Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 76

Thread: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Prussian diaspora
    Gender
    Politics
    Prussian restoration
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    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 differentiation
    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:
    • 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.

  2. #12
    Account Inactive nurnberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 @ 05:12 AM
    Country
    Other Other
    Gender
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    69
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    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.






  3. #13
    Account Inactive Huzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 09:35 PM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Paganist
    Posts
    2,488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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

  4. #14
    Senior Member Waarnemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, June 11th, 2009 @ 07:42 PM
    Subrace
    keltic nordid - trønder
    Gender
    Politics
    fascism
    Posts
    571
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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".
    Last edited by Waarnemer; Sunday, January 8th, 2006 at 12:59 PM.

  5. #15
    Sound methods Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Flemish
    Ancestry
    Frankish
    Country
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Gender
    Occupation
    Gender specialist
    Politics
    Völkisch traditionalist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    3,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,315
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,249
    Thanked in
    976 Posts

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    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.
    “Individuals trapped in a dying culture live in a twilight world. They embrace death through infertility, concupiscence, and war. A dog will crawl into a hole to die. The members of sick cultures do not do anything quite so dramatic, but they cease to have children, dull their senses with alcohol and drugs, become despondent, and too frequently do away with themselves. Or they make war on the perceived source of their humiliation.”
    — David P. Goldman, as quoted by Jack Donovan in The Way of Men.

  6. #16
    Senior Member The Black Prince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 24th, 2006 @ 11:10 PM
    Location
    Fryslân
    Gender
    Occupation
    Student
    Posts
    914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Thiuda
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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:


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

    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...

  7. #17
    Senior Member The Black Prince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 24th, 2006 @ 11:10 PM
    Location
    Fryslân
    Gender
    Occupation
    Student
    Posts
    914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerled
    May'be the Frisian are far away from the Norwegians, but they are indeed extremely close to England.

    Weale:


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



    delivering this scheme:

  8. #18
    Account Inactive nurnberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Tuesday, January 10th, 2006 @ 05:12 AM
    Country
    Other Other
    Gender
    Religion
    Atheist
    Posts
    69
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Thiuda
    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.



  9. #19
    Senior Member The Black Prince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Online
    Sunday, December 24th, 2006 @ 11:10 PM
    Location
    Fryslân
    Gender
    Occupation
    Student
    Posts
    914
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Quote Originally Posted by nurnberg

    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.)
    Last edited by The Black Prince; Monday, January 9th, 2006 at 06:36 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Location
    Prussian diaspora
    Gender
    Politics
    Prussian restoration
    Posts
    101
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Quote Originally Posted by Nurnberg
    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 Somerled
    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...
    Last edited by WestPrussian; Thursday, January 12th, 2006 at 11:49 PM.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Style of Ancient Germanics Comparing with Modern Germanics
    By Curious in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: Monday, January 30th, 2012, 12:35 AM
  2. What is in a Name? Should Germanics Have Germanic Names?
    By Rächer in forum Genealogy & Ancestry DNA
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: Friday, January 13th, 2012, 02:20 PM
  3. The Most Germanic Among Germanics - The 'B.B.M.H. Pocket'
    By +Suomut+ in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Sunday, May 30th, 2004, 11:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •