Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 77

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Who is Germanic? The Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics

    Who Is Germanic? Germanic Origins in Northern Europe and the Evolutionary Distinctiveness of Modern Germanics as Measured by Population Genetic Studies

    Table of Contents:
    1. Motivation
    2. Germanic Origins - Identification of Germanic Types [Coon]
    3. Definition of Germanics based on their Origins in Northern Europe
    4. Germanic Expansions and Racial Integrity [Coon]
    5. Population Genetic Studies
    6. Dupuy et al [Article in Press] on the Genetic Differentiation between Norwegians and other European Populations
    7. Results [Dupuy et al, Article in Press]
    8. Identification of Modern Germanic Populations and of their Genetic Distance to other European Populations [Dupuy et al, Article in Press]
    9. Implications of Y-Chromosome and mtDNA Polymorphisms for Individual Countries
    10. Who Is Germanic? Summary and Conclusions

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to WestPrussian For This Useful Post:

  3. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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 preservation
    there 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.

    1. 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. 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.

    2. 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.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to WestPrussian For This Useful Post:

  5. #3
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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:

    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.
    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.

  6. #4
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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 Germany
    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].

    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.

  7. #5
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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.
    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.

  8. #6
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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]

  9. #7
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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.

  10. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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

    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:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fig1.jpg 
Views:	202 
Size:	76.4 KB 
ID:	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 whole
    South, 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)





































































    * These results do not show significant differences


    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.

  11. #9
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Fig6.jpg 
Views:	355 
Size:	84.1 KB 
ID:	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 Latvia
    The 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
    • Finland
    Dupuy 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:

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

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

    8 Ukraine .08337 Первомайск
    9 Poland .08732 Włocławek

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

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

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

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

    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.

  12. #10
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 01:47 AM
    Prussian diaspora
    Prussian restoration
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

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


    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
    • Baden
    A more detailed look at individual countries is indicated.

    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 2005
    Therefore, 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.

    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.

    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 [in Northern Germany]; 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].

    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.

    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.

    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].

    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 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 Germanics
    Based 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 invaders
    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].

    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 here
    In 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.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by WestPrussian; Saturday, January 7th, 2006 at 11:43 PM.

Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Most Germanic Among Germanics - The 'B.B.M.H. Pocket'
    By +Suomut+ in forum Germanic & Indo-Germanic Origins
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 3 Weeks Ago, 09:48 AM
  2. What is in a Name? Should Germanics Have Germanic Names?
    By Rächer in forum Genealogy & Ancestry DNA
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: Sunday, January 10th, 2021, 11:00 PM
  3. Style of Ancient Germanics Comparing with Modern Germanics
    By Curious in forum Fashion & Beauty
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: Saturday, April 25th, 2020, 08:58 PM


Posting Permissions

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