journal of Human Genetics (2002) 10, 521 – 529
Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway Berit Myhre Dupuy a,*, Margurethe Stenersen a, Tim T. Lu b, Bjørnar Olaisen a Forensic Science International xxx (2005) xxx–xxx Article in Press Available online 7 December 2005Therefore, Norway rather than Denmark or Sweden is used as the primary benchmark in conducting this analysis. The genetic range between Norway and Denmark enables Germanic countries/regions outside Scandinavia to be identified.

ICELAND
Dupuy et al [2005] have shown that there is little genetic divergence between Norway and Iceland in terms of Y-chromosome polymorphisms (earlier, Helgason et al [2000b, 2000c] had estimated the Scandinavian male ancestry of Icelanders at 80%). However, Helgason et al [2001] have shown that the ancestral contribution of mtDNA lineages from Scandinavia to the populations of Iceland is only 37.5% with the remaining 62.5% being Gaelic.

The Germanic ancestry of Iceland can therefore be estimated at somewhere between 58% and 68%, the remaining 32%-42% being Gaelic (alternatively, 37.5% of Icelanders can be considered Germanic, 42.5%-62.5% can be considered a Gaelic-Germanic mix, and 0%-20% can be considered Gaelic). Fst values for Gaelics are at approximately 0.25, indicating very great genetic differentiation from Germanics; therefore, the significant Gaelic mtDNA admixture in Icelanders should be weighted accordingly.

GERMANY
Population genetic studies conducted so far uniformly indicate that Northern Germany and Central Germany are Germanic (see for instance Passarino et al 2002; Capelli et al 2003; Helgason et al 2001; Dupuy et al 2005). Both Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms have been investigated; these are well within the Scandinavian range. This result does not come as a surprise considering that Northern Germany is one of the areas in which Germanics originated.

Nevertheless, Germanics throughout Northern and Central Germany do not appear homogeneous. For instance, Capelli et al (2003) were not able to differentiate between Danes and Schleswig-Holstein Germans ; however, Dupuy et al’s (2005) German sample (from Thuringia in Central Germany; Fst = 0.01911) was not similar to their Danish sample (Fst = 0.05871). Instead, sampled Thuringians were much closer to Norwegians and no significant difference between Thuringians and Norwegians from Southern Norway, Oslo, Bergen and West Norway could be observed. Based on the available evidence Thuringians therefore appear genetically close to Norwegians and Schleswig-Holstein Germans appear close to Danes. Studies (similar to the one conducted by Dupuy et al (2005) for Norway) which investigate the geographical substructuring within Northern and Central Germany would be desirable.

As yet, there is no reason to assume that Southern areas of Germany such as the Rhineland, Saarland, Bavaria, or Wuerttemberg will prove very Germanic. Presumably, these areas have a high degree of ‘continental Celtic’, ‘Illyrian’, and other admixture. Links between these continental Celts and other Celtic populations such as those of Britain seem tenuous; however, there is also no reason to assume that continental Celts have any affinity with Germanics. According to ancient finds described by Coon, Baden is not Germanic, and he implies the same of the Rhineland.

Pending further studies, I would therefore consider Northern Germany and parts of Central Germany to be Germanic [based on population genetic studies], and would assume other areas to vary between Germanic, peripherally Germanic, and non-Germanic [based on the historical evidence].

THE NETHERLANDS
I am not aware of any detailed genetic studies for the Netherlands. Results reported so far are somewhat ambivalent.

Passarino et al (2002) report a close affinity of Norwegians with Germans (Φst = -0.0149, Fst = 0.0254), but not with the Dutch (Φst = 0.0570, Fst = 0.1511). Unfortunately, no values are given for Swedes and Danes so it is hard to establish the applicable Germanic range. However, both the German and Polish Fst values reported by Passarino et al (2002) are close to those reported by Dupuy et al (2005); this indicates that the applicable ranges for Slavs and Germanics may be similar to the ones identified earlier. Fst values within or beyond the Slavic range cannot properly be considered Germanic, and the Dutch Fst value given by Passarino et al (0.1511) significantly exceeds that of both the Polish and Ukrainian samples (0.0917 and 0.1239). Both Dutch values also indicate greater genetic divergence between Norway and the Netherlands (Φst = 0.0570, Fst = 0.1511) than between Norway and France (Φst = 0.0348, Fst = 0.1041). In any case, to go by Sewall Wright’s guidelines, Fst values exceeding 0.15 indicate great genetic divergence and Fst values for Germanic nations should not significantly exceed 0.05. Therefore, it is safe to say that this Dutch sample is not Germanic.

Wilson et al (2001) also found a high degree of genetic differentiation between Frisians and Norwegians.

In contrast to the results reported by Passarino et al (2002), Dutch males from Amsterdam sampled by Dupuy et al (2005) fall within the Germanic range and closely match Norwegians from Southern Norway. A more detailed study of the Dutch therefore seems desirable.

I am not aware of any studies on Dutch mtDNA.

AUSTRIA & SWITZERLAND
I am not aware of studies investigating the Y-chromosome polymorphisms of these populations.

mtDNA polymorphisms show the genetic proximity between Germans and Norwegians (Passarino et al 2002); however, Austrian/Swiss mtDNA seems about as far removed from German/Scandinavian mtDNA as is Finnish/Estonian mtDNA (Helgason 2001). Even with 100% Germanic male ancestry these countries would therefore only be peripherally Germanic at best. Since such a high degree of Germanic male ancestry does not seem very likely Austria and Switzerland should not be considered Germanic pending further studies.

HUNGARY
As with the Netherlands, results for Hungary seem to vary a bit. Passarino et al (2002) report the following values: Φst = 0.1111, Fst = 0.1472; these exceed the values given for Poland and the Ukraine and are well outside the Germanic range. Nevertheless, Dupuy et al (2005) report an Fst value within the Germanic range.

This may indicate that in some regions of Hungary there is still significant male ancestry from the Gepidae. Further studies would be necessary to establish the degree to which Hungarians are related to Germanics (I have not yet read Semino et al 2000: MtDNA and Y chromosome polymorphisms in Hungary: inferences from the palaeolithic, neolithic and Uralic influences on the modern Hungarian gene pool; however, they do state in their abstract that “the influence of Magyars on the Hungarian gene pool has been very low through both females and males and the Hungarian language could be an example of cultural dominance”).

Note that both Passarino et al (2002) and Dupuy et al (2005) report slightly less genetic divergence of Norwegians from Hungarians than from the Dutch (0.1472 vs 0.1511 [both far outside the Germanic range]; 0.05153 vs 0.05173 [both within the Germanic range]) in spite of the high incidence of Neolithic Haplogroups E & J in Hungarians [9% & 2% vs 0% & 0% in the Dutch] [Semino et al 2004].

BRITAIN
Most genetic studies note little Germanic admixture in the British (including the English). Capelli et al (2003) found Germanic male admixture to range between 40% and 60% at only 4 of 25 sampled locations (York, Norfolk, Llanidloes, Southwell). The genetic legacy of indigenous Britons predominates at all other locations. Locations seem evenly divided between those with 20%-40% Germanic male ancestry and those with 0%-20% Germanic male admixture. On average, this may indicate about 20% Germanic male admixture for Britain as a whole. Capelli et al. (2003) state that “Scottish mainland sites appear generally between English ones and these ‘indigenous’ populations”, so on average England would probably have somewhat more than 20% Germanic admixture and Scotland somewhat less.

The limited Germanic male admixture observed by Capelli et al is confirmed by Chen et al (2004) based on haplotyping in an epidemiological study of UK Caucasian males. From samples taken at 9 locations, Chen et al (2004) determined that the highest replacement of the male indigenous population by Germanics occurred at Chesterfield. This follows from the frequency with which a Germanic haplotype [22-11-CCAC] is observed in Chesterfield (11%) and at the other 8 sampled locations (4%). This haplotype is found at frequencies of 16% in Frisians and at frequencies of 38% in Norwegians. Assuming this to be the range of frequencies with which this haplotype occurs in Germanic populations, Chen et al calculate that 17%-44% of the male population in Chesterfield was replaced by Germanics.

Chen et al. (2004) assume that there was [I]no ingress of Germanics at any of the other sampled locations [Parkstone, Camberley, Aylesbury, Harefield, North Mimms, Halesworth, St. Andrews, Carnoustie] and consequently that there was no replacement of the indigenous population there! This is obvious from the way they conducted their calculations:

they assume the 4% frequency with which this haplotype is observed elsewhere in Britain to be indigenous
to estimate the degree of Germanic admixture in Chesterfield, they consequently take the difference between the frequencies with which this haplotype is observed in Chesterfield and elsewhere (11%-4%=7%)Obviously, if Chen et al’s suppositions are correct there would only be a very minor degree of Germanic ancestry in the Danelaw and Germanic ancestry elsewhere in Britain would be completely negligible.

That doesn’t seem quite right and we can correct their mistake by making the following assumptions:

With Chen et al, we assume that this haplotype enables the degree of Germanic admixture in Britain to be determined
Unlike Chen et al, we assume the haplotype to be entirely of Germanic origin. In other words, we attribute both the entire 11% of this haplotype observed in Chesterfield and the 4% of this haplotype observed elsewhere to the invading Germanics
We’ll trust Chen et al that this haplotype is observed at frequencies of 16% in Frisians and at frequencies of 38% in Norwegians and that this determines the range of frequencies with which this haplotype was present among the invading GermanicsBased on these assumptions we calculate that

29% [supposing the invaders to have been Norwegians]-69% [supposing the invaders to have been Frisians] of the indigenous male population in Chesterfield was replaced by invaders from the continent
10%-25% of the indigenous male population elsewhere in England and Scotland was replaced by the continental invadersAssuming the invaders to have been Frisians, this would confirm Weale et al's results for a high male continental ancestry for the Midlands [note however that this ancestry may not necessarily be Germanic, since the extent to which Dutch Frisians should be considered Germanic remains to be established].

Overall, this might indicate about 20% Germanic male ancestry in Britons. Consequently, evidence of Germanic admixture from haplotyping as reported by Chen et al (2004) is very much in line with results reported by Capelli et al (2003). These results are also much in line with the thinking of numerous acclaimed British academics such as Francis Pryor, Martin Henig, Martin Evison, Simon James and David Miles who believe that up to 80% of the British genetic legacy is indigenous.

Results obtained by Dupuy et al (2005) substantially confirm those reported by Capelli et al (2003) and Chen et al (2004). Fst values are given as 0.13875 for England, 0.18349 for Scotland, 0.24914 for Wales and 0.25813 for Ireland. As expected, England is therefore the British nation which is genetically closest to the Germanic nations, followed first by Scotland and then by Wales/Ireland. However, all the reported British Fst values are far outside the Germanic and Slavic ranges and indicate great to very great genetic differentiation from Germanic countries. Reported values indicate that England is about as differentiated racially from the Germanic countries as is Spain, a distinctly non-Germanic country.

Interestingly, Dupuy et al’s English sample was taken in Leicester in the East Midlands. This is close to Southwell where Weale et al (2002) reported a strong “Frisian” presence and where the Germanic presence in England is generally believed to be the strongest (Weale et al 2002; Capelli et al 2003; Chen et al 2004). In spite of this, Dupuy et al’s English sample didn’t turn out very Germanic at all. It should be noted that Capelli et al were not able to replicate Weale et al’s results indicating a ‘Y chromosome evidence for Anglo-Saxon mass migration’ although they expressly attempted to do so. A number of things seem wrong about Weale et al’s study, such as:

Other studies fail to confirm their results (Capelli et al 2003; Dupuy et al 2005)
They use misleading terminology. Frisians are not Anglo-Saxons
Anglo-Saxons (from Schleswig-Holstein/North Germany) are Germanics. By equating Dutch Frisians with Anglo-Saxons, Weale et al. (2002) make it seem as if their results indicate a Germanic invasion of England. However, the degree to which Dutch Frisians are Germanic remains to be ascertained. Wilson et al (2001) found Dutch Frisians to be highly differentiated from Norwegians, though their data do not enable a determination of whether Frisians are within the permissible range of genetic differentiation for Germanics (a country/region can be thought of as being within the Germanic range if it is genetically less divergent from other Germanic nations than the most closely related group of peoples who are not Germanics [the Slavs]).
There is more, but I won’t get into that hereIn their visual representation, Dupuy et al (2005) highlight Saami, Lithuania, England, Scotland, France, Portugal and Spain as countries with little common genetic heritage with Norway. Obviously, the results obtained by these authors indicate that England and Scotland are not substantially related to the Germanic countries.

BELGIUM
I don’t remember seeing any studies on Belgium; however, I do remember from some other thread that Belgian mtDNA was said to be close to Portuguese mtDNA. Taking into consideration that the Franks who invaded Belgium were not Germanics [Coon], Belgians probably also have little Germanic Y-chromosome heritage. Pending further studies Belgium should probably not be considered a Germanic country.

FRANCE
Passarino et al (2002) report an Fst value of 0.1041 for the French. This indicates that the French are more differentiated from Norwegians than the Polish and that they are well outside the range for Germanics (according to Sewall Wright’s qualitative guidelines for interpreting FST ‘the range 0 to 0.05 may be considered as indicating little genetic differentiation’, and this fits the Germanic nations quite well [see Dupuy et al 2005]).

I am not aware of any other studies for the French; however, there seems to be no reason for considering France a Germanic country, especially considering that the Franks (see Coon), Alemanni (Alsace-Lorraine; see Coon) and probably also the Normans (as implied by Capelli et al 2003) do not seem to have been Germanic.

WestPrussian
Saturday, January 7th, 2006, 11:16 PM
WHO IS GERMANIC? SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It was established that Germanics have racial characteristics that enable them to be distinguished from other populations. By establishing the degree of genetic differentiation from one of three core Germanic nations, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, it can therefore be determined if a country or region is Germanic or not. Both Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms need to be taken into account. In many cases, conclusive evidence is not yet available.

In general, nations/regions are Germanic if one of the following applies:

they fall within the range of genetic differentiation identified for the Scandinavian countries
they have Fst values of less than 0.05 when compared to Denmark, Norway or Sweden.
they have Fst values less than those identified for the most closely related group of peoples (the Slavs)Preliminary results indicate that the following nations/regions are Germanic:

Denmark (by definition)
Norway (by definition)
Sweden (by definition)
Northern Germany/parts of Central Germany (consistent results within the Germanic range both for mtDNA and Y-chromosome polymorphisms)The following nations/regions are (or may be) Germanic/Peripheral Germanic (predominantly of Germanic origin but characterized by varying degrees of non-Germanic admixture)

Iceland (Germanic male heritage; high degree of Gaelic mtDNA admixture)
The Netherlands & Hungary (inconsistent results for Y-chromosome polymorphisms; mtDNA remains to be investigated)
Parts of Central and possibly Southern Germany (historical evidence)The following nations/regions are not Germanic (predominantly of non-Germanic origin)

Parts of Southern Germany such as Baden (historical evidence)
Austria (mtDN)
Switzerland (mtDNA)
Belgium (mtDNA, historical evidence)
France (Fst value outside Germanic range)
England (Fst value approaching great genetic differentiation)
Scotland (Fst value showing great genetic differentiation)At Skadi, many Western European countries/regions which show some degree of Germanic admixture are considered Germanic; however, the relatedness of the basal populations should be taken into consideration. In general, Slavs are much more closely related to Germanics than are Celts or Finns:

Finns Fst = 0.315 [Dupuy]
Celts Fst = 0.249-0.258 [Dupuy]; Fst = 0.312-0.355 [Passarino]
Balts Fst = 0.113-0.180 [Dupuy]
Slavs Fst = 0.083-0.087 [Dupuy]; Fst = 0.019-0.124 [Passarino]Here is a rule of thumb for interpreting these data:

Fst values exceeding 0.20 (the Celtic/Finnish range) indicate that populations have evolved completely separately and that there has been no gene flow
Fst values of less than 0.10 (the Slavic range) indicate the beginning stages of population divergence
Fst values of less than 0.05 (the Germanic range) indicate little genetic differentiationIt follows that Celts and Finns have evolved completely separately from Germanics and a Germanic/Celtic mixture will still be far removed from the Germanic gene pool. Celtic nations which have absorbed a Germanic element (e.g. England and Scotland) will therefore still be predominantly Celtic even if they have assumed a Germanic language or ‘identity’. This is reflected in the Fst values for such nations; these show that Celts with Germanic admixture are much more differentiated genetically from Germanics than are Slavs with no Germanic admixture:

Celts with Germanic admixture Fst = 0.139-0.184 [Dupuy]
Slavs without Germanic admixture Fst = 0.083-0.087 [Dupuy]]Slavs are not considered Germanics and the genetically much further removed Germanic/Celtic mixes should not be considered Germanic either. Similarly, germanized areas in Central or Western Europe (e.g. Baden, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, France) should not be considered Germanic pending further population genetic studies; in fact, adjacent Slavic areas may be more closely related to Germanics.

nurnberg
Sunday, January 8th, 2006, 07:39 AM
Finally some data that is making sense.


According to Sewall Wright, a range in Fst values from 0 to 0.05 indicates little genetic differentiation and the Germanic countries satisfactorily fulfil this criterion.
Reasonable according to the criterion set.


Results show that the Slavs as exemplified by Poland and the Ukraine are the population group most closely related to Germanics [Group B]. This comes as little surprise considering that Slavs and Germanics are the only population groups with native Nordic types.

In another location the .08 might drop or rise.

The result is what I have been saying in another thread,
which is that there are so-called 'Germanic' populations in Poland which now inhabit the Polish world construct.

One aspect I am glad to see is the results for Ireland, Wales, and Basques.
We know without doubt that these come from a maritime people thousands of years earlier and the blood type to this day demonstrates the separation.

Huzar
Sunday, January 8th, 2006, 11:34 AM
It follows that Celts and Finns have evolved completely separately from Germanics and a Germanic/Celtic mixture will still be far removed from the Germanic gene pool. Celtic nations which have absorbed a Germanic element (e.g. England and Scotland) will therefore still be predominantly Celtic even if they have assumed a Germanic language or ‘identity’. This is reflected in the Fst values for such nations; these show that Celts with Germanic admixture are much more differentiated genetically from Germanics than are Slavs with no Germanic admixture:.


What i suspected. Excellent work, West prussian:thumbup

Waarnemer
Sunday, January 8th, 2006, 12:44 PM
BELGIUM
I don’t remember seeing any studies on Belgium; however, I do remember from some other thread that Belgian mtDNA was said to be close to Portuguese mtDNA. Taking into consideration that the Franks who invaded Belgium were not Germanics [Coon], Belgians probably also have little Germanic Y-chromosome heritage. Pending further studies Belgium should probably not be considered a Germanic country.
sure


On the opposite frontier of France, at Collognes, near the western end of Lake Geneva,[98] the descendants of the Burgundians had become brachycephalic, and almost indistinguishable from their Neolithic predecessors who had lived at Vaureal, a few kilometers away.

Aside from these marginal and collateral groups, the Franks themselves did not differ greatly from place to place. The most extensive Belgian series is that from Cipley in Hainaut, that of France is Mrs. Wallis's series drawn from most of the Frankish territory in the northern part of the country.[99] (See Appendix I, col. 45.) These series show clearly that the Franks were a moderately variable group, but differing as a whole from the basic North German type from which they were presumably derived. Although individuals belonged to this type, the Franks as a whole re-sembled the Keltic peoples who had occupied Belgium and northern France before them. This resemblance included the common possession of a cranial index of about 76, and a cranial vault height of 132 mm. No particular difference can be found between the Merovingian Franks and the local Kelts in cranial dimensions or form, except for one important fact: instead of falling between the Kelts and the other Germans, in many metrical criteria the Franks slightly exceed the Kelts themselves. This is true of facial and cranial vault indices. The stature of the Franks, furthermore, is on a Gaulish level, with a mean of 166 cm. for males from Belgium, and indications that in France it was even lower.

The conclusion to be drawn from this comparison is that the Franks acquired their Keltic-like major physical form in the Rhineland, or the southwestern part of Germany in general, before the Saxons drove them to France and to the Low Countries. Here, whatever mixture took place between them and the previously installed Keltic population made little or no racial difference. This conclusion is supported by the evidence from Baden, that the Alemanni had likewise, from the beginning of their so-journ in southwestern Germany, succumbed to Keltic mixture. Except along the Channel coast, the Germanic invasions of France and southeastern Belgium furnished nothing novel to the ultimate racial composition of these countries. That of the Kelts, on the other hand, reënforced by these Merovingians, was of some importance.
Coon with keltic means a racial type not so much a matter in cultural context. Keltic Nordic is not culture-bound, but racially.

The flemish people are both predominantly nordic and cultural germanic.

If the franks wouldn't be germanic, than neither a big part of the netherlands.

Besides the celts in flanders were referred to as "gallogermanen".

Chlodovech
Sunday, January 8th, 2006, 01:06 PM
Though I'm by no means a racial expert, far from it - I must agree with Thiuda on the matter he mentioned.

Nice posting, nonetheless, WP. :thumbup

The Black Prince
Sunday, January 8th, 2006, 03:19 PM
sure


Coon with keltic means a racial type not so much a matter in cultural context. Keltic Nordic is not culture-bound, but racially.

The flemish people are both predominantly nordic and cultural germanic.

If the franks wouldn't be germanic, than neither a big part of the netherlands.

Besides the celts in flanders were referred to as "gallogermanen".

Good post WestPrussian, ;)

BUT I agree with Thiuda, Dupuy only relates to Norwegians as being the real Germanics.

Dupuy kinda easily sweps tribes as the Franks, Allemanni to be Keltic.
Altough they spoke Germanic, had Germanic traditions, were considered by neighbouring peoples as Germanics and considered themself to be Germanic (Diets/Deutsch/Teuton)



Assuming the invaders to have been Frisians, this would confirm Weale et al's results for a high male continental ancestry for the Midlands [note however that this ancestry may not necessarily be Germanic, since the extent to which Dutch Frisians should be considered Germanic remains to be established].
May'be the Frisian are far away from the Norwegians, but they are indeed extremely close to England.

Weale:
http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/1846/weale10dj.png

source: http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/7/1008.pdf


I am not aware of any detailed genetic studies for the Netherlands. Results reported so far are somewhat ambivalent.



A more detailed study of the Dutch therefore seems desirable.


I agree, :)

----

I'm no expert on genetics and such, but I used to have great trust in it.
However, now I'm somewhat doubted since it appears that with every new genetic research there seems to be another different conclusion...:D

The Black Prince
Sunday, January 8th, 2006, 03:37 PM
May'be the Frisian are far away from the Norwegians, but they are indeed extremely close to England.

Weale:
http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/1846/weale10dj.png

source: http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/7/1008.pdf



More of Weale:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7007/weale30ta.png

delivering this scheme:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9264/weale20aj.png

nurnberg
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 06:51 AM
sure


Coon with keltic means a racial type not so much a matter in cultural context. Keltic Nordic is not culture-bound, but racially.

Then he is using defective nomenclature in my opinion.
i.e. He cannot ascertain the components and invents this abstract 'Keltic' as an alleged racial stream.

The Black Prince
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 06:24 PM
Then he is using defective nomenclature in my opinion.
i.e. He cannot ascertain the components and invents this abstract 'Keltic' as an alleged racial stream.


I agree but he had his reasons,

Racially he meant Nordid + Dinarid admixture (+ some Alpinid/mediterranid strain).
The reason he called it Keltic-Nordic was because this racial mix was common in North Keltic areas (Britain, Gaul, Southern-Germany, etc.).

The same is done with the Anglo-Saxon Nordid (Nordid + Faelid/Borreby admixture + Corded)
The name is chosen because the old Ingaewones where mostly of this type, and the Saxons where the most dominant tribe in this group.
However it doesn't mean that every Anglosaxon is of this phenotype.

---

Most names in anthropology/history are chosen in this way, e.g. the racial type gets the name of the region or from the people were it is/was the most dominant.

First finding places do good too BTW, for example the Bruenn/Brunn (also reffered to as Faelid/etc.) was first found at Brno (Czech city) therefore its name.
It doesn't mean that there the most Bruenn are found (NW-Europe is more known for these phenotypes.)

WestPrussian
Thursday, January 12th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Quote:
Results show that the Slavs as exemplified by Poland and the Ukraine are the population group most closely related to Germanics [Group B]. This comes as little surprise considering that Slavs and Germanics are the only population groups with native Nordic types.


In another location the .08 might drop or rise.

The result is what I have been saying in another thread,
which is that there are so-called 'Germanic' populations in Poland which now inhabit the Polish world construct.



A study similar to that conducted by Dupuy et al (2005) for Norway was conducted in 2002 by Ploski et al for Poland. To assess the genetic heterogeneity within Poland, Ploski et al analysed 9 chromosomal microsatellites



in a total of 919 unrelated males from six regions of Poland and in 1,273 male individuals from nine other European populations. AMOVA revealed that all of the molecular variation in the Polish dataset is due to variation within populations, and no variation was detected among populations of different regions of Poland. However, in the non-Polish European dataset 9.3% (P<0.0001) of the total variation was due to differences among populations. Consequently, differences in RST-values between all possible pairs of Polish populations were not statistically significant, whereas significant differences were observed in nearly all comparisons of Polish and non-Polish European populations. Phylogenetic analyses demonstrated tight clustering of Polish populations separated from non-Polish groups. Population clustering based on Y-STR haplotypes generally correlates well with the geography and history of the region. Thus, our data are consistent with the assumption of homogeneity of present-day paternal lineages within Poland and their distinctiveness from other parts of Europe, at least in respect to their Y-STR haplotypes.



In a way, Ploski et al’s results with respect to the homogeneity of paternal lineages in the Polish are confirmed by the Fst values obtained by Passarino et al (2002) and by Dupuy et al (2005) when investigating the degree of genetic differentiation between Norwegians and Poles. These seem quite close to each other:
§ Poland Fst = 0.08732 - 0.0917 [Dupuy; Passarino]

Due to the homogeneity of Polish paternal lineages it is likely that other studies investigating the degree of genetic differentiation between Poles and Norwegians will yield similar results. Consequently, any regional differences you find in Poland are actually more likely to be a function of mtDNA than of Y-chromosome polymorphisms.

Apparently, the Ukraine has a bit more regional heterogeneity than does Poland:
§ Ukraine Fst = 0.08337 - 0.1239 [Dupuy; Passarino]

Countries which have very diverse paternal lineages/extensive regional heterogeneity may include Hungary and the Netherlands:
§ Hungary Fst = 0.05153 - 0.1472 [Dupuy; Passarino]
§ The Netherlands Fst = 0.05173 - 0.1511 [Dupuy; Passarino]

So that might explain the divergent results obtained for the Netherlands; no reason to distrust genetic studies as yet :). What’s really needed is a study investigating the geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in the Netherlands similar to the ones conducted by Dupuy et al for Norway and by Ploski et al for Poland.





Quote:
Originally Posted by WestPrussian
I am not aware of any detailed genetic studies for the Netherlands. Results reported so far are somewhat ambivalent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by WestPrussian
A more detailed study of the Dutch therefore seems desirable.


I agree,

----

I'm no expert on genetics and such, but I used to have great trust in it.
However, now I'm somewhat doubted since it appears that with every new genetic research there seems to be another different conclusion...

WestPrussian
Thursday, January 12th, 2006, 11:10 PM
[Coon] kinda easily sweps tribes as the Franks, Allemanni to be Keltic.
Altough they spoke Germanic, had Germanic traditions, were considered by neighbouring peoples as Germanics and considered themself to be Germanic (Diets/Deutsch/Teuton)

The key point you seem to be addressing here is whether culture or race is more important in defining a population as 'Germanic'. In earlier posts I attempted to show [perhaps unsuccessfully] that the original Germanics who spread Germanic traditions and languages throughout Europe were of a distinct racial type. This is not my theory by any means; instead, all the historical and skeletal evidence points that way [Coon].

According to Coon, the original Franks and Alemanni were also of this Germanic type; however, these two tribes lost their racial characteristics soon after subjugating other populations in Western or Southern Germany [Rhineland, Baden]. That is really all I know about the Franks and Alemanni, so if you have any other information about them (for instance, reports of finds showing that the Franks did not merge with the natives in Baden and the Rhineland or that they swamped them to an extent that the natives took on Germanic characteristics rather than vice versa) it would be great if you could share it with us.

I do not regard Coon as the ultimate authority on anything; however, population genetic studies do confirm that modern populations in those areas in which the Germanics originated (Scandinavia and Northern Germany) show little genetic differentiation (Fst < 0.05 as a rule of thumb) and are more closely related to each other than they are to other populations (such as Slavs, Celts or Finns). This would indicate that the original Germanics were of a distinct racial type and that this type persists to the present day. To my mind, other modern populations can therefore only be considered racially Germanic if they are genetically close to one of these closely related populations in the Germanic homelands.

Again, to me, Germanic culture and traditions are created by a Germanic population as defined above (or in the strict sense by individuals who are phenotypically and genotypically Germanics). I am certainly not trying to prove or disprove any population as Germanic; however, I do think racial characteristics are the key factor in determining which populations are Germanic and that the most objective assessment of race is given by population genetic studies. These provide objective, verifiable and reproducible results in the scientific tradition. In contrast, each physical anthropologist such as Biasutti, Coon, Gunter and Lundman creates his own more or less speculative construct; these largely diverge from each other and often seem to reflect the personal biases of the authors and the historical traditions of their native countries.

Of course, if you think that culture and race are distinct from each other and that culture is simply a matter of language or other extrinsic characteristics we’ll just have to disagree about that.


The flemish people are both predominantly nordic and cultural germanic.

If the franks wouldn't be germanic, than neither a big part of the netherlands.

Besides the celts in flanders were referred to as "gallogermanen".

Certainly, the data I’m going by for Belgium are a bit scarce. For all I know the Franks may have been far more Germanic than Coon says; also the original inhabitants of the areas colonized by the Franks in the Netherlands and Belgium may have been Germanic. I’m glad you agree with me that racial criteria are key in establishing who is Germanic.

Since everyone from Flanders seems to disagree with me quite strongly about Belgium I have been looking around for studies providing concrete data to substantiate your position for outsiders like myself; unfortunately however, I have been unable to locate any as yet.

I did stumble across a study investigating French mtDNA which may be of interest to French Skadiites. Here is the abstract:



Mitochondrial DNA polymorphism in the French population R. Ivanova’,*, A. Astrinidis”, V. Lepage’s*, A. Kouvatsi’, S. Djoulah*, J. Hors* D Charron’.* . .
’ INSERM U396, ’ Laboratoire d’Immunologie et d’Histocompatibilite, Hopital St Louis, 1 Ave Cl Vellefaux, 75475, Paris cedex 10, France; ’ Department of Genetics. Development and Molecular Biology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

Summary - One hundred unrelated individuals of French origin were screened for mtDNA variation as restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) with the restriction enzymes HpaI, BamHI, HaeII. MspI, AvaII and HincII. Twenty enzyme morphs were detected, four of which (AvaII-37r’, -38”, HincII-18F’ dnd -19”) are new. Of the 17 mitotypes detected, five are new and they were named I- 19 , PI 6-lSF’ lOOF’- (2-l-2-4-1-2), lOIF’- (2.I-l-I-38”-2) and 102F’-2 (2-1-1-4-37F’-2). All new morphs and ,mitotypes derive from those already known due to a single nucleotide substitution. The French population was compared with other European, Mediterranean and Caucasian populations. Calculation of the genetic distances showed close genetic affinity with European-Mediterranean populations and especially with Calabrians, Majorcans and northern Italians (at negative values). 0 1999 Elsevier, Paris

French population ! mtDNA polymorphism / population genetics / RFLP

The molecular nature of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) polymorphism is a powerful marker for anthropological studies of modern populations. mtDNA markers have proved informative in human evolution, origins, patterns of migration and distinguishing between the major racial groups [ l- 111. Study of mitochondrial restriction-site polymorphisms (morphs) is a method different from allele-frequency-based surveys of nuclear DNA (nDNA) marker loci for several reasons: 1) more rapid accumulation of mutations compared to nDNA sequences [ 12); 2) maternal inheritance [13, 141 and, 3) lack of recombination in mtDNA that makes it possible to follow maternal radiating lineages into different geographic regions [ 151. The nature of mitochondrial DNA variation in more than 200 populations has been the object of a growing number of studies in recent years. This is a report of the French population genotyped for mtDNA molecular diversity. The highly informative mtDNA variation permits comparison of the genetic profile of the French population to other European and to world-wide populations.


DISCUSSION
Comparison of the morph frequencies found in the present study and those reported in neighbouring populations, showed that there are not many significant differences. More specific, the French population was compared to Calabria [24], Majorca
[25], North and Central Italy [18], and Sardinia [26].
The French can be slightly, but not significantly, differentiated from the Calabrian population

Type 21-2 which is found in virtually all Caucasian populations, was not detected in the French sample. In previous studies it was also absent in the central Italian [ 181 and Balearic Islands populations [25]. Calculation of the genetic distances (t&e III) showed that the French population is closely related (at negative values) with the populations from Calabria, Majorca and northern Italy.
The French CEPH sample is found genetically very close to Italian samples and located among various other European samples. Sardinian samples appear as the most differentiated samples within Europe, whereas the Middle-East populations appear genetically intermediate between Europeans and East-Africans.

In conclusion this study has shown that mtDNA variation obtained with six classical enzymes can be used: 1) to increase the amount of relatively little mtDNA genetic information of European peoples; 2) as a tool for examining the origin and relationship of Caucasoid populations and the process of human colonisation of Europe; and, 3) to define the role played by mtDNA background in the expression of pathological mtDNA mutations.
Using this study “as a tool for examining the origin and relationship of Caucasoid populations” [in the words of Ivanova et al], I believe it is safe to say that the Germanic peoples have not left much of a genetic imprint on French mtDNA (within the limitations of this study).

To summarise results for the French so far:
§ Fst = 0.1041 (with respect to Norwegians; substantially outside Germanic range) [Passarino et al]
§ MtDNA: close to Calabria, Majorca, and Northern Italy [Ivanova]

It would seem that it is much more likely that France is a Romance rather than a Germanic country

The Black Prince
Wednesday, January 18th, 2006, 09:07 PM
The key point you seem to be addressing here is whether culture or race is more important in defining a population as 'Germanic'. In earlier posts I attempted to show [perhaps unsuccessfully] that the original Germanics who spread Germanic traditions and languages throughout Europe were of a distinct racial type. This is not my theory by any means; instead, all the historical and skeletal evidence points that way [Coon].

I believe that the Old Germanic people originated in NW-Germany, Denmark and the Southern Scandinavian peninsula, as most historicans do.

And to say of one distinct race... rather a mixture of Nordid(Corded) and longheaded Upper-Paleothic people(Faelid) and strains of shortheaded Upper-Paleothic people (Borreby).

I do believe that it where Nordids who brought the civilization there, the Hallstat Culture, but this culture is also part of the Keltic culture, wich explains the occurence of Nordid Kelts.(Although they quickly mixed with Dinarids/Alpinid/Med)



According to Coon, the original Franks and Alemanni were also of this Germanic type; however, these two tribes lost their racial characteristics soon after subjugating other populations in Western or Southern Germany [Rhineland, Baden]. That is really all I know about the Franks and Alemanni, so if you have any other information about them (for instance, reports of finds showing that the Franks did not merge with the natives in Baden and the Rhineland or that they swamped them to an extent that the natives took on Germanic characteristics rather than vice versa) it would be great if you could share it with us.

I agree partly, as I previously said thus not completely...

Culturally and qua language they are Germanic (as they were considered by neighbouring peoples)

With the beginning of the Dark ages cephalic indexes rised in Europe and stature got shorter, wich circumstances lead to this is still not sure. It would be racial saver to call these people insteadt of just Kelts, Kelto-Germanic.


BTW I don't regard France globally as Germanic or Kelto-Germanic, the tribes that went there where too small in numbers to change the phenotype, as genetic research shows.



I do not regard Coon as the ultimate authority on anything; however, population genetic studies do confirm that modern populations in those areas in which the Germanics originated (Scandinavia and Northern Germany) show little genetic differentiation (Fst < 0.05 as a rule of thumb) and are more closely related to each other than they are to other populations (such as Slavs, Celts or Finns). This would indicate that the original Germanics were of a distinct racial type and that this type persists to the present day. To my mind, other modern populations can therefore only be considered racially Germanic if they are genetically close to one of these closely related populations in the Germanic homelands.

I agree, but I still wouldn't use the whole of Norways genes to judge if people would be pure Germanic...



Of course, if you think that culture and race are distinct from each other and that culture is simply a matter of language or other extrinsic characteristics we’ll just have to disagree about that.

I think that genotype does matter, just as culture and language. Otherwise it wouldn't be the same people anymore (kinda logic of course ;) )

The Black Prince
Wednesday, January 18th, 2006, 09:07 PM
I agree, but I still wouldn't use the whole of Norways genes to judge if people would be pure Germanic...

This line of my needs an explanation..

I'm just starting in this field of genetic research and have been reading up a lot recently..

I studied about the material I have found(table with genetical distances and the map you provided. + a summary written by Dienekes about Dupuy's research)


Uralic admixture in the non-Saami Norwegian population:

Haplogroup N3 has been interpreted as a signature of Uralic Finno-Ugric speaking males migrating to northern Scandinavia about 4000–5000 years ago [9], [17], [35] and [60]. In the present study, N3 is observed at 4% in the overall population and at 11% in the northern region corresponding to 150,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, respectively. These numbers exceed the total number of Saami inhabitants, which is officially recognized as about 50,000 (http://www.sametinget.se). In northern Norway, the N3 percentage is 18.6% in Finnmark, 8.6% in Troms and 8.4% in Nordland (which are the three northernmost counties—Nordland being located to the south of the other two (Supplementary Data Online, Fig. 2)). There is thus a considerable pool of Saami and/or Finnish Y-chromosomes in the Norwegian population and particularly in the north.

Source: Dienekes http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/12/y-chromosomes-of-norway.html

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9982/norway6ex.jpg

Studying the map below, the North has an average of 10.6% Uralid mixture(N3) in the ETHNIC norwegians living there, this is too much non-germanic mixture (or are the old Germanics also part Uralid?)

In the Eastern part of Norway, ethnic Norwegians have an average of 3.2% Uralid mixture. In my opinion they would be good germanics, but not pure enough to use in a genetical research to discover how Germanic other people are.

The other regions have lesser or none Uralid mixture(the South has 0%) and could therefore be used more likely as pure Germanic.

WestPrussian
Wednesday, January 18th, 2006, 11:38 PM
Before I get into any arguments, would you propose any alternative definition for Germanics to the one I suggested?

The Black Prince
Thursday, January 19th, 2006, 05:09 PM
And to say of one distinct race... rather a mixture of Nordid(Corded) and longheaded Upper-Paleothic people(Faelid) and strains of shortheaded Upper-Paleothic people (Borreby).

Before I get into any arguments, would you propose any alternative definition for Germanics to the one I suggested?

Because they show exactly all influences I stated, I'l first stick with the Norwegians as representatives of Germanics. But the Southerners are the closest to Old Germanics.

First I list all Norwegian types again (I use the same thread of Siegfried that you used):



The most extensive Iron Age series from Norway is that of Schreiner, which contains 27 male crania.[73] (See Appendix I, col. 41.) These are quite different from those of either Denmark or Sweden. They are larger and much more rugged, with heavy browridges and strong muscular markings. Metrically, they approach the Upper Palaeolithic series of Morant; and they could fit easily into the range of the central European Aurignacian group. The Mesolithic crania of Stångenäs and MacArthur's Cave would not be out of place here. Yet in most dimensions, they fall a little short of the Upper Palaeolithic mean.

They are purely dolichocephalic, with a cranial index of 71.7. On the whole, they are just what one would expect from a Danish Iron Age - Upper Palaeolithic cross, with the latter in the majority, and this explanation agrees well with the archaeological data. The stature, 169.5 cm., fits both types. There is another possibility, however, that they had a strong Corded element. That some Corded blend entered into this mixture was indeed likely, but it is impossible to substitute the Corded for the Palaeolithic element, since the high vault of the former is not in sufficient evidence, and the faces of the Norwegians are wider than either Corded or Nordic.

Source: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41670


These seem to be of a somekind of Faelid with Corded/Nordid admixture.(Old Germanic type)



The central coastal Norwegians of the Iron Age must have been in part true descendants of the Upper Palaeolithic people of central Europe, who moved northward and westward with the retreat of the last ice, and remained relatively undisturbed in the centers of its last melting until the arrival of new immigrants in the Iron Age. There must, however, have been regional differences of type in Norway at this time which persisted until the modern period; late Viking Age series from Jaeren, Tønsborg, and Skien[74] in the south show the presence of a brachycephalic type, massive in build and of great cranial size, which is metrically related to the Borreby group of Denmark and northern Germany. These may represent colonists or refugees from Denmark.

Source: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41670

Faelid + Borreby, IMO.



A late group from Sogn[75] in the north, includes mesocephalic crania with extremely low vaults and smaller dimensions, associated with black or brown hair preserved in the graves. Metrically, they suggest modem Lapp crania in most respects, and serve to mark the northern Norse borderland, beyond which Norwegian settlements were, in the Viking period, only sporadic. These various series place Norway for the first time in history in the full light of physical anthropology, and show that the land of the Vikings was the last periphery of the Nordic world, in which ancient but fully evolved forms of humanity blended with the newcomers from the south and east.

Source: http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=41670

Uralid peoples with light admixture, they have been blended with other Nordid/UP Norwegians since the Viking-Age. Seeing that the current ethnic Norwegian in northern Norway is 10,6% N3 (Uralid).


However, it should be noted that Germany includes many areas which were colonised by Germanics but which are not originally Germanic. Since most genetic studies regard Germany as a unit (some studies exclude Bavaria) it is therefore preferable not to use Northwest Germany as a point of reference until more detailed genetic studies are available. Consequently, it is best at present to limit the definition of Germanics to the three Scandinavian countries.

You said about Germany the same thing I now say about Norway!

Only the Southern part of Norway could be considered from the Iron age to be pure Germanic!
The Central coast area more or less, because they mixed since then with Southern Norwegians, but the North cannot be seen as pure Germanic.

WestPrussian
Saturday, May 6th, 2006, 11:11 PM
OK it’s time for me to join the discussion again! You wrote


Only the Southern part of Norway could be considered from the Iron age to be pure Germanic!
The Central coast area more or less, because they mixed since then with Southern Norwegians, but the North cannot be seen as pure Germanic.
Uralid peoples with light admixture, they have been blended with other Nordid/UP Norwegians since the Viking-Age. Seeing that the current ethnic Norwegian in northern Norway is 10,6% N3 (Uralid).


In the Eastern part of Norway, ethnic Norwegians have an average of 3.2% Uralid mixture. In my opinion they would be good germanics, but not pure enough to use in a genetical research to discover how Germanic other people are.

The other regions have lesser or none Uralid mixture(the South has 0%) and could therefore be used more likely as pure Germanic.

In accordance with these claims, you believe that Norwegian Germanics originated in the South of Norway from where they colonized the rest of Norway (claim #1). You believe that during this supposed colonization process Norwegians blended with indigenous elements that are not Germanic (claim #2) and which you identify as Uralic. Supposedly, these semi-Germanics are the ancestors of today’s Norwegians everywhere except for the South.

You seem to believe that the fact that N3 occurs in North Norway at a frequency of 10.6% (Dupuy et al) substantiates this idea that there was some kind of an amalgamation of non-Germanic and Germanic elements in early Norwegians (claim #3). As further proof that only Southern Norwegians should be considered Germanic you refer to the following passage in Coon (claim #4):


A late group from Sogn[75] in the north, includes mesocephalic crania with extremely low vaults and smaller dimensions, associated with black or brown hair preserved in the graves. Metrically, they suggest modern Lapp crania in most respects, and serve to mark the northern Norse borderland, beyond which Norwegian settlements were, in the Viking period, only sporadic. These various series place Norway for the first time in history in the full light of physical anthropology, and show that the land of the Vikings was the last periphery of the Nordic world, in which ancient but fully evolved forms of humanity blended with the newcomers from the south and east. Based on these ideas you express the belief that only Southern Norwegians should properly be used in population genetic studies that investigate the degree to which other populations can be considered Germanic (claim #5). You take particular issue with using both North Norway and East Norway in such genetic studies (claim #6) because according to you the 3% of N3 observed in East Norway represents a kind of cut-off beyond which a population is
not pure enough to use in a genetical research to discover how Germanic other people are.Frankly, I completely disagree with your assessment of Norwegian genetic heritage and of the degree to which it is informative in population genetic studies; I also believe you are completely misinterpreting both Coon and Dupuy. However, I do believe the points you raise are important enough to be addressed in some detail so I will attempt to do so. For ease of reference I have numbered each of your arguments (claim #1-#6). Have you read the full text of Dupuy including the Supplements? This settles a lot of the issues.

Claim #4. (as made by The Black Prince): 'In the passage quoted above, Coon indicates that there was a colonization of Lapps by Norwegians. These Lapps are the ancestors of a substantial proportion of modern Norwegians.'

Coon makes no such claim. Instead, he is simply saying that there were a few Norwegian outposts in lands inhabited by the Saami, not that there was any kind of blending of the two populations. As a matter of fact, Coon clearly states that the ancient Lapp crania resemble modern Lapp crania in most respects (“Metrically, they suggest modern Lapp crania in most respects”), which of course is a clear indication that there was little to no intermingling between Lapps and Norwegians. In no way is Coon suggesting a Nordid/Uralid continuum in Norway or a process of ‘colonization’ of alien elements within Norway. Any assumptions that Norwegians are not Germanic based on this passage are therefore completely false; in fact, the cited passage suggests that there has been little to no admixture between Norwegians and Lapps.

The Saami have of course always had a distinctive lifestyle which has precluded Uralic admixture in Norwegians:

Finally, this area [Northern Europe WP] provides an example of cultural and livelihood differences that have separated the Saami from their neighboring populations for thousands of years. The Saami were nomadic herders and hunters of reindeer, while the other populations were, after 3,000 b.c., traditionally farmers (Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza 1994). Only in the last half century have the Saami undergone significant acculturation.

The Black Prince
Saturday, May 6th, 2006, 11:44 PM
As I said before you claimed your conclusion upon the WHOLE of Norway, N3 is to noticeable aswell in genotype and in phenotype to compare with the old Germanics.;)

As I said before thus the South-Eastern quart is more (original) Germanic than the rest of the country. I would still count the rest of the country as Germanic but would not use them as the bloodsample upon I would test the rest of the Germanic speaking countries, simple for the fact that they do not adhere to the "pure old" Germanic.

BTW. I only have the document supplied by by SNPA most likely thus not the full, could you supply a link to the full document (rapidshare?)?

WestPrussian
Saturday, May 6th, 2006, 11:54 PM
Claim #3. (as made by The Black Prince) ‘The 10.6% N3 observed in Northern Norway refers to the presence of N3 in Norwegians there rather than in the population at large [Norwegians + ethnic minorities]. This presence of N3 among Norwegians in Northern Norway again indicates that there was some kind of colonization of Lapps within Norway, as does the 3% of N3 observed in East Norway. Consequently, modern Norwegians have substantial Lapp ancestry.’

This claim is based on a misinterpretation of Dupuy et al (2005). What Dupuy et al in fact show is that modern Norwegians have negligible Uralic admixture; consequently, the Norwegian ancestral pool is not likely to have had any Uralic admixture either.


In their study, Dupuy et al distinguish between ‘Saami’ and ‘Norwegians’; I believe this has led to the Black Prince's assumption that Dupuy et al exclude the Norwegian Saami from their Norwegian sample (in order to accentuate any differentiation between the studied populations). This of course would then mean that the 10.6% N3 observed in North Norway shows a substantial Uralic admixture among ethnic Norwegians there (as the Black Prince claims). However, it is clear from the full text that Dupuy et al did in fact include both the Saami and Kvener (Finnish immigrants) in their Norwegian sample (Swedish Saami were then sampled separately to provide a basis for comparison between Norwegians [including ethnic minorities] and Saami).

As people of Saami and Finnish descent account for virtually all the N3 observed in both North and East Norway it is evident that even in those Norwegian regions in which Uralic genetic inheritance is most pronounced virtually 100% of ethnic Norwegians must be free of any such admixture. It follows that Norwegians all over Norway are purely Germanic and perfectly suited to be used as yardstick in determining what other populations can be considered Germanic.


Before proceeding I would like to emphasize that there exist 3 different potential source populations for N3 in Norway: Norwegians, the Saami, and the descendants of Finnish immigrants to Norway. Whereas Norwegians naturally live all over the country, the Saami are largely restricted to North Norway. Dupuy et al describe the Finnish presence in Norway as follows:
In the 16th and 17th centuries, people of Finnish extraction (known as Kvener) migrated from Finland via Sweden to northern Norway because of war and famine.


From 1620, Finns also migrated from central Finland via Sweden to eastern Norway. In 1686, 1200 Finns were registered in this region. Note that the areas inhabited by the Saami (North Norway) and the areas targeted by Finnish immigration (North Norway and East Norway) are the only areas in Norway in which a notable N3 presence is observed (10.6% and 3%).


In interpreting Dupuy et al’s study as to the source of N3 in Norway we need to consider both Dupuy et al’s objective in conducting the study and their sampling procedure.

First, let us consider Dupuy et al’s stated objective:
The aim is to map the haplotype and haplogroup distribution at the national level, to compare it with other European populations, and to study the regional distribution within the country and relate the findings to other genetical and historical data. Since Dupuy et al have the express intention of mapping the haplotype and haplogroup distribution at the national and regional level, they of necessity include all indigenous ethnic groups (including the Saami and Kvener) in their Norwegian sample.


This is reflected in Dupuy et al’s sampling procedure. From this it is obvious that Dupuy et al did not exclude people of Saami or Finnish descent from their Norwegian sample as long as they had Norwegian or Scandinavian last names:
Males with obvious non-Norwegian surnames were omitted as well as males whose oldest known patrilineal relatives (index persons), as reported in the National Register, were born abroad. The latter represented 3% of the population sample. Males with surnames of Scandinavian or German origin whose index person was born in Norway were included. All Norwegian Saami can be assumed to have Norwegian last names. Also, by definition Norway is the ancestral home of the Norwegian Saami so it is very obvious that the Saami were included in the general Norwegian sample.

Furthermore, it was customary for Finnish immigrants to Sweden, Norway or the US to assume Norwegian or Swedish surnames; consequently, the descendants of Finnish immigrants to Norway are also likely to have been included in Dupuy et al’s sample of Norwegians:
A good proportion of the Finns, especially the Swede-Finns of Oulu and Vaasa, had borne Swedish surnames for generations; the dominant position until recent times of the Swedish language in Finland had made inevitable a marked and continuous drift from Finnish to Swedish patronymics.3 (http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/#3n) A number of the early Finnish migrants had, moreover, resided in Norway and Sweden prior to settling in the New World; there they had either by translation or by following the tradition of the farsnamn,4 (http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/#4n) [changed] their surnames into the Scandinavian form. Layer [sic] day immigrants assumed Scandinavian names upon reaching America: Haapanen became Swanberg, Varmavuori became Sahlberg, Renkonen became Renfors, Heikkinen was transformed into Hendrickson, etc. The Swedish and Norwegian surnames are, therefore, fairly prevalent among the Finns in America.http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article104e.htm (http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article104e.htm)

In any case, both Saami and Finnish surnames are ‘Scandinavian’; therefore, all individuals with Saami or Finnish surnames would be included in the Norwegian sample anyway (unless their index person was born abroad).

From this it follows that both the Saami and the descendants of Finnish immigrants to Norway are included in the Norwegian sample.


In North Norway (population 462,895), N3 occurs at a frequency of approximately 11% (approximately 50,000 individuals). There are also approximately 50,000 Saami living in North Norway (Dupuy et al). N3 is observed in the Saami at a frequency of 50% (Tambets et al 2004). This leaves 25,000 individuals with N3 in North Norway who are not Saami, and it is reasonable to assume that these individuals are the descendants of the Kvener (Finnish immigrants to Norway).

Similarly, the 3% N3 (50,000 individuals) observed in East Norway (population 1,745,237) must be largely confined to the descendants of Finnish immigrants to that region.

Given that a noticeable presence of N3 is observed only
§ in areas traditionally inhabited by the Saami (North Norway)
§ in areas known to have experienced an influx of Finns (North Norway and East Norway)

and considering the small number of individuals involved it is obvious that
§ Uralic populations did not play a role in the ethnogenesis of Norwegians
§ N3 in Norway is observed only in the Saami and in the descendants of Finnish immigrants to Norway

Any number of genetic studies confirm these findings. For instance, Zerjal et al (2001) have shown that genetically the Saami cluster with Estonians rather than with Norwegians (from Oslo) or with Swedes (from Ångermanland). 58578They suggest the following explanation for this:
A striking finding was that the Saami Y chromosomes, characterized using either binary markers or microsatellites, were very similar to those of the Estonians (fig. 5 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/#F5) ) and distinct from those of their immediate neighbors, the Swedes and the Finns. One explanation would be that these chromosomes represent the ancestral pool for the northeastern Uralic-speaking populations, perhaps from the Ladoga and Onega Lake region

In other words, there has been little admixture between Norwegians (or Swedes) and Uralic populations, who all preserve their ancestral gene pool.

The Black Prince
Saturday, May 6th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Note that the areas inhabited by the Saami (North Norway) and the areas targeted by Finnish immigration (North Norway and East Norway) are the only areas in Norway in which a notable N3 presence is observed (10.6% and 3%).


In interpreting Dupuy et al’s study as to the source of N3 in Norway we need to consider both Dupuy et al’s objective in conducting the study and their sampling procedure.

As I said before, Northern-Norway in Dupuy et al. his research like East-Norway can not be used to compare.

Read my post again:


This line of my needs an explanation..

I'm just starting in this field of genetic research and have been reading up a lot recently..

I studied about the material I have found(table with genetical distances and the map you provided. + a summary written by Dienekes about Dupuy's research)

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9982/norway6ex.jpg

Studying the map below, the North has an average of 10.6% Uralid mixture(N3) in the ETHNIC norwegians living there, this is too much non-germanic mixture (or are the old Germanics also part Uralid?)

In the Eastern part of Norway, ethnic Norwegians have an average of 3.2% Uralid mixture. In my opinion they would be good germanics, but not pure enough to use in a genetical research to discover how Germanic other people are.

The other regions have lesser or none Uralid mixture(the South has 0%) and could therefore be used more likely as pure Germanic.

WestPrussian
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 12:17 AM
Sorry Black Prince, I was working on my reply to your next claim so I didn't see your response before posting.

I don't think Dupuy et al is publicly accessible and I'm not a member of the file share community you mentioned but I'm sure we can figure out a way for me to send you their study if you're interested. In any case, I believe you have raised a lot of questions which are worth addressing so I'll do my best to do so!

I totally agree with you that N3 is not Germanic, but I believe the slight N3 presence in Norway doesn't really affect Fst values and I'll try to explain why. Of course, I hope you'll post your thoughts on that ... I sure hope you'll end up agreeing with me, but maybe you can convince me I'm wrong? I have absolutely no preconceptions and am always open to reasoned argument.

I've already written a response to your claim #2 so I'll post that next. I'll shortly address your argument that the slight N3 presence in Norway (no matter what the origin) significantly affects genetic studies.

Claim #2. (there was a large-scale colonization in ancient Norway of non-Germanic elements by ancient Germanics. Together, these non-Germanic and Germanic elements comprise the modern Norwegian gene pool; therefore modern-day Norwegians are largely of non-Germanic ancestry. Only Norwegians from South Norway are truly Germanic).

These claims seem to be based on the idea that Norwegians are partly the descendants of Uralic populations who were colonized by Germanics. This has already been refuted (see the refutation of Claims #4 and #3 above). There are no other alien populations that could have contributed a sizeable non-Germanic element to the Norwegian gene pool.

Genetic distances between different Norwegian regions and between each of these regions and numerous other countries (Dupuy et al) provide further proof that there was no colonization of non-Germanic elements by proto-Germanics within Norway in ancient times. Here a brief summary of the evidence:
§ Fst values between Norwegian regions indicate a largely uniform population (Fst range = -0.00080 to 0.03982). This includes Norwegian regions with a negligible N3 component such as South Norway
§ Fst values measuring the genetic distance between Norway and other Germanic countries show little genetic differentiation (Fst range = 0.00796 to 0.05871). This includes Germanic countries with a negligible N3 component such as Denmark
§ Fst values between Norway and Saami/Finland (populations which would be closely related to Norwegians if Norway in fact had a significant Uralic component) indicate great genetic differentiation and extremely little to no gene flow (Fst range = 0.18157 to 0.31524)
§ Contrary to your interpretation, the 10.6 % N3 observed in North Norway simply indicates the presence of local Saami (and Kvener) and is fully accounted for by these populations. Consequently, ethnic Norwegians in North Norway have virtually no Uralic admixture.
§ Similarly, the 3% N3 observed in East Norway simply reflects recent Finnish immigration to that region rather than some kind of a colonization of ancient Lapps
§ “studies of mtDNA have identified large genetic distances between the Saami and other Europeans, including the Finns (Sajantila and Pa¨a¨bo 1995; Sajantila et al. 1995). Likewise, Lahermo et al. (1996) found no overlap between Saami and the remaining European mtDNA patterns and concluded that the Saami and the Finns must have different genetic histories” (Tambets 2004). Consequently, Norwegian mtDNA does not reflect any genetic patterns prevalent in the Saami. It would be very evident if it did. Saami mtDNA has not contributed to the Norwegian gene pool.
§ East Norway is very close genetically to the rest of Norway (Fst range = -0.00010 to 0.03098) and to other Germanic countries (Fst range = 0.01255 to 0.07958)
§ The genetic distance between East Norway and Finland is immense (0.33157).
§ North Norway is very close genetically to the rest of Norway (Fst range = -0.0042 to 0.00891) and to other Germanic countries (Fst range = 0.02091 to 0.07650)
§ The genetic distance between North Norway and Finland is immense (0.28442).

It follows that Norwegians all over Norway are textbook Germanics. Evidently, Norwegians all over Norway are some of the purest Germanics in existence and not some kind of bastardised Saami or Finns.

(refutation of the other claims to follow)

Thruthheim
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 12:27 AM
Just a quick quiery, to clarify, Individuals may be Germanic, but not populations(within regions), according to this study?

The Black Prince
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 12:57 AM
You claim #2 is based upon nothing I ever questioned:..;)


claim #2) and which you identify as Uralic. Supposedly, these semi-Germanics are the ancestors of today’s Norwegians everywhere except for the South.[/font][/color]

[color=black][font=Verdana]You seem to believe that the fact that N3 occurs in North Norway at a frequency of 10.6% (Dupuy et al) substantiates this idea that there was some kind of an amalgamation of non-Germanic and Germanic elements in early Norwegians

No, I don't believe the above stated, read my post again (I've quoted it in the last post of me) I said that Northern- and Eastern Norway are unusable. Not the rest of Norway since I think that N3 is not more here than to be count mereley as low influence.


Just a quick quiery, to clarify, Individuals may be Germanic, but not populations(within regions), according to this study?
The study is somewhat else, but this thread deals with this idea:

you have a "pure" Germanic pop. (800 BC. ~ 650 BC) of course after some time they expand, some to the south (Germany, Belgium), where they mixed with the Kelts. Other towards the north (Northern halve of Sweden and Norway) others etc.., where they mixed with old UP and later on Uralids.

But the key is that there may not be, according to WestPrussian more as 5% differentiaton since, if we go above, we can not speak of one race.


This thread now deals with the thing that WestPrussian considers to have found a practically unaltered Germanic population in the whole of Norway while I claim that only the southern half may contain a practically unaltered type (and I'm even suspicious of that.;) ).

Thruthheim
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 01:04 AM
The study is somewhat else, but this thread deals with this idea:

you have a "pure" Germanic pop. (800 BC. ~ 650 BC) of course after some time they expand, some to the south (Germany, Belgium), where they mixed with the Kelts. Other towards the north (Northern halve of Sweden and Norway) others etc.., where they mixed with old UP and later on Uralids.

But the key is that there may not be, according to WestPrussian more as 5% differentiaton since, if we go above, we can not speak of one race.


This thread now deals with the thing that WestPrussian considers to have found a practically unaltered Germanic population in the whole of Norway while I claim that only the southern half may contain a practically unaltered type (and I'm even suspicious of that.;) ).

Isn't the sami of asiatic extraction? If so, then the influence on Norway is not only non-germanic, it would be non-europid, right? If this bears any truth, then i can see your point Black Prince :)

The Black Prince
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 01:09 AM
Isn't the sami of asiatic extraction? If so, then the influence on Norway is not only non-germanic, it would be non-europid, right? If this bears any truth, then i can see your point Black Prince :)

N3 (Uralid) is considered as non-Europid, although its carriers like Saami and such are mostly seen as partly Europid or the most extreme form of Europid, since they also contain a large part of full-Europid.

E.g East-Baltid compared to Baltid is the difference in Uralid admixture (East-Baltid contains Uralid admixture, while Baltid is fully Europid).

Thruthheim
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 01:22 AM
N3 (Uralid) is considered as non-Europid, although its carriers like Saami and such are mostly seen as partly Europid or the most extreme form of Europid, since they also contain a large part of full-Europid.

E.g East-Baltid compared to Baltid is the difference in Uralid admixture (East-Baltid contains Uralid admixture, while Baltid is fully Europid).

So the N3 in Norway(as i assume Sweden carries it also?) would negate the Germanicness of Norway as a national entity? Obviously, Norway is Germanic, but is it the 100% that is claimed if we are seeing Germanic as a racial entity?

Would this then, make Denmark the only full Germanic nation, if we use the guidelines of this study?

WestPrussian
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 01:22 AM
Just a quick quiery, to clarify, Individuals may be Germanic, but not populations(within regions), according to this study?
Absolutely. This thread is only about Germanic populations and not about Germanic individuals. For instance, assume for a moment that there would have been no intermingling of Saxons/Danes with native Britons following the Germanic invasions. In this case, all Germanic invaders and all their descendants would have completely retained their racial characteristics. Consequently, England would be 20-30% purely Saxon/Danish. In spite of this, population genetic studies investigating the English would probably not identify a significant Anglo-Saxon component due to the preponderance of the original British. In spite of this, any individual invader (or any of his descendants) would still be 100% Germanic.


Isn't the sami of asiatic extraction? If so, then the influence on Norway is not only non-germanic, it would be non-europid, right? If this bears any truth, then i can see your point Black PrinceNope. There has not been a whole lot of evidence to show that N3 is any less European than R1b which is predominant in Britain (Neither N3 nor R1b is Indo-European, and both are about equally distant genetically from Germanics)

Thruthheim
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 01:33 AM
Absolutely. This thread is only about Germanic populations and not about Germanic individuals. For instance, assume for a moment that there would have been no intermingling of Saxons/Danes with native Britons following the Germanic invasions. In this case, all Germanic invaders and all their descendants would have completely retained their racial characteristics. Consequently, England would be 20-30% purely Saxon/Danish. In spite of this, population genetic studies investigating the English would probably not identify a significant Anglo-Saxon component due to the preponderance of the original British. In spite of this, any individual invader (or any of his descendants) would still be 100% Germanic.

Nope. There has not been a whole lot of evidence to show that N3 is any less European than R1b which is predominant in Britain (Neither N3 nor R1b is Indo-European, and both are about equally distant genetically from Germanics)

So would i still be classed as Germanic under this study? Or..

WestPrussian
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 01:43 AM
This does not affect you or anyone else. It just provides statistics which are useful in determining probabilities (i.e in this case the probability that someone is racially Germanic based on his or her country or region of origin)

Galaico
Sunday, May 7th, 2006, 04:41 PM
There has not been a whole lot of evidence to show that N3 is any less European than R1b which is predominant in Britain (Neither N3 nor R1b is Indo-European, and both are about equally distant genetically from Germanics)
So in your opinion which haplogroup is the one related to Germanics, because as far as I know the sub-haplogroup R1b3, is related to Danes/Saxons in Britain, and the R1b haplogroup is the majoritary haplogroup in Denmark.

Properly, only the R1a haplogroup is related to proto-Indo-Europeans, but all three Paleolithic European haplogroups (R1a, R1b and I) are found among Persian, Afghan, Pakistani and Indian males of Aryan origin.

The N3 haplogroup was brought to Europe by the Fenno-Ugrians 5,000 years ago, while the R1b haplogroup is estimated to have been brought to Europe about 35,000 years ago by the first Cro-Magnon settlers.

WestPrussian
Friday, May 12th, 2006, 11:52 PM
all three Paleolithic European haplogroups (R1a, R1b and I) are found among Persian, Afghan, Pakistani and Indian males of Aryan origin
Sources please?

Huzar
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 12:15 AM
So would i still be classed as Germanic under this study? Or........

...........you could be a descendant of pre-Germanic population of England. A celtic Briton.

Thruthheim
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 12:45 AM
...........you could be a descendant of pre-Germanic population of England. A celtic Briton.

But sub-racially i am Skando-Nordid anyway. So my outward aesthetic suggests im Germanic. My Germanicness isn't under question, and this study basically rules out half the Germanic world as Non-Germanic, therefore it's redundant in my opinion.

Thruthheim
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 01:24 AM
Ok, I've discussed this with a friend of mine, who came up with some questions and arguments against certain aspects of this theory, premise and conclusion.

So, I can't adequately argue for the points being made in what im about to post, as i wasn't the one to produce the counter-argument.
But, i feel they asked significant questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

The following quotes, were posted by WestPrussian:



The general attitude seems to be that any Western European nation that is within a stone’s throw of Germany as well as all the major former British colonies should be considered Germanic … why exactly remains something of a mystery.


This reveals an underlying belief that Germanic is descended from the modern word German. It is not. Both are descended from the Latin word Germanus. Germany is not the focal point of Germanicity — Germania is. And Germania, according to Tactius, was everything beyond the Rhine and the Danube. Now we don't believe that Kamchatka, though it lies beyond those rivers from Rome, is part of Germania, but we have to admit that Germania included a fairly decent amount of variation. Enough at least, that intertribal warfare was meaningful. Interesting question — how could those tribes tell each other apart?

A further problem with this statement is that it denies the reasoning behind designating all these populations as Germanic. The reason for the designation is historical evidence. We know historically that Germani moved into these areas in great numbers. But this study seeks to undermine historical evidence and rely only on extrapolations based on synchronic analysis.



By assuming Norwegians (and other Scandinavians) to represent the most prototypical modern-day Germanics


Two problems here. First, this study really looks only at Norwegians. We see no Fst comparisons between all of Europe and NW Germany, for example. The assumption is that only the Norwegians are prototypical Germanics. That goes beyond even Coon for shortsightedness.

Second, the Fst values are meant to show "the length of time two populations have been evolving separately" — why should we assume that the divergent evolution of Norwegians has been more faithful than that of the Danes or the Frisians or even the Franks? We have no basis for such an assumption.

Because this study is based on this baseless assumption (that modern Norwegians are the prototypical Germani), the whole study is nothing more than a house of cards.



Based on the archaeological evidence, Coon identifies the ancient Germanics as being of four distinct but related types which originated in Northern Germany and Scandinavia.


Great. Based on contemporary historical evidence from a couple of millennia ago, the ancient Germanics were a much more broadly dispersed people. Maybe Coon's definition is a bit too narrow. I think it's safe to say that contemporary historical witness trumps archeological theorizing. And all the contemporary witnesses thought the Germani were pressing aginst the banks of the Rhine and Danube and ever threatening to cross it. I'll take somebody's word about what he sees over somebody's word about what he extrapolates. But if genetics must be given priority over history, then there will be disagreement on this point.



Ever since the first emergence of Germanics there has been little racial upheaval in some of these Germanic homelands. This is true in particular of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Northwest Germany; therefore, we can assume these areas to have preserved the original types quite well [given the vagaries of evolution such as selection and genetic drift etc].


When exactly was this first emergence of Germanics? All we really are in a position to know is that the current predominant racial makeup has been in place in these areas since it has been in place in these areas — which is a tautology. What if the original Germanics were people there prior to the establishment of the current predominant race and then they were overrun by a lesser but more numerous civilization who adopted their culture but eventually supplanted their population? We have no evidence for the assumptions made here about aboriginal Germanics.

If the aboriginal Germanics were something other than the predominant race of southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, and that area was overrun as I have suggested, but other areas of Germania were not, then perhaps it is the Franks and the Alemanni who are most prototypical of the earliest Germanics.


However, it should be noted that Germany includes many areas which were colonised by Germanics but which are not originally Germanic.

Like Norway and Sweden, which has been pointed out later in the thread.


A population is Germanic if it is genetically close to that currently prevalent in either Denmark, Norway or Sweden.

What happened to Northwest Germany? For that matter, what happened to Denmark and Sweden? This study only discusses genetic distance from Norway. It violates its own narrow and ill-grounded premises.


Germanics invaded and settled in various adjacent lands, including but not limited to Iceland, England, Scotland, Ireland, Central and Southern Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium.

We know this only because of history. We have no genetic proof for it. All the genetic analysis in the world cannot prove this. Only history tells us these invasions occurred. But we have already thrown history out the window, so relying solely on genetic evidence, we have no basis for this assumption.



Note the limitations of physical anthropology: Coon here fails to distinguish Norwegian from Danish or Saxon skulls; however, population genetic studies can easily distinguish between Norwegian and Danish/Saxon ancestry


The brief foray into historical evidence is here forgotten, to be replaced by the supremacy of the darling child Genetics. Coon does not fail to distinguish between Norwegian and Danish skulls when he says many of the Danes were actually Norwegians — he refers to the historical evidence showing that the Anglo-Saxons called many people Danes who were actually from what we now call Norway. But that historical evidence is, with the rest, out the window — that makes Coon look the fool and lets Genetics shine.



However, it seems that some of these Northwestern Germanic invaders quickly assimilated with the local population. This led to a loss of their physical characteristics:

Quote:
A number of individual cemeteries, which date from the earliest period of Saxon invasion, give us a lively picture of the manner in which the first Saxon raiders and settlers operated. One of these is the graveyard at East Shefford, Berkshire; containing eight male and twelve female adults, as well as eight infantile and juvenile specimens.[86] All of the adult males thirty years of age or older represent a single type, the classical Saxon, and all are long headed. One of the females belongs to this same type, and she was buried differently from the other women, with horse trappings in her grave. The rest of the women were rounder headed, with cranial indices going up to 82.4, and some of them were planoccipital. They had wider, shorter noses, some prognathism, and shorter, shallower jaws. The adolescent women seem to be a blend of these two types. Although many of these differences may be due to sex and age, others, such as the fundamental head form, are clearly racial.



This quote from Coon doesn't support the claim that "Germanic invaders quickly assimilated with the local population [leading] to a loss of their physical characteristics." The quote doesn't say anything about a loss of physical characteristics. The "blend" seen in the adolescent women may refer to a mixed set of racially distinct individuals. Furthermore, this is evidence from one cemetary. We can't see past Coon's editorial filter. What assumptions might have made him choose this particular Berkshire cemetary to illustrate his statement? Why did he not choose one from, say, East Anglia? The statement based on this quote from Coon does not follow from the quote, which quote might not adequately represent the racial situation of the Anglo-Saxon invaders of England.

Furthermore, why should we assume that the manner of the earliest invasion was identical to the manner of the continuing invasion. Historically (if we can again appeal to history, as we did to conclude that Germanics invaded Britain in the first place), we know that the invasion took place over the course of centuries. It might be that early invaders were only men who intermarried with the natives but that later settlers, not fearing the possibility of a fight upon arrival, brought women and children and the elderly with them across the sea. The mating behavior of first-wave invaders is almost always different from that of subsequent settlers. Why should the Germanic settlement of Britain be any different?



However, the Saxons did not eliminate the original population. This led to more extensive assimilation further on:

Quote:
Hence it is necessary, in studying early Saxon remains, to distinguish between mixed communities in which raiders had taken native women to wife, and pure Saxon settlements in which whole families and villages had emigrated at the beginning of the period of serious settlement.

The Saxons occupied, for the most part, empty country. This was because they were accustomed to low-lying land with a deep, rich soil, and had formed, in their earlier home, the habit of tilling this in strips with deep ploughs drawn by eight oxen. The Kelts, whose agriculture was more cursory in character, preferred the uplands already made treeless by nature, and cultivated in square fields. They remained for the most part on territory frequented by the Bronze Age and Neolithic men before them. The Saxons, who liked forests as well as lowlands, cleared the marshes and river valleys of trees, and drained and planted them. Owing to this fundamental difference in methods of agriculture, the two peoples overlapped little at first, and the Saxons and Britons occupied adjoining territories in many parts of England for several centuries until at length the Saxon social and political domination submerged the language and culture of the earlier inhabitants beneath its own pattern.


Here's another statement that seems to not follow at all from its evidence. In fact, the quote from Coon seems to counterindicate the conclusion drawn here. Coon says we need to distinguish between the earliest raiders and the settlers, and that the settlers took over mostly empty land. Which of the absent natives would they have mated with in that empty land they settled? This conclusion follows quite nicely perhaps from a particular political agenda, but not from the quote given as its source.


FST = (Ht-Hs)/Ht where Ht is the genetic diversity within the total population, and Hs the average diversity within subpopulations.

Since this Fst datum is so integral to the rest of the study, it deserves special consideration. The above formula could be rewritten: FST = 1 - Hs/Ht. That means that all these figures that follow (like .13875 for England) can be understood like this:
.13875 = 1 - Hs/Ht
Hs/Ht = 1 - .13875
Hs/Ht = .86125

Hs is the average genetic diversity within subpopulations and Ht is the genetic diversity within the whole population. So Hs is the average between two measures: the measure of heterogeneity in England and the measure of heterogeneity in Norway. Ht is the measure of heterogeneity in Norway and England together. So if Norway and England as a group are 100% heterogeneous, then the average of England's heterogeneity and Norway's heterogeneity is 86.125%. We don't know from this how heterogeneous England is, or heterogeneous Norway is. From what I have heard, England is phenotypically more heterogeneous than Norway. Let's say it is.

This does not necessarily indicate miscegenation within the British population. In fact, it would seem to indicate that there could have been a relatively high degree of racial distinction between the Anglo-Saxon and the Celtic populations of the area that has survived to the present day. Standard deviations of genetic diversity would help, but we're just dealing with averages. For all we know, the Fst between Norway and England could indicate that there is a substantial population in England that is genetically the same as Norway and another substantial population in England that is not. That is, maybe some Englishmen are more Celtic and others are more Germanic. That doesn't mean that the English as a group can be firmly placed outside the Germanic people — only that some of the English can be so placed. We are already dividing northern Germany from southern Germany — why should we keep all of England together in this study?

Furthermore, the greater genetic heterogeneity in England could be due entirely to recent immigration. The study says they made efforts to eliminate immigrants from the Norwegian sample. It doesn't indicate how the English sample was taken. If the study by Dupuy did not randomly sample the English population (including immigrants who are almost universally considered not English), then it is biased by the scientist's preconception of who is and is not ethnically English, so the results of Dupuy's study would show little more than Dupuy's own bias. If the study is not so biased, then it is subject to the greater immigration rate in England. Either way, it's not a fair description England's genotype.



Originally Posted by Dupuy study
The observed similarities at the haplogroup and haplotype level between the Nordic countries are most probably signs of our common ancestors.


Ah, so here we begin to see the study's own bias. Studies that talk about "our common ancestors" in reference to the thing being studied are rare in good research, and are generally considered less objective. I could be more forgiving if it weren't for my own bias against Scandinavian researchers of historical Germanic linguistics — that small group has a long history of chauvinistic agendas coloring their research. They even historically even tried to claim the earliest runic language as proto-North Germanic when there is clearly no difference between it and proto-West Germanic. They seem to want to make themsleves out as the Germanics. This study seems to follow in that vein. I see no need to fuel their provincial chauvinism.


Originally Posted by Dupuy study
The similarity to Iceland is probably explained by the fact that the country was partly populated by Norwegians in the eighth century


Never mind that the other part (roughly half) was Irish.


Originally Posted by The very next sentence from the Dupuy study
It is also obvious that the severe epidemics that raged in the country in the 12th and 13th centuries must have led to important bottlenecks and influenced the distribution of Y-chromosomes.


Okay. Now it looks like they're trying to subdue history to fit their study of modern genetics. They could more easily explain their findings by saying that historical evidence suggests that the early Icelanders took Irish wives, making the modern Icelanders about a half-Celtic, half-Germanic mix. The reason the Y chromosomes match those of Norway is because the men came from Norway — it was women who came from Ireland.

But if they were to acknowledge that rather than appealing to the laughable idea that plagues selectively killed the non-Germanic element of the Icelandic population, then they'd be excluding the Icelanders from their set of "pure Germanics" — and that would never do, since they're socially accepted as one of the Nordic/Scandinavian countries. One can only go so far when pushing a political agenda.

Notice, while we're on the topic, that this thread claims that Germanic males came to England and married Celtic wives — the same thing the Icelanders did. Since the study only looks at the Y chromosome, if the claim that the Anglo-Saxon invaders took Celtic wives is true, one would expect that the English population would be parallel to the Icelandic. It isn't, of course, since the Germanics didn't exterminate the male Celtic population. As a result, Celts have been free to mingle with Germanics, particularly in more recent years. Intermingling does not mean intermarriage, of course, and it could well be that the English are more Germanic (since they brought women with them, according to Coon) than the Icelanders (who took wives from Ireland) — but the genetic contribution of the women wouldn't show up in a Y chromosome study. A Y chromosome study can never, as a result, show anything about intermarriage — it cannot distinguish between intermarriage and intermingling.


Dupuy et al [2005] provide a visual representation of the degree to which different European populations are related to Norwegians as determined by Fst values

Their visual representation (http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=48755&d=1136672025) is disingenuous at best. They provide a disclaimer, clarifying that the data were taken only from the places with labels and dots, but the coloration seems to indicate that the Syrians are more Germanic than the English. That's simply absurd. Why provide a visual representation with coloration only to say that the coloration is basically worthless? The only reason to do it is to try to sell a point that's not supported by data. That's not good practice at all.

Furthermore, this shows that the English data were taken from near Leicester. Why should Leicester be chosen as the most representative area in England? The Scottish data are taken from a point far in the Highlands. It's pretty well accepted that the Germanics in Scotland (or at least, the Anglo-Saxons in Scotland) are Lowland Scots. So the Scottish data are quite flawed. The study seems to indictate that they chose these areas as the most representative of the heterogeneity found across the whole state (if England and Scotland can be considered states in their own right). So while this thread claims to distinguish between northern and southern Germany because of racial diversity due to invasion, it specifically avoids doing that same thing with England and Scotland. There is no more reason to exclude the whole of England or Scotland from the group of Germanic countries than there is to exclude the whole of Germany. If Germany can be divided for the purposes of this study, then so can England and Scotland.

But the whole thing is still based on the idea that modern Norwegians are the true racial heirs to our common Germani heritage, itself a flawed assumption, clearly based more on misplaced chauvinism than on empirical evidence or logic.


Based on the historical origins of Germanics, we earlier identified Denmark, Norway and Sweden as the most prototypical Germanic countries. Other countries are Germanic if they show little genetic divergence from one of these Scandinavian countries. Obviously, a country is Germanic if it is less divergent from a Scandinavian country than these are from each other.

Again, where did northwest Germany go? One would expect England to be quite similar to Denmark (itself the furthest from Norway) and NW Germany. Maybe NE Germany needed to be excluded to allow the study to exclude the English from their club. Or maybe NW Germany was excluded because it's culturally quite different from Scandinavia or doesn't have a Scandinavian cross on its flag. It's celar throughout this study that modern sociopolitical concerns are driving both the study's design (Norwegians are the real Germani) and the interpretation of the data (Celtic Icelanders were killed in medieval plagues).


Interestingly, Spain and England are genetically about equidistant to Norway [Group D; range 0.13661-0.13875]. Perhaps the Visigothic genetic impact on Spain was about equal to that of the Anglo-Saxons on England. Spain can’t be considered Germanic by any stretch of the imagination and genetically the English sample from Leicester/East Midlands is also way beyond the Germanic range.

So the English sample is from Leicester. They're the only real Englishmen after all.

And it looks like the Spanish sample is from Madrid, where we would expect relatively little Visigothic contribution. How does Galicia look? Or Asturias? Might there not be regions of Spain that are racially Germanic. But the thread assumes a priori that "Spain can’t be considered Germanic by any stretch of the imagination." Why should every region of Spain be thus excluded? It must be because of some other definition of what is and is not Germanic, a definition that isn't based on this study. That reveals an agenda. This study isn't being used in this thread to form the basis for a definition of Germanic — it's being used to defend a pre-existing but obscured definition of Germanic. What is that definition? What is the real basis for that definition? Why try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by citing this study and claiming that it's the basis for the real definition?

And how in the world can we include Hungary in the list of Germanic countries? Maybe the Magyars are the invaders who racially displaced the original Germanics. After all, we have discarded history and apparently culture, so all we have is genetics. Actually, all we have is an Fst analysis of a few biased samples of Y chromosome data compared with Norway. Pretty strong conclusions for such weak evidence.


According to Coon, the Franks and Alemanni were not Germanic; therefore, countries/regions colonized by the Franks/Alemanni should not be considered Germanic either even though Fst values for these countries were not obtained by Dupuy et al [2005].

No. According to Coon, the Franks and the Alemanni were Germanics who had assumed a Celtic physical guise. They weren't Halstatt, maybe, but that does not prove that they weren't Germanic. In fact, all evidence seems to indicate that they were. If Halstatt means Nordic, then why go to the trouble of all these genetic studies? Better to state plainly that the definition proposed for Germanic is Halstatt and then talk about which groups are more or less like the Halstatt ideal. But then, that would undermine the purpose of using genetic studies to mask a thinly veiled, pre-existing political agenda.

Note too, that, according to Coon, the coastal Norwegians were just as exceptional as the Franks and Alemanni. Yet it is those very Norwegians, exceptional as they are, that become the prototypical standard against which all Germania is measured. The Franks and Alemanni are out for being exceptional, but the exceptional Norwegians are the very center of the whole group.

Examining the evidence at face value would indicate that the Germani (the real prototypical Germanics), though mostly Halstatt Nordic, were not universally so, even a couple of millennia ago. But then, this thread isn't really about a couple of millennia ago — it's about eminently modern social and geopolitical predilections.


However, Helgason et al [2001] have shown that the ancestral contribution of mtDNA lineages from Scandinavia to the populations of Iceland is only 37.5% with the remaining 62.5% being Gaelic.

Good to see an acknowledgement of this in the afterthought discussion. How about mitochondrial DNA analysis for England? It's missing. Maybe because it would show the English to be more Germanic than the Icelanders — that would be a real problem for pushing the pro-Nordic agenda.


29% [supposing the invaders to have been Norwegians]-69% [supposing the invaders to have been Frisians] of the indigenous male population in Chesterfield was replaced by invaders from the continent

Assuming the invaders to have been Norwegian is silly. That they were closely related to the Frisians is much more likely. The thread goes on to say that the question of whether the Frisians are Germanic is still open (even though it's clear that the thread's author wants the answer to be 'no'), denying its original assumption that the people from NW Germany are among the aboriginal Germanics (as the thread says Coon says: "Visigothic/West Germanic including Saxons and Frisians" were one of the four aboriginal types). If the people from NW Germany are aboriginal Germanics (and how more NW German can one get than the Frisians?), then similarity to the Frisians means similarity to the aboriginal Germanics. The huge disparity between the figure for Norwegians and the figure for Frisians only serves to underscore the fact that the Germani were aboriginally somewhat diverse.

And the low figures for similarity between the Frisians and the Norwegians could be due to mixture between those two groups. If the English are sort of a Norse-Frisian mix, and those groups weren't very similar to one another, then they wouldn't necessarily be like either of those groups individually, but they would still be very Germanic, since they would be descended from two aboriginally Germanic populations.

And furthermore, if the English are so like the Frisians (an aboriginal Germanic group), and equidistant from Norwegians with the Spanish (possible descended from the Visigoths — part of the same group as the Frisians), then perhaps the Spanish are just as Germanic as the English or the Frisians (who are aboriginally Germanic). How similar are the Spanish to the English and the Frisians? We don't know from this study of course. But it is possible that the Spanish are racially just as Germanic as the rest. Having seen many Spaniards in my life, I doubt it. But if we can let the Hungarians in, why not the Spaniards, too?




Overall, I think this thread is based on some a priori assumptions about who is and is not Germanic and tries to massage data to prove it. The study cited in the thread was done by people who seem to have the same motive. The samples taken in that study were almost all improper — careful, ethnic-based selection of the Norwegian "control" and apparently random selection of the experimental groups from carefully selected, ethnically mixed regions within each population. The assumptions made by the study are flawed — Norwegians are assumed to be the prototypical Germanics; Y chromosome data are assumed to indicate the genetic makeup of whole populations; particular regions are assumed to be representative of entire countries; some countries are assumed to be divisible (like Germany), while others are not (like Scotland); etc.

This isn't science settling the question — it's more like "faith seeking understanding." There's no difference between this study and Intelligent Design — both are attempts to force science to support irrational, a priori assumptions and worldviews.


Before I get into any arguments, would you propose any alternative definition for Germanics to the one I suggested?

Sure! How about the traditional one that allegedly seems shrouded in mystery? You know, the definition that says Germanics are the people living in the Romans' Germania and their descendants who have settled other regions of the world? That's a really good starting place. But instead, this thread acts as though that historically-based definition is hopelessly mystical and masks an even more mystical definition behind a false scientific façade.

Why ditch the respected learning of two thousand years in favor of last Tuesday's fad science?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

That was his analysis of the information given. I have little to no knowledge of genetics or DNA and lack an intense library of Germanic History, therefore i reassert that the above isn't my own arguments, and i cannot argue them adequately.

ubbe
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 01:47 AM
I guess many of the descendants of the Volkwanderung aren't considered germanic enough for this study. :thumbdown

Thruthheim
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 01:53 AM
But sub-racially i am Skando-Nordid anyway. So my outward aesthetic suggests im Germanic. My Germanicness isn't under question, and this study basically rules out half the Germanic world as Non-Germanic, therefore it's redundant in my opinion.

Infact, If you add the total sum of people living in the nations, regarded by this study as Germanic, you have a very small figure who are considered Germanic. Under 20 Million i believe. Sweden/Norway/Denmark/NW Germany.

Rhydderch
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 08:03 AM
In fact, the quote from Coon seems to counterindicate the conclusion drawn here.Both quotes are from Coon. He is indeed saying that the earliest settlement was different.

Huzar
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 09:02 AM
Infact, If you add the total sum of people living in the nations, regarded by this study as Germanic, you have a very small figure who are considered Germanic. Under 20 Million i believe. Sweden/Norway/Denmark/NW Germany.


Thrutheim, it seems impossible, but we fall in the same mistakes any times we discuss of such arguments................

OK, little (obvious) clarification : culture and genetic AREN'T the same thing. A people could be Germanic culturally, but not genetically (or at least, not completely). Very often in history, a population invaded a territory, imposed its own culture, but couldn't impose their genes, cause its small numeric size. EXAMPLE : roman empire colonized England, but they couldn't impose thir genes, cause the number of Roman colonists in England was very small.


In conclusion, what is really important ? The culture or the genes ? The most academic of all questions. Every member here, will say without hesitation : BOTH. But it's not so simple.

Imo, if we consider Germanic all the countries who share a Germanic culture (when i say culture, i mean something of bigger than a language. A black too, can learn english language), then the list is this :


1) Germany / Austria / Switzerland(german part)

2) Norway / Sweden / Danmark / iceland

3) Netherlands / Flanders

4) England

5) All countries in the world carachterized by a Germanic culture : U.S.A. / Canada / South-Africa / Oceania /


Scotland is somewhat questionable. Wales, is even more questionable. Ireland is HIGHLY (the most) questionable. Many consider those countries Celtic, and not Germanic.
France (taken in consideration by some) it's absolutely not Germanic, in the complex.

That's all.

On the opposite, if we want to consider specifically the genetic factor...............well, the things are very complex..............Usually we associate the "Germanicness" to a distinct NORDIC somatic look. But there are areas not predominantly nordic like southern Germany or Switzerland in the Germanic sphere. Anglo-saxons invaded England, yes, but how many were ? A source says 500.000 against an autoctonous (Celtic/roman) population of over a million.

Galaico
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 10:02 AM
Sources please?
Check out the attached map, especially the two columns on the right.

Thruthheim
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 11:15 AM
On the opposite, if we want to consider specifically the genetic factor...............well, the things are very complex..............Usually we associate the "Germanicness" to a distinct NORDIC somatic look. But there are areas not predominantly nordic like southern Germany or Switzerland in the Germanic sphere. Anglo-saxons invaded England, yes, but how many were ? A source says 500.000 against an autoctonous (Celtic/roman) population of over a million.

Which reminds me of one facet of the argument proposed, which is why can Germany by regionalized(for the sake of genetics, Ie NW Germany) But England cannot?

But additionally, if you conclude that the Anglo-Saxons were 500.000 in number, against a Million Celts, What about the additional Waves of Germanic migrations here, Danish and Norwegian Vikings?

Huzar
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 12:06 PM
Which reminds me of one facet of the argument proposed, which is why can Germany by regionalized(for the sake of genetics, Ie NW Germany) But England cannot?


I regionalize England, indeed. I never said the opposite.



But additionally, if you conclude that the Anglo-Saxons were 500.000 in number, against a Million Celts, What about the additional Waves of Germanic migrations here, Danish and Norwegian Vikings?

The numbers i offer are from my university studies, but obviously are only an estimation : other sources give different numbers. I personally consider reasonable the number of 500.000 for Anglo-saxon, but there is no sure prove of this data,andneither about the exact number of Celtic population at the time of the invasion..............

Surely the anglo-saxons invaders killed many celts during their invasions, and many Celts escaped from England (a big part of them colonized the actual Brittany, in France) to the continent. After this ethnic cleasing, the ethnic composition in England was likely something like 500.000 Anglosaxons, and 500.000 Celts (50%-50%).

Obviously this ratio is not the same in all your country. Some regions are more Germanic, genetically (south east) or northeast (the northeastern cost of England, invaded by Normands and Vikings)

The residual Celtic strain, survives in the most internal areas, i think. We can take in account the social classes too. It's possible that in the higher classes there is an higher amount of Saxon/Normand pure blood, while in the lower classes there is an higher amount of Celtic infiltration.


Don't worry about yourself............. :P If the pic in your avatar is yours, then we can say you're a Nordid Saxon...........be happy ;)

Thruthheim
Saturday, May 13th, 2006, 12:56 PM
I regionalize England, indeed. I never said the opposite.

Obviously this ratio is not the same in all your country. Some regions are more Germanic, genetically (south east) or northeast (the northeastern cost of England, invaded by Normands and Vikings)

The residual Celtic strain, survives in the most internal areas, i think. We can take in account the social classes too. It's possible that in the higher classes there is an higher amount of Saxon/Normand pure blood, while in the lower classes there is an higher amount of Celtic infiltration.


Don't worry about yourself............. :P If the pic in your avatar is yours, then we can say you're a Nordid Saxon...........be happy ;)

I was referring to WestPrussian's selective regionalizing. I commend you on yours :thumbup

I agree, some areas are more Germanic, and some more Celtic.

Yes the picture is me ;)

æþeling
Saturday, September 30th, 2006, 05:41 PM
I wonder if sometimes people don’t take this too seriously?

Some of these studies would seemingly lump me as a half breed Celto-German. Hmmm my ancestry is Northern European, and that is good enough for me. I know Nordicists who would say I am not Nordic because I have dark brown hair, or I am not English because I have the wrong skull shape, to be honest it bemuses me.

As for Germanic, and Celtic, I don’t place too much meaning on the terms, English suits me fine. As an Englishman I have ancestral ties to most of north-west Europe, whether that be Celtic or Germanic, same difference to me.

Just my opinion, I don’t want to step on any ones toes or anything…

Wodens Day
Thursday, June 18th, 2009, 10:52 PM
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/344/geneticmapofeurope530.jpg

Svartljos
Thursday, June 18th, 2009, 11:03 PM
I wonder if sometimes people don’t take this too seriously?

Some of these studies would seemingly lump me as a half breed Celto-German. Hmmm my ancestry is Northern European, and that is good enough for me. I know Nordicists who would say I am not Nordic because I have dark brown hair, or I am not English because I have the wrong skull shape, to be honest it bemuses me.

As for Germanic, and Celtic, I don’t place too much meaning on the terms, English suits me fine. As an Englishman I have ancestral ties to most of north-west Europe, whether that be Celtic or Germanic, same difference to me.

Just my opinion, I don’t want to step on any ones toes or anything…

Hah wow, I didn't realise how old this post was, but I have to agree, sometimes people only examine genetics and forget about the common elements of Germanic culture. That's not to say that I think Black British or Indo-Danes are Germanic :p.

weland
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 12:32 AM
I am a bit confused, since when was Norway the definition of Germanic, Norway was outside the zone of proto-germanic linguistic development ,almost certainly.

The proto-Germanic language probably developed in Northern Germany -Denmark and possibly extended along the Northern fringe of the Baltic coast some way, maybe including the southern point of Sweden.

Proto-Germanic may have extended along the southern coastal areas of Norway, or it may not have done.

I am 100 per cent white Northern-North west European and i speak a Germanic language=English and to be honest i am happy with that, we need to preserve our European bloodlines pure, it doesnt matter if you are Celtic, Slavic,Germanic, what matters is saving our race, the White European race from extinction due to the invasion of non-European migration into our beloved Mother Europe.

weland
Saturday, June 27th, 2009, 02:04 AM
When we look at Proto-Germanic we can see that it contains a fairly large under current of none Indo-European words, comon Germanic words such as -Sheep-Sea-boat-North-Blood-Folk, and many more are known to have a none Indo-European origin.

Presumably these none Indo-European words come from the same now extinct language.Since Proto-Germanic evolved in Northern Germany/Denmark primarily then that must be the region that this non-Indo-European language was spoken.

Furthermore although Germanic is in the western Centum branch of Indo-European, i do not believe that the speakers of the Indo-European ancestor of Proto-Germanic came from central Europe ,which some people believe. In central Europe at that time you already would have had early Celtic language, but Proto-Germanic does not appear to be an off shoot of early Celtic, furthermore there are remarkable similarities between early Germanic and Baltic-slavic languages which suggests to me that the Indo-European core of Proto-Germanic came rather from the west Baltics ,there are many similar innovations in Germanic and Balto-Slavic , such as the uniform development of a high vowel (*u in the case of Germanic, *i/u in the case of Baltic and Slavic) before the PIE syllabic resonants *ṛ,* ḷ, *ṃ, *ṇ, unique to these two groups among IE languages. Baltic Dias God of the sky comparible to Proto-Germanic Tiwaz God of the sky amongst other things, or Baltic Gabija , Goddess of the hearth , but the meaning of Gabija is , to give, the giver, similar to early Germanic ,Gabi, and Proto-Germanic Gabi[j]az.

I do not doubt that the ethnicity of the non-Indo-European speaking people who lived in Northern Germany/Denmark was any different from their later Proto-Germanic speaking descendants just that they fused with a people who spoke a different language but no doubt were pretty much the same ethnically, they became the first Germanics.

I dont really see in all honesty what part Norway played in the birth of the first Germanics when Norway was on the fringes of this development, and only later do we find late Proto-Germanic Runic inscriptions in southern Norway.

Later on Germanic language became the dominant language in Norway and Sweden coming from the South, the pre-existing Nordic looking people thus became Germans.

From this perspective how can Norwegian DNA be considered typical of the Gemanic type? When we consider that a good number of the Genes we find in Norwegians today were probably already present in the non-Germanic speaking population when Proto-Germanic arrived there.

The truth is Germanics are people of Western/North western European origin, who have spoken a Germanic language for a long time. Proto-Germanic developed from two distinct languages, admitedly it is mainly Indo-European, and spread to different areas of Northern Europe quite quickly, areas which themselves may not have been linguistically Indo-European such as is probably the case in Norway. So who then is a Germanic? well i think i have answered that.When we speak of Germanic people what do we really mean? People who are descendants of the Proto-Germanic speakers or people who are descended from Nordic types who may have originally spoken none Indo-European languages , but were early on assimilated into early Germanic language and culture?
Of course the Proto-Germanics may have been quite Nordic looking bearing in mind the place they first appear, but none the less that place was not Norway.

Nagelfar
Sunday, June 28th, 2009, 07:20 AM
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9982/norway6ex.jpg


What is this "J" type being so prevalent, is it some odd nomenclature for HG I due to it's IJ macro-group? "I" is totally absent so that can be the only explanation but can someone explain that nomenclature in this instance?

Matamoros
Wednesday, July 1st, 2009, 10:07 AM
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/344/geneticmapofeurope530.jpg

Do you know which study the data for this graph comes from? I would like to analyse it myself, if possible.

BurgMeister
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010, 09:26 AM
Among mtdna haplogroups, true indo-european germanics can be classified in the K*, K1, K2a (CeltoGermanic), J* J1a, J1b1, T*, T2 (SlavoGermanic), T3 and T4 sub-groups.

That's raw but effective.
Other genes are mainly Basque accultured to indo-european cultures (H5a>accultured Celtic 9.000 yrs before christ)

Northern Paladin
Saturday, August 28th, 2010, 09:29 PM
Am I interpreting this correctly??? There's a genetic distance of .08337 for Ukraine, and of .08732 for Poland, while the Welsh, English, Scotish, and Irish have genetic distances of .24914, .13875, .18349, and .25813 respectively? Does this mean the northern Slavs are more Germanic than the Celts? Please explain

Melisande
Friday, April 1st, 2011, 07:23 PM
About 50% of men in the British Isles seem to older Celtic Y chromosome patterns, the rest Germanic. Since everyone is descended from both men and women, and there are so many generations of mating involved, that means most Brits (and Irish and Scots) are both Celtic and Germanic (genetically speaking).

Germanic, on this forum, seems to refer more specifically to culture, which is an entirely different question. Two sisters who married different men (one with Celtic Y chromosome, the other with continental Y chromosome), all of whom shared language, appearance and cultural practices (they were all blue-eyed, let's say) and raised their children side by side with traditional English cultural practices...would still have (boy) children with different Y chromosome patterns.

But culturally, these children would be speaking a largely Germanic language and they would be English by culture (which is sort of a moving target over the centuries, but still has, I believe, a core English-ness to it).

Hrafnsmerki
Sunday, April 3rd, 2011, 02:40 AM
I think we all more or less can agree on that the Germanic people (both with culture, language and genetics) originated in Denmark, Southern Sweden and Northern Germany. This is why putting Norway as the standard of which other regions/nations in Europe should be judged by wether they are Germanic or not is completly far fetched. Denmark would make a far better standard for comparison and would turn this analysis upside down.

Kauz R. Waldher
Wednesday, November 9th, 2011, 12:19 PM
I think it's funny that people are saying "if you have brown eyes, you aren't german". That is fucking ridiculous! It's been thousands of years of wars and exploits, conquests and invasions ... you cannot tell me that somewhere in your blood-line that there isn't a SINGLE brown eyed person. And even if your eyes aren't brown, you can carry the gene for it. Wouldn't that be kind of weird ... all your ancestors on mom's and dad's side looking exactly the same for thousands of years? Like that old horror movie, with all the kids that look exactly the same.

Northumbria
Monday, January 9th, 2012, 08:28 PM
Before I get into any arguments, would you propose any alternative definition for Germanics to the one I suggested?

Well I don't agree with basing "Germanicness" on genetics alone.

If you are saying that it is based on genetics then you're basically saying that Austria, Southern Germany, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Flanders and England aren't Germanic.

What does that leave you with? North+Central Germany, Netherlands and Scandinavia. :thumbsdwn The Germanic homelands correspond roughly to "Nordic Europe" and arguably have preserved more of the original Germanic culture than the rest of the Germanics who have built upon it or been influenced by other cultures.


Whilst the original Germanics spread from Southern Scandinavia and Northern Germany and would have been associated with certain subclades, I think it is a poor way of classifying people today.

The expansion of the Germanics in many areas was of a minority who imposed their culture onto the majority. This is similar to how the Celtic and Slavic cultures expanded.

I think we must look at history, culture, language and many other traits to determine whether a nation is Germanic or not and that has largely been done over and over again.
The problem is defining when an ethnicity is Germanic in culture or merely influenced by it such as with the Scottish.

Then there's also the fact that the Germanics probably started out as a hybrid group themselves - incoming Indo-Europeans (R1b, R1a) bringing better agriculture, pastoralism and lactose persistence met the indigenous hunter-gatherers (I1a) and the small "first farmer" minorities (J, E3b1).
This is probably why Germanic has a large pre-Indo-European substratum too.


Anyway, if you are going to say Austria, Southern Germany, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Flanders and England aren't Germanic then you may as well apply the title 'Germanic' to them and call the Scandinavians, Dutch and North Germans 'Nordic'.
This would be splitting the culture though and I don't think you;d find many people who'd support the idea. I think the culture is fine with its variations.

Or you could just accept that genetic differences exist and that the North Germanics are largely the original Germanics and that most West Germanics result from Celts being absorbed into Germanic culture.
The correlation is quite interesting, I wonder if the West Germanics became different from the North Germanics because they were largely absorbed Celts (I know geography and language are important factors too)?

MaximusMagnus
Friday, February 10th, 2012, 01:49 AM
I find it intersting that Coon claims the Franks are not Germanic. I find that historically very inaccuate.

First it assumes the Franks are a people, they aren't they were a confederation of German Tribes, that were located on both sides of the Rhine in Germania Magna and Germani Inferior.

Frank meant Free-They were they Free Tribes

The Franks were made up of the strongst and most renowed German tribes to include: the Sicambri, Chamavi, Bructeri, Chatti, Chattuarii, Ampsivarii, Tencteri and Ubii.

Further it flys in the face of the Historical truth that Ceaser emptied Germania inferior of any celtic tribes still remaining there and populated it with Germanic tribes suchs as the Marsi, Ubii and Matci in order to protect them from the other German tribes, until they joined with their cousins east of the Rhine.

The First Frankish Condederation contained the Cherusci, the Marsi, the Chatti, Sicambri, The Bruteria and the Chauci, under the leadership of Arminius, that defeated the Roman General Varus and annihilated his three legions at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. (colloquially known as "Hermann The German")

Further many of the Frank confederation were Saxon tribes

Then of course the second real confederation of the Frankish Tribes layed the smack down on the Romans and seized The remander of Modern Germany, Belgium and moved into france

Jens
Friday, May 11th, 2012, 02:59 PM
I find it questionable that you would define clearly Germanic groups, that speak German, identify as German, who's name is used to identify Germans as a whole in several languages (Alemannen), and are the only direct descendants of their branch of Germanics, as being fringe. Just because a few dominant physical genetic traits from the Celts are expressed in those populations doesn't change what they are. As the guardians of the Rhine and Alp borders to other cultures it is exactly those groups that define the difference and hold back other cultural influences. They know the difference and so should you.

It might also be interesting to note that Prussians (even the name itself) are partly Baltic. DNA profiling is FAR from being an accurate science, and just because Prussians share a similarity with Danes in one aspect doesn't make them more Germanic. During the Teutonic expansion there was lots of mixing between the Prussians (the real Baltic tribe. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pru%C3%9Fen), the Lithuanians, and the Germans. So much so that you identify with what is clearly Baltic tribal name.

You might also mention that the Kievan Rus and the later Russian Empire was carved out by Viking invaders. They were swallowed up and assimilated much like the Franks in Gaul. But it makes sense that there would be a shared genetic link considering the enormous amount of mixing that took place there throughout centuries of war. I would posit that the closer North German relation to the Danes is more BECAUSE of their mixing with these mixed Germano-Slavic=Baltic peoples than despite it, afterall, the other tribes moved south long before this happened and would have been unaffected.

The Nordics, Goths, and Germans are three distinct groups (as is reflected in the languages) that descend from a common Proto-Germanic root. A genetic correlation between one group of Germans to the Nordics that is not shared by other German tribes has to come from mixing with that group, it is not a hold-over, or other groups would also show traces of it. A Goth isn't less Germanic because he isn't Nordic, and neither is a German. Prussians having some Nordic DNA doesn't make them more Germanic either, just more Nordic than those groups. You can't ignore the fact that Nordic populations also continued to evolve as time went one, they can have unique genetic traits that have nothing to do with being especially Germanic.

If you're going to look at DNA you can always find something that is different that can set one group apart, what matters are the similarities that bind Germanic Peoples together.

Germaniathane
Sunday, October 23rd, 2016, 02:58 AM
Afrikaners are not true Germanic, in the sense that they racially mixed about 14% of their Dna is non-European or non-White! They are not only a mixture of Germanic with Latin ( French,Portuguese), Slavic (Polish), Middle-Eastern ( Lebanese). Quite a few are blond-haired as Germanic people are, but others are dark, with even non-European facial features ( flat noses for example) and so on. Afrikaners are not as Germanic as their Northern European ancestors.

Northumbria
Friday, May 12th, 2017, 09:17 PM
Regarding the English and our Celtic admixture, personally I don't think it matters. The Celts were the original great race of Western Europe, they just got fatally crippled from being attacked and assimilated from all sides (including by Germanics).
England itself doesn't "feel" as Germanic as the continental Germanic countries, then again it doesn't feel especially Celtic either. It is more a mixture of the two, but with a much greater Germanic cultural input then a lot of independent development on top of that (with being on an island for a thousand years without too much interaction with the other Germanic countries it has diverged a bit and developed more independently).

The interaction within the British Isles has shaped England a lot too, probably more so I'd say than with Swedes and their interaction with Finns and Lapps. Interaction with England has probably had a greater influence on the Celts though as interaction with Sweden effected Finland and is probably why it is considered Nordic and shares stuff in common with the North Germanic countries, so too can say Ireland be seen as part of the British group of peoples.

Catterick
Friday, May 12th, 2017, 09:52 PM
Language does not coincide 100% with race or culture. Around the edges as in England there would be blurring of race and culture. Caesar encountered the Belgae, a transitional group along the Celtic-Germanic fronteir who crossed into Gaul and then Britain. Placenames might indicate that a non-Celtic language was spoken by the Belgae, potentially a discrete branch of IE connected to the archaeological Nordwestblock.

Archaeologically its difficult to estimate who exactly was either Germanic or Celtic speaking in the absence of written language because peoples moved en masse and the cultures intergraded.

The Harpstedt and La Tène cultures almost certainly marked the border between the Germanic and Celtic speakers. Celtic is closer to Italic than to Germanic and this firmly established branch of IE called Italo-Celtic might include smaller families or isolates,such as Belgic, Luisitanian, Venetic and Ligurian. (I don't want to endorse texts such as March of the Titans but notice that the Italic languages including Latin arrived from the north.) Italo-Celtic shares archaicisms with other branches of IE and must have diverged early whereas Germanic possesses similarities to all three of Italo-Celtic, Balto-Slavic and Albanian. From the opobservation that when Germanic is excluded from datasets the IE tree is easily resolved, proto-Germanic can be understood as a contact language between IE branches. The fact that the Albanian language arrived late and mysteriously from somewhere to the the north (as close as Dardania?) cannot help place the Germanic urheimat whereas the similarity to both Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic can, and accords with other lines of evidence.

Over the past few years there have been a few trees proposed. This one is close to the consensus at present.

http://www.hartleyfamily.org.uk/IE_Language_Tree_by_Warnow.jpg

Juthunge
Saturday, May 13th, 2017, 12:17 AM
Well, a closer relationship with Albanian is quite unlikely. That’s a theory only really championed by Ringe, Warnow and consorts.
I don't think your tree is the current consensus, the consensus rather being, that Albanian is mostly unclassifiable in relation to other IE-languages.

Germanic is lately put close to Romance language, even closer than either of the two is put to Celtic. But that might have to do with the fact, that we lack enough knowledge of the Continental Celtic languages and Brittonnic languages might be a poor fit.


How would a relationship with Albanian even make sense, historically speaking? It presumes largely either of two theories:

1) A very late split of Germanic, Balto-Slavic and Albanian somewhere in the northern Balkans. Germanic and Balto-Slavic moving north, then west and east, Albanian moving south into a mountainous fringe area. But without leaving any trace among other languages.

2) All three moving north, Albanian splitting up and likewise moving south. This time the way covered is even longer but they still leave no trace among other languages.

Apart from that, Albanian is earliest attested since about the 14th century. To find such an old relationship by comparing Albanian of that date and contemporary Germanic languages would be nothing short of a miracle, even if it existed.

Genetically there’s no trace of such a migration either, Albanian Y-Haplogroup frequencies being among the most different ones from either Germanics or Slavs(or Celts, for that matter).

Shared features could most likely be explained by contact between Goths migrating south and proto-Albanians, Germanic-influenced Slavs migrating south and conserving linguistic features lost among other IE languages except for Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Catterick
Saturday, May 13th, 2017, 12:37 AM
Albanian is indeed an isolate within IE but it shares vocabulary with Baltic on the one hand and Daco-Mysian on the other. Hamp at least proposed a possible "Albanoid" presence as far north as Poland: but all we can say is that Albanian migrated southwards to its present location, it is uncontroversially IE and that its vocabulary is heavily latinised as opposed to the influence of Greek.

I am not thinking of Germanic origins in terms of a split in a tree, rather of reticulation with three out of at least four European IE branches contributing: one Italo-Celtic, one Balto-Slavic and something close to Albanian which is presumably as a survivor of lost languages (perhaps Daco-Mysian). Indeed the only surviving major branch of IE that seems not to have contributed, is Greco-Armenian. The mysterious arrival of the Albanians demonstrates they have a history of migration towards the south.

It is thought that Baltic and Celtic settlement in Poland was never extensive: this leaves open the question of who prewceded the Germanics and the Slavs. Perhaps someone undergoing a language shift in the past explains the divergence of Albanian Y chromosomes if the language migrated so far southward?

Juthunge
Saturday, May 13th, 2017, 01:51 AM
I am not thinking of Germanic origins in terms of a split in a tree, rather of reticulation with three out of at least four European IE branches contributing: one Italo-Celtic, one Balto-Slavic and something close to Albanian which is presumably as a survivor of lost languages (perhaps Daco-Mysian).
Since Balto-Slavic is undisputedly younger as a separate entity, directly contribution from it to Germanic is pretty much impossible. It's also not clear, if they even bordered Germanics in pre-history.

A shared origin would be possible, though, with some later language contact with Celtic.

So would be a shared origin with Italo-Celtic with later contact with Balto-Slavic, however.

Or, as a third option, a split somewhere in Hungary/Slovakia, the proto-Italo-Celts going up the Danube into Austria and southern Germany, the proto-Germanics going north into Bohemia, then following the Elbe up into northern Germany, the Balto-Slavs going northeast.
This is my personal unqualified theory, however.

Overall, the evidence for Albanian as a substrate seems too slim and circumstantial to me, in any case.


It is thought that Baltic and Celtic settlement in Poland was never extensive: this leaves open the question of who prewceded the Germanics and the Slavs.
They don’t have to be necessarily preceded by another Indo-European language. Germanic could have been endemic in western Poland. The Celts had certainly reached southern Silesia, though.


Albanian is indeed an isolate within IE but it shares vocabulary with Baltic on the one hand and Daco-Mysian on the other. Hamp at least proposed a possible "Albanoid" presence as far north as Poland: but all we can say is that Albanian migrated southwards to its present location, it is uncontroversially IE and that its vocabulary is heavily latinised as opposed to the influence of Greek.

The mysterious arrival of the Albanians demonstrates they have a history of migration towards the south.
Thinking about it, it’s possible they were akin to the Vlachs who roamed all the way from Romania to the Peloponnese.
Being well north of the Jircek line, hat could account for their strong Latin influences but without giving up much of their Dacian language, opposed to the Vlachs/Romanians, as well as possible (Eastern) Germanic and Balto-Slavic influences. Haplogroups E-V13 and J2 are certainly very common among Romanians

On the other hand, both haplogroups are even more common in the Kosovo, the Albanian sared land.
which is also already north of the Jirecek line. I don’t think in that light we would have to go much further north than that.

Catterick
Saturday, May 13th, 2017, 02:30 AM
I often wonder what the Vlachs spoke prior to their language shift. Yes I do wonder if on day we might find out. Historical sources are not clear as to which group of Balkans nomads is which but the Romanisation of the Vlachs certainly has to do with peoplealong the Roman limes. The Latin influence upon Albanian took place in such a context that much terminology was replaced, but not that relating to montane environments.

Sigrun Kara
Sunday, October 28th, 2018, 06:27 PM
The comparison with Norway also demonstrates, I think, the areas that are almost purely Celtic, namely Ireland, Wales and the Basque.
Iceland is genetically in the same category as countries such as England, Scotland and France where they are a Germanic and Celtic mixture, despite Icelandic culture being purely Germanic. To me, their culture and language make Iceland indisputably Germanic.
Hungary and Poland being genetically close to Norway is interesting. I suspect this is from Germans immigrating to those countries. Some of the most renowned Hungarian families are of German descent, like the gens Gutkeled of Swabian descent, gens Pápa of Bavarian descent, and also Balogh, Hahót, Győr and others.

fjaran
Sunday, October 28th, 2018, 08:00 PM
The comparison with Norway also demonstrates, I think, the areas that are almost purely Celtic, namely Ireland, Wales and the Basque.
Iceland is genetically in the same category as countries such as England, Scotland and France where they are a Germanic and Celtic mixture, despite Icelandic culture being purely Germanic. To me, their culture and language make Iceland indisputably Germanic.
Hungary and Poland being genetically close to Norway is interesting. I suspect this is from Germans immigrating to those countries. Some of the most renowned Hungarian families are of German descent, like the gens Gutkeled of Swabian descent, gens Pápa of Bavarian descent, and also Balogh, Hahót, Győr and others.

You have someone who I assume is polish, as they often refer to themselves as "Prussian" since they are ashamed of their polish ancestry for whatever reason. That is maybe a topic for another thread. In any case he was dubiously comparing claimed Y markers and nothing more, drawing his own conclusions and even noting that it must be viewed with "appropriate skepticism." I am not even sure what exactly the data was comparing and how they were coming to their conclusions.

You will know who you feel familiar with and who you do not, it is instinctual. This is true for everyone. There is actual genetic mapping of Europe available as well, a common one below:

https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Northwest-European-admixture.gif

fjaran
Monday, November 5th, 2018, 02:54 AM
You have someone who I assume is polish, as they often refer to themselves as "Prussian" since they are ashamed of their polish ancestry for whatever reason. That is maybe a topic for another thread. In any case he was dubiously comparing claimed Y markers and nothing more, drawing his own conclusions and even noting that it must be viewed with "appropriate skepticism." I am not even sure what exactly the data was comparing and how they were coming to their conclusions.

You will know who you feel familiar with and who you do not, it is instinctual. This is true for everyone. There is actual genetic mapping of Europe available as well, a common one below:

https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Northwest-European-admixture.gif

Link above is broken at times.

113785