Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76

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

  1. #21
    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 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerled
    [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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thiuda
    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
    Last edited by WestPrussian; Friday, January 13th, 2006 at 12:34 AM.

  2. #22
    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
    913
    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 WestPrussian
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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...
    1. Culturally and qua language they are Germanic (as they were considered by neighbouring peoples)
    2. 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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 )
    Last edited by The Black Prince; Wednesday, January 18th, 2006 at 09:40 PM.

  3. #23
    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
    913
    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
    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...of-norway.html


    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.
    Last edited by The Black Prince; Wednesday, January 18th, 2006 at 09:41 PM.

  4. #24
    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 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

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

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

  5. #25
    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
    913
    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
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPrussian
    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.
    Last edited by The Black Prince; Thursday, January 19th, 2006 at 06:04 PM.

  6. #26
    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 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    OK it’s time for me to join the discussion again! You wrote

    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Prince
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Prince
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Prince

    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):

    Quote Originally Posted by Coon
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Prince
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Zerjal et al 2001
    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.
    Last edited by WestPrussian; Sunday, May 7th, 2006 at 12:19 AM.

  7. #27
    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
    913
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

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

    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?)?

  8. #28
    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 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

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

    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dupuy et al
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dupuy et al

    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dupuy et al
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dupuy et al
    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 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 [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

    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). Name:  Figure01.gif
Views: 62
Size:  20.0 KBThey suggest the following explanation for this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Zerjal et al 2001
    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 ) 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.

  9. #29
    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
    913
    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 WestPrussian
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by The Black Prince
    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)



    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.

  10. #30
    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 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    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)

Page 3 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
  •