Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Who were ancestors of Germanic tribes and where did they come fr
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
CedricEmrys View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 12-Feb-2018
Location: Connecticut
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26 		  Quote CedricEmrys Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Who were ancestors of Germanic tribes and where did they come fr
    Posted: 20-Feb-2018 at 08:31
Originally posted by Killabee

I think they moved from the Scandinavia  and settled down in the West and Central Europe region during the Roman Empire Period. Hence, Scandinavian and German are closely related linguistically and racially.
Other way around, they originated in southern Germany and moved north and south into italy
Buaidh no bàs
Back to Top
CedricEmrys View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 12-Feb-2018
Location: Connecticut
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26 		  Quote CedricEmrys Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Feb-2018 at 08:29
Originally posted by Maju

Right. Denmark and other Nordic regions were settled by people from Central and or Western Europe (of post-Magdalenian culture ) in the late Paleolithic (epi-Paleolithic), when the ice cap melted and the warmer climate allowed for it.

But these peoples surely didn't speak Indo-European (Germanic) tongues. They acquired them at some point in the following process:
  1. In the 4th milennium BCE, pre-IE peoples from Ukraine move northwards to the Baltic shores and then to Denamrk and Sweden creating a hybrid culture (central Sweden is colonized then)
  2. In the 3rd milennium BCE, IE peoples known variously as the Battle Axe peoples and the Corded Ware people expand into all Central Europe from Belarus to Western Germany. A variation of them (the Individual Burials culture) takes over the Scandinavian region. This is one of the moments that can be considered at the origin of Germanic linguistic group.
  3. In the Bronze Age (c. 1300 BCE) the IE peoples of the Urnfields culture, stabilished north of the Alps expand in deferent directions, influencing the Nordic and East-Central European (IE) cultures. I'm uncertain if this influence can be considered as a invasion or not. If so, it could be another startpoint of Germanization.
It's pretty clear that Germanic and Italic (Latin) tongues are closely relatead inside the Western IE group. Nevertheless the archaeological logic of this connection is obscure. Much would be understood if, as some propose, Celtic languages (participant of the Urnfields phenomenon for sure) are also in that Westernmost goup... but others seem to find them pretty distant.

Whatever the case, the Germanic peoples appear formed with the Iron Age in Scandinavia and Northern Germany, and, benefitting from a weakness of the Celtic socio-political structure, they start scratching their territory in what now is Central and Southern Germany, Czech Republic and other nearby regions. This German expansionism is mentioned as causant of the migration of the Helveti that caused Caesars' intevention in Gaul.

I have no idea where you’re getting this Ukraine’s thing from, the Germanic tribes originated in the Hallstatt culture, the same place the southern German and northern Italian Celts came from. And the Germanic and Italic languages were similar because they both descended from said Hallstatt culture.
Buaidh no bàs
Back to Top
CedricEmrys View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 12-Feb-2018
Location: Connecticut
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26 		  Quote CedricEmrys Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2018 at 13:51
Originally posted by Komnenos

Not that again. Not another try to portray the Franks as anything else but Germanic. Didn't you try to sell us the idea that the Franks were actually Gauls a few month ago. New research done since?

As we all know, the Franks originated as a federation of smaller West-Germanic tribes, settled in what is now The Netherlands and the German federal states of Lower-Saxony and North-Rhine Westphalia, who a few centuries earlier had come down from Scandinavia.
The first Frank that ever came close to the Caucasus was Charlemagne's ambassador on the way to the Harun al-Raschid in Bagdad.
This is correct, the Franks were a group of Germanic tribes who invaded the Celtic lands in France which forced the Celts to invade the Roman Empire through Spain and Carthage, and then the Franks set their eyes on the empire, although the Goths got there first.
Buaidh no bàs
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925 		  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2014 at 13:58
Unfortunately have I lost the link, where linguists show, that Renfrew's theorie is flawed. But it seems, that his thesis can not be supported, allthough it is interesting.
Back to Top
MarK View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 14-Aug-2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1 		  Quote MarK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Aug-2014 at 09:32
Interesting thread this! How about this theory about the birth of IE language in Anatolia, does it put things on a different footing? 
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120823175406.htm


Edited by medenaywe - 14-Aug-2014 at 10:29
Back to Top
Athena View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 28-Sep-2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 403 		  Quote Athena Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2011 at 20:21
How did all these people get divided?   Were they always different groups, or at sometime were they all part of the migration from Africa?  How important are the differences?
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084 		  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2011 at 03:10
For me they were Persian mercenaries that had inhabited those territories and mixed with natives.How did they come here would have been complex question for answering!?!Germans are biggest enigma inside my
history book. 
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
suspended

Joined: 23-Sep-2009
Location: Long Beach, MS,
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4620 		  Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jul-2010 at 12:53
Dear Stallonpesa! Sorry I don't know how to place your screen name without copy and pasting!

I have but a few questions about your posts!

Did you really read and evaluate the numerous posts that preceeded yours?

Heck, a pretty good book could be written based just upon all of those great posts!

For myself, I merely consider "Germans" as "germain!", or "related!"
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
Back to Top
Stallonpesä View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3 		  Quote Stallonpesä Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 21:51
So: (3) The question of "who were the ancestors of germanic groups" is really a pointless question.
Back to Top
Stallonpesä View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3 		  Quote Stallonpesä Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 21:47
..And: The development of cultures happened much later in nordic history then in other parts of the world. This was because the nordic areas still resided in a "Stone age", when the ice really started to melt about 12000 years ago.
 
Germanic and also finno-ugric languages developed in Scandinavia and Europe quite late in human history -at a point in time where Europe had been inhabited for quite a while.
 
The cultural features today and in the near past tell nothing or little about genetic heritage. This is because cultural mixes and changes don´t follow biological heritage - it only might do so.
 
The genetic markers detected in nordic and baltic populations are:
 
K, U , U5, m253, m231, Z,  p37 2.  Some of these markers are also found in large parts of the world.
 
Most probably, the cultural development in the north of Europe came a long while after the coming/migration of quite many small groups of people venturing into the northern plains created by the melting of ice-caps.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Stallonpesä View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3 		  Quote Stallonpesä Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jul-2010 at 21:35
When the ice retired in Europe about 10,000 years ago, several paleolithic and mesolithic groups mixed in the nordic areas.
 
The idea that there are distinct groups of people historically doesnt seem to be correct at all (only with a few exceptions).
 
The idea that swedes and norwegians and danish are of the same, near ancestry is not correct. Swedes have a closer genetic relation to estonians and the finns. Danish are europeans.
 
Norwegians in east and central parts have the closest genetic relations to the polish (Poland). Only the southwest norwegians are close to dutch, danish and british in genetic relations.
 
Take a look at the Genographic website.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925 		  Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 13:22
I am always wondering why you ask for Germanic ancestors and then you'll come to the palaeolithic times, to neanderthalers and so on. And the genetics, well, if people really think their is a typical germanic gene they are wrong. The Germanics did not come from one nucleus, they developed from different groups in Danmark and northern Germany. In the south there was a border to the celts. It is difficult to say when the Germanics developed themselves. Some say in bronze age, some earlier, some later. Their name 'Germanic' was given by Cesar. But he saw them as non-celtic or non-gaulic tribes. But he also called tribes in eastern gaul as Germanic, so the Treveri and parts of the Belgae. In Germany and Danmark we have two cultures in the early iron age. The Harpstedt-Nienburger-Kultur and the Jastorf-Kultur. In Skandinavia and parts of Danmark there was another one. In former eastern Germany and Poland there it was the Gesichtsurnenkultur and in the centuries BC the Oksywie- and Przeworsk-Kultur and with the beginning of AC the Wielbark-Kultur. If we say the first Germanics were the ancestors of all these culture it could be possible we are reaching the first Germanic. But is this right? Than we come to the early bronze Age or to the Neolithics. This is probably not correct. It is better we think the germanic growing as an effect of the difference to the celtic nations of La-Tene perhaps of the Hallstatt people. That means non-celtic tribes in the north started about 600 BC to get a common feeling of being different to the celts. I'm sorry for my bad english. I try to refresh it. I hope I wrote my meanings in a way you can understand it.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300 		  Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2006 at 21:49

News about the Sami origin;

A recent genetic link between Sami and the Volga-Ural region of Russia

Max Ingman1,2 and Ulf Gyllensten1

  1. 1Department of Genetics and Pathology, Rudbeck Laboratory, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden
  2. 2Centre for Integrative Genomics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

Correspondence: Professor U Gyllensten, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Rudbeck Laboratory, University of Uppsala, Uppsala 75185, Sweden. Tel: +46 18 471 49 09; Fax: +46 18 471 49 31; E-mail: ulf.gyllensten@genpat.uu.se

Received 14 March 2006; Revised 11 July 2006; Accepted 2 August 2006; Published online 20 September 2006.

Top of page

Abstract

The genetic origin of the Sami is enigmatic and contributions from Continental Europe, Eastern Europe and Asia have been proposed. To address the evolutionary history of northern and southern Swedish Sami, we have studied their mtDNA haplogroup frequencies and complete mtDNA genome sequences. While the majority of mtDNA diversity in the northern Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish Sami is accounted for by haplogroups V and U5b1b1, the southern Swedish Sami have other haplogroups and a frequency distribution similar to that of the Continental European population. Stratification of the southern Sami on the basis of occupation indicates that this is the result of recent admixture with the Swedish population. The divergence time for the Sami haplogroup V sequences is 7600 YBP (years before present), and for U5b1b1, 5500 YBP amongst Sami and 6600 YBP amongst Sami and Finns. This suggests an arrival in the region soon after the retreat of the glacial ice, either by way of Continental Europe and/or the Volga-Ural region. Haplogroup Z is found at low frequency in the Sami and Northern Asian populations but is virtually absent in Europe. Several conserved substitutions group the Sami Z lineages strongly with those from Finland and the Volga-Ural region of Russia, but distinguish them from Northeast Asian representatives. This suggests that some Sami lineages shared a common ancestor with lineages from the Volga-Ural region as recently as 2700 years ago, indicative of a more recent contribution of people from the Volga-Ural region to the Sami population.

European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication 20 September 2006; doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201712
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300 		  Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Sep-2006 at 21:59

According to Professor Hawks (see above) present studies of the Eurasian sites - from the paleolittic and mesolittic periods - clearly indicates that "modern man" migrated into Eurasia during the end of ice-time - from the north...!

Thus the imediate relevance to this topic.
 
 
At this point in time it's darn sure that - so far - nothing is for sure... Exclamation


Edited by Boreasi - 26-Sep-2006 at 22:11
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1423 		  Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 09:25
    


I think we should not pay great credit to the theories of Mrs. Gimbutas.


I know surely that she is a nationalistic dreamer. She is Litunianian and due the cultural connections between Lituania and Romania, she attributed to Romania the role of Origin of All World Civilizationss which surely is not true.

Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300 		  Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2006 at 02:52
In 1956, Marija Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis combining archaelogy with linguistics to locate the origins of the Proto-Indo-European speaking peoples. She tentatively named the set of cultures in question "Kurgan" after the Russian term for their distinctive burial mounds and traced their diffusion into Europe.

This hypothesis has had a significant impact on Indo-European research. Those scholars who follow Gimbutas identify a Kurgan or Pit Grave Culture as reflecting an early Proto-Indo-European ethnicity which existed in the Pontic steppe and southeastern Europe from the fifth to the third millennia BCE.

Gimbutas later amended her hypothesis with the identification of the Ubaidians as the Dnieper Donets Culture, a Baltic people who moved south, following the Dnieper river toward the Crimea when sea levels began to rise around the Baltic. These were the Proto-Indo-Europeans who settled in Urheimat, the Indo-European homeland, where they remained until the Black Sea flood around 5600 BCE. Gimbutas writes that the Dnieper Donets people were descendants of Paleolithic Cro-Magnon man. Their pottery is related to the Baltic Memel Culture and their burial practices are similar to those found at Zvejnieki, the largest and oldest cemetery in all of northern Europe, which is dated to the Mesolithic prehistoric period between 7000 and 5000 BCE.

Gimbutas also believed that the Mesopotamian Sumerians and Samarians were the same people as the Cimmeri, an Indo-European tribal name whose root can be found in the Latvian word for Northerners, Ziemeli. She points to parallels in pottery design and burial customs from the Baltic, Boian, Dnieper, Sumerian, and Pre-dynastic Nile cultures as proof of the link.

From 6800 to 5600 BCE, a relatively uniform culture of hunters and fishers extended from the western Baltic to southwestern Finland. Hunters and fishers living in small groups on the banks of streams and lakes remained in the Baltic to hunt elk, the most predominant faunal type of this period. The ancient burial site at Zvejnieki dates from this period and reflects burial customs similar to those at least 23000 years older along the range inhabited by these same people. From the massivity of the bones excavated at Zvejnieki, it can be concluded that these Cro-Magnons were the same Scandinavian type found in the Maglemose and Ertebeles cultures.

Between 6000 and 4800 BCE, similar anthropological types populated the Upper Volga, the Upper Oka, and were found in the Dnieper / Donetz culture of the Ukraine, suggesting that the direction of cultural migration may originally have been from the west and north to south - not vice-versa.

Breidaks, in his study, Concerning the Parallels Between Baltic and Ancient Languages, published in 1977, noted parallels between the Baltic languages and the ancient Balkan languages, "A number of Baltic terms for bodies of water (especially rivers) stem from the most ancient stratum of Indo-European hydronymy. These terms occupy an important position for resolution of questions regarding the pre-history of Indo-European peoples, including their mutual relations, their place of origin, their ancient migrations, etc.

"In the last several decades, it has been frequently noted in linguistic writings that Baltic toponymy in many respects embraces the ambit of Central Europe... particularly... to the relation between Baltic and Illyrian (as well as to the Eastern neighbors of the latter, the Thracians and Dacians)...the archaeologist T. Sulimirski and the linguists I. Duridanov and W. Porzig are of the opinion that the Baltic, Thracian and Dacian peoples were long neighbors to each other in the pre-Christian era."

While the Basques belong to the group which inhabited Europe, the group is known as Aquitanian. Their language was spoken in ancient Aquitaine between the Pyrenees and the Garonne before the Roman conquest. Archaeological, toponymical and historical evidence suggest that it was a dialect or group of dialects related to the Basque language.
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300 		  Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2006 at 02:02
Maju,
 
Just another, recent comment regarding genetics and origin:
 


Edited by Boreasi - 15-Sep-2006 at 02:12
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Boreaz View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16-Apr-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Boreaz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 11:35
It goes without saying that the IE and the Chinese - had to construct one enormous wall - to avoid the Peking-men from talking to the proto-IE.  As they were kept in complete separatation by these bricks they could impossibly been evolving other than in complete separation, which the present genetics and language clearly proves.  Yoodeldee, yoodledum - here's a shaman with a drum.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2006 at 20:18
Let me get this conventional wisdom straight. 
1) IE's evolved right next to Mongols in Central Asia but look nothing like each other.
2) IE's somehow developed blonde hair before going to N. Europe.  I'm sure polar bears and arctic wolves also developed white fur before they migrated north as well.
3) Cro-Magnons and other advanced men's bones are far older that are found in Europe then anywhere else but the IE invasions came from Asia.
4) The show stopper: modern man came from Africa 76,000 years ago.  Why not from China?  Homo Erectus has been in China for over a million years, maybe 2.  Surely time enough to evolve into modern man and come on over to Europe.
Back to Top
Boreaz View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 16-Apr-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Boreaz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2006 at 12:58

More evidences of the Red Paint People - and the possible origins of the North- European cultures, presented by reknown professionals...

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba61/feat3.shtml

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba61/news.shtml#item1



Edited by Boreaz
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.