Print Page | Close Window

Ancient Peoples DNA

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Description: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
Moderators: Leonidas, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=27316
Printed Date: 19-Sep-2019 at 22:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Ancient Peoples DNA
Posted By: Barbapapa
Subject: Ancient Peoples DNA
Date Posted: 29-May-2009 at 23:23
Dead



Replies:
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 21:24
How on earth can they find racial DNA? We can only talk about phenotypes and such not Germanic or Hellenic or Phoenician DNA. ANd let's not get started on the "Macedonian" one....Thumbs Down


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 22:01
This looks  weird. The only real way to do those comparisons would be detailed comparison of genetical markers of modern  nations with those of the past. This is possible but requires a lot of labour and money. As far as I know it wasn't done yet apart from rare cases. Was this study published somewhere?
 


-------------
.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 23:12
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 23:29
Dead


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 30-May-2009 at 23:58
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

 
A lot of companies already found that genes are blocked by language barriers and even more by cultural barriers.

means: a mutation spreads pretty well inside a region of identical language but does very hard flow into a region with different language and extremely hard flow into a region with different culture.

In 90% of the cases people are genetically closer related to people who live 1000km away and speak the same language than to people who live 100km away but speak a different language.
 
I wouldn't generalize it so much. Look at the following sudies:
 
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/1077 - http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/6/1077
http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Rosser2000.pdf - http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Rosser2000.pdf
 
Distribution of many other markers also contradict to what you are saying. Look for instance different marker compositions in different slavonic nations.


-------------
.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 00:04
Dead


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 01:14
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


But let me guess, your Slavonic nationalist?
then possibly you could call me brother because of my haplogroupTongue
Am I what? Smile
Anyway, I still think that systematic studies done with DNA extracted from Ancient remains were not performed, although they are obviously important for understanding population movements.


-------------
.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 01:59
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 02:57
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 03:13
Dead


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 12:10
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


They claim they did and that they are the only ones who did. So you claim they are lyers and make this up. ;)

Well, the company is not a nobody.
German TV doctumentaries about DNA research quote them.
I know at least 4 German newspapers/magazines that made an interview with them about this.
And they are kind of national heros of FYROM (ROFL...for claiming that FYROM is 30% Macedonian) and national enemies of Greece (for claiming that FYROM is only 15% Slavonic while any greek child learns in school that FYROMS are 100% slavonic).

if they are lyers and sharlatans, then they are quiet well known ones who preached their lies in the mass media. (wich is not very smart if you know exactly you tell shit)

Right? ;)

 
I do not say they are liers and charlatans. But I would prefer to read the publication in a peer reviewed journal (like for instance Human Molecular Genetics or similar type), so that I can see where did samples come from; how were they discovered;  based on what arguments were they classified as Ancient Celts, Macedonians, Thracians, Slavs; how systematic was the study was etc.etc.etc. Untill that I will reserve some doubts about this study.


-------------
.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 18:58
How come Belorus is always the same colour?

-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 19:26
Hi Barbarossa, welcome to AE! Smile I remember your posts in Heavengames from 7 and 8 years ago!
 
What is your idea about it:
 


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 22:30
I saw this about a year ago...The namings like Vorian said are a joke. Just look at the "Wikinger", "Germaner" in Skandinavia.... Trust me, the Skandinavians have done plenty of research before this Igenea. And where are the Samis btw? LOL In Scandinavia, we have a lot of Sami herritage as well, but it seems those guys haven't heard about it.

Also, just Bulgaria is marked as Thrakier (I have never heard this term in Genetics). So, what about Romania? What about Serbia? What about western Turkey?

It is amuzing!
I suggest you rely mostly on internationally respected organizations like this http://https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html - http://https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html

otherwise you'll find companies that will make you a martian or a Klingon in order to get your money.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 31-May-2009 at 23:47
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 00:24
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 06:03
Dead


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 08:40
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

Belarus is always the same color, because there is no data about it.
Green = no Data avaible about this country.

Quote And where are the Samis btw?

On the "Diverse" map.

Finland: 8% Sami.
I however wonder too, why there is not even 1% Sami in Norway or Sweden. ;)



Yes, it is impossible not to find Sami DNA amongst Swedes. I mean, one of the most typical characteristics I recognize on Scandinavians is the upper cheeks, which is evident influence from the Samis. Even 8% in Finland (where an Uralic language like the Sami is being spoken) is too little. Also, Wikinger as it says means Svear, Götar and other minor tribes that all together equal Germanic. If you ask me, it's crap based on what i've seen so far. Have a look for example on the Atlas of the human journey i posted earlier. It shows in detail the chromosomes found in every nation, which nations have common chromosomes, how they've moved, where they came from etc. Furthermore, it agrees with whatever DNA report i've seen so far.




-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 09:57
The study of DNA has certainly revolutionised our knowledge of human ancestry and migration patterns.
Nevertheless, many extremists also use the same data for manipulation purposes; so before believing in any articles published on the internet, always think twice about the reliability of the source. As a fact, many, if not most personal blogs about "anthropology" are not published by true anthropologists, but by racists or extreme nationalists to try to convince the public of their biological agenda through manipulation of scientific facts.

I'm not saying that what you've published is wrong, it's just a cautionary note.

So far, I've heard many contradicting versions of the same study with the same data; one of which is regarding the percentage of North African and Near Eastern markers in the Iberian peninsula. Some studies yielded a low 2% while other yielded a high 30%. Knowing the exact truth is probably a very complex procedure.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 12:43

Quote Goth from Mesopotamia 1000 BC?

Not actually Mesopotamia but western Iran, more exactly Luristan where Kassites lived, the ancient name, according to this article: http://www.kellscraft.com/HistoryofBabylonians/HistoryOfBabyloniansCh03.html - THE KASSITE CONQUEST OF BABYLONIA was the land of the Kassites, the Guti, Padan, and Alman.

Quote I mean, the Goth that we know belong mainly to R1a, wich led to the conclusion that they are NOT from Sweden, as they claim but from Poland.

Why R1a?! You know that Haplogroup R1a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA ) has the highest frequencies among Indo-Iranian peoples (North Indians 48%-72%, Tajik/Khojant 64%, ...), it can be true about Poles and other Eastern European peoples because of their Iranian ancestors like Sarmatians, Scythians, Iazyges, ... but why Germanic Goths?! Shouldn't it be Haplogroup I which has the highest frequencies in Scandinavia, the region in the northwest of Black sea and the Western Iran?



Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 15:32
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 15:46
Dead


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 16:50
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:



Well, there is only a handfull of Norse and Swedes that ever made a DNA Test.

It simply could happen that not enough Sami from Sweden or Norway made a test to be significant. Wink

But for the missing Sami in Noway and Sweden: I would simply say.... not enough of them did a DNA Test yet. ;)



But that's not the way it works. It doesn't matter how many make the test...

If the results are based on how many people take the test then it cannot be accurate.

Most western countries have a DNA-bank of their citizens. That's where material is taken for research and comparison, not by the testers themselves. Has Igenea in this case contacted for example the Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish authorities to get a sample bank + samples from relics of dead people that have been found in ancient graves?

I'm pretty sure i had some great great great great sami ancestors (Like probably most Swedish people) and i say this cause my swedish family has a tree from 1516AD onwards. In that case as you mention, if i took the test then no sami ancestry would be found in me. If amongst 1000 people in Sweden not a single "sami marker" is found then something is terribly wrong. If for the same amount only 8% is found in Finland, then something is terribly wrong again.

Now, while browsing the site, something that struck me is that there's no Hallogroup http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/N_large_RG.jpg - N in Finland nor a LLY22 nor a http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288139 - U (or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_%28mtDNA%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_(mtDNA) ) nor a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K_%28Y-DNA%29 - K !!! Those are groups i have seen to appear in Finland in all other genetic reports. How come they are completely absent?

http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=15 - http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=15

When it comes to Sweden ( http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=47 - http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=47 ) the Hallogroups I1A (m253), K and U are completely absent!!!

Now, have a look on this comment as well: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090524093928AALHMso - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090524093928AALHMso

Quote
I'm afraid iGENEA doesn't make any sense.
It's been said that they use ambiguous suppositions and unclear labels to obtain (misleading) statistical inferences. Moreover it's been rumoured that they are merely selling ancestry information, of whichever origin the buyer is ready to pay for. If we already know that humans have 99% similar DNA, and that iGENEA research has a large margin of error, up to 15%, according to some genomic experts, then what is really verifiable in their studies?
When we consider that genetic tests cannot determine ethnic identity, the results become even more misleading.

A more reliable source is the article "The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing" (Science 19 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5849, pp. 399 - 400 DOI: 10.1126/science.1150098). The 2 most important premises in the article are:

1. The tests track only a very SMALL portion of your DNA (less than 1 percent of a person's genome!)
2. The tests cannot determine ethnic identity.

The most important flaw on the part of iGENEA would be that their methodology has not been published in any peer reviewed journal.
This alone may be proof enough that what they're doing has no real scientific value.

Source(s):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/318/5849/399 - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/sh...







-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:17
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

No.
Its like this...
Thousands of years ago, the I1a guys lived in Scandinavia.
then arrived the R1a "battleaxe people" from Russia and conquered them.
the R1a guys had metal weapons, the native I1a guys had not.
The R1a guys remained a minority but they ruled and so they forced the language on the natives (proto Balto-Slavic-Germanic possiby)
 
The people of the battle axe culture had no metal weapons (at least not in Scandinavia), it was a stone age culture and the battle axes that gave the culture it´s name are of stone.
 
There is no sign of an invasion in the archaeological record, just a shift in culture among the earlier neolithic funnel beaker culture (there was influence from abroad but no actual invasion).

Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


Its believed that the Norse mythology reflects this with the war between Asir and Vanir.
the Asir beeing the gods of the R1a invador and the Vanir beeing the gods of the I1a natives.
 
The Norse mythology is of so recent date that it is absolutely impossible to connect it with the Stone age several thousand years earlier!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:25
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:26
Dead


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:50
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

Shut the f**k up. ;)
Recall the flooding of the black sea that is believed to be the origin of the biblical flooding myth. Wink
 
The sources to the Norse mythology are mostly Nordic runstones and medieval Icelandic manuscriptis that are between 3300 and 4000 years younger than the beginning of the Battle axe period.  There is no possibility to connect these young sources with the stone age. All such claims are pure nonsense.
 
There is no evidence that the inundation of the Black Sea gave rise to the old tales of the flood. Many experts would rather refer such tales to inundations in the Eufrat and Tigris rivers.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:52
Dead


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:53
Barbapapa (Barbarossa), according to almost all ancient sources, the people who lived in ancient Poland were neither Slavs nor Germanic but Iranians, mostly Sarmatians and Scythians, archaeological findings like the golden Scythian treasure which was discovered on the Poland-Germany border, also confirm this fact, you can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_and_Iron_Age_Poland - Bronze- and Iron-Age Poland , the fact is that people of Poland themselves also believe this thing, you probably know about Sarmatism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:55
Dead


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:55
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

Doesnt change the fact that R1a did arrive in Scandinavia 5000 years ago.
Ok say for unknown reasons by unknown people. And it randomly happend during the battle axe period. ok? ;)
 
Hmmm... as long as I don´t have seen the data and the methods presented in a reliable peer reviewed journal I will have my doubts.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:57
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:58
Dead


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:59
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


The goverment of Sweden does not know the DNA of their people.
If so, then they did a crime, because they are not allowed to make a DNA test of them without their knowledge and if they do they must destroy the results afterwards. Tongue


I suggest you don't make such fast conclusions on countries that you're not a citizen, nor know how the law system works.

I lived in Solna where the Karolinska institutet is situated. My mother worked in that hospital Big smile. There you have the http://www.karolinska.se/sv/Karolinska-Universitetslaboratoriet/Kliniker/CMMS/PKU-laboratoriet/ - PKU-laboratoriet where blood drops are taken from infants when they are born according to the SFS 2002:297 law. Only if the parents make a denial application the newborn person is not registered. If you're born after 1975 then you can as an adult make an application in order to be removed from the bio-bank. The samples are stored in the http://www.biobanksverige.se - Biobanken and can be used for various purposes such as research and criminology.

You still didn't answer how basic haplogroups found on other researches are completely absent...

So you suggest that if i mail for example several european universities they can verify what Igenea claims to have collected? Shall I send a mail to Karolinska instituted and ask them if they ever got an application for access to samples?


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 18:05
Dead


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 18:15
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

Wich is your right.
I also have my doubts about this.
But I am open to the possibility, unlike you. ;)
 
As i said, if they publish their results in reliable peer reviewed journals, presenting the exact base of their research and what material they had access to (for example what skeletal material of ancient people) then it is much easier to evaluate their results.


Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


In 2000 it was already estaminated that the Germans didnt genocide the Celts of Germany but converted them and that the Germanics are a minority in Germany.
 
Converted them to what?
 


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 18:18
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 18:37
Dead


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 18:49
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

btw Tacitus claims the East Germanic tribes (gthe Bastarnii for example) have the ugly faces of the Sarmatians and he guesses they mixed.
He still claims them Germanic however.
So in fact they were bastard not bastarn! Wink It is good that you read this 70 pages thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637 about Germanic, a subgroup of the Iranian languages!


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 19:29
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

btw Tacitus claims the East Germanic tribes (gthe Bastarnii for example) have the ugly faces of the Sarmatians and he guesses they mixed.
He still claims them Germanic however.
So in fact they were bastard not bastarn! Wink It is good that you read this 70 pages thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24637 about Germanic, a subgroup of the Iranian languages!

I was waiting for that to come. Yes, it's really good that you read it.LOL



-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 19:48
Dead


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 19:59
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

Thats 70 pages in a language that is not my native.
Thats torture. Wink

Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?

I thought Persian and Germanic are both subgroups of the "Indo-European" (formerly known as "Indo-Germanic" as in the 19th century it was widely believed one important part of the Gemanic tribes came from India and mixed with the natives of Scandinavia. This idea is not dead yet but came back to live by observation of the R1a distribution. And these "Indians" had been thought the battle axe people in 19th century theories....). In German this term is still in use)  languages? ;)

Yes, that's right. But our Cyrus came with a brand new theory, without ever bothering to read some linguistic theory...that's why gets the results he gets.



-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 20:16
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:



A suposed map of the haplogroups in Europe, 2000 years ago.



At last! That last map you posted has the N-haplogroup of the Finns that Igenea totaly missed.

Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:


But our Cyrus came with a brand new theory, without ever bothering to read some linguistic theory...


I haven't read that thread completely cause i noticed it too late. What happened there really? Did Cyrus upset so many people? LOL




-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 20:29
And whats YOUR haplogroup? ;)


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 20:43
Dead


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 21:39
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

A more reliable source is the article "The Science and Business of Genetic Ancestry Testing" (Science 19 October 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5849, pp. 399 - 400 DOI: 10.1126/science.1150098). The 2 most important premises in the article are:

1. The tests track only a very SMALL portion of your DNA (less than 1 percent of a person's genome!)
2. The tests cannot determine ethnic identity.

The most important flaw on the part of iGENEA would be that their methodology has not been published in any peer reviewed journal.
This alone may be proof enough that what they're doing has no real scientific value.

Source(s):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/sh - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/sh ...

 



Actually 1% of human genome is quite a lot. You don't need to sequence the whole stuff as soon as you sequence highly variable pieces.  BTW look at authors affiliations Wink


-------------
.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 21:51
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 22:24
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 05:45
Again to the case of that goverments have their peoples DNA.

To check a total genom of a human takes a lot of work and would cost tons of money.
Its impossibe that its done for every human.

To identify a criminal you only test a few things in the DNA and that is NOT identical with the parts that one tests for finding anchestors.

In other words: Geneticans can prove that someone did the crime without beeing able to tell his haplogroup. Because a totaly different part of the DNA is needed to be tested.

It would be totaly useless to test the Y-DNA because this would be identical with all the anchestors of this man and with his brothers, uncles etc.
Police does not want DNA that is all the same in this family since the stone age. It wants DNA that is unique with one man.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 13:29
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

Thats 70 pages in a language that is not my native.
Thats torture. Wink

Germanic a subgroup of the Iranian languages?
I thought Persian and Germanic are both subgroups of the "Indo-European" (formerly known as "Indo-Germanic" as in the 19th century it was widely believed one important part of the Gemanic tribes came from India and mixed with the natives of Scandinavia. This idea is not dead yet but came back to live by observation of the R1a distribution. And these "Indians" had been thought the battle axe people in 19th century theories....). In German this term is still in use)  languages? ;)
It doesn't change the fact that Iranian (Persian is just an Iranian language) and Germanic are both subgroups of the Indo-European languages, the important point is that they are in parallel of each other or in serial. I think R1a just relates to Scythians from Sakistan (modern Sistan in eastern Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan & ancient Indo-Scythia) to Saksin (Eastern Europe -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqsin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqsin ) and Sachsen/Saxon in Germany.
 
Map of ancient Indo-Scythia:


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 16:00
Dead


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 16:35

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

(modern Sistan in eastern Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan & ancient Indo-Scythia) to Saksin (Eastern Europe -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqsin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saqsin )

Please, do notice that your own source claims a different etymology for Saqsin, from Turkic.



-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 17:06
You can hardly find any Germanic tribe without almost the exact name of an ancient Iranian tribe, I don't talk about just name similiarities, even the name of "Germani", as you probably know, according to the ancient Greek sources, was the name of one of the major Iranian tribes, for example you can read http://books.google.com/books?id=rledbh92a0QC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=herodotus+germani+Persian-tribes&source=bl&ots=UNJJq_qk6_&sig=ZDV-iBQvLFH6qjgdMR5CFFSaYyk&hl=en&ei=w0olSouHBcGL_QaVpfTcBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 - here  that Herodotus mentions Germani as a Persian tribe, you can compare other ones yourself, another example can be the Germanic tribe of Semnoni: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnoni - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnoni  I'm myself a Semnoni, the name of this ancient Iranian tribe in Persian language is Semnani: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnani - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnani  in fact Semnan is one of the largest provinces of Iran.


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 19:38

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

You can hardly find any Germanic tribe without almost the exact name of an ancient Iranian tribe, I don't talk about just name similiarities, even the name of "Germani", as you probably know, according to the ancient Greek sources, was the name of one of the major Iranian tribes, for example you can read http://books.google.com/books?id=rledbh92a0QC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=herodotus+germani+Persian-tribes&source=bl&ots=UNJJq_qk6_&sig=ZDV-iBQvLFH6qjgdMR5CFFSaYyk&hl=en&ei=w0olSouHBcGL_QaVpfTcBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3 - here  that Herodotus mentions Germani as a Persian tribe, you can compare other ones yourself, another example can be the Germanic tribe of Semnoni: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnoni - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnoni  I'm myself a Semnoni, the name of this ancient Iranian tribe in Persian language is Semnani: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnani - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semnani  in fact Semnan is one of the largest provinces of Iran.

We've been through this many times. You're losing your originality, try to come up with something new and funnier.



-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 20:00

I just want to tell you one thing, Cyrus. I think you miss an important point here.

Firstly, there is no need to glorify your ancestry, because Iran has more ''glorious'' history than most countries. But then whether we consider just the real history or include your fantastical hypotheses as well, the truth is that it's completely indifferent. Look, I don't know you. So if you're a good father, a good husband, popular among your colleagues and friends, kindhearted etc. and if your ancestors, ALL your ancestors were slaves, dumb, stupid and whatever for all the history, even then, Cyrus, you're still the same good husband and father, the same kindhearted person. And contrariwise, if you're a horrible person, bad father, bad husband, everybody hates you etc., and if your ancestors ruled the world, were genius, superhuman etc., you'll still remain the same horrible father hated by everybody. Again, I don't know you, so I provided just two extremes, but I know one thing for sure: the fact that your ancestors were rulers of the world or whatever glorious history you consider has ABSOLUTELY NO influence on what kind of person you are. I am dissatisfied about many things about me, but I don't seek pseudohistoric theories glorifying Slovaks (and believe me, there are many!) to feel better, because I know that if I feel bad, this won't help. So I try to do something about the reasons why I feel bad. And as a Persian, I have no idea how you could be embarassed about your history (of course, there are always things to be embarassed about, but I think you get it).

And please don't take this as insult because it is not meant so, but it's clear that your agenda is Iranian nationalist, for the simple fact that you start threads about Iranians or Iran very often, and your hypotheses always include Iran or Iranians.



-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 20:02
Dead


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 20:17
I will first start from a critical error you've done...

Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


2. The tests cannot determine ethnic identity
Of course they can.
Because the tests can tell how long ago 2 people must have shared a common anchestor.


No they can't and you will find that out yourself. There are more important factors that determine ethnic identity. No nation is pure, not even from humanities early historic years.  I will give you one simple example.

Turkic people stretch from China to Turkey and Ukraine. What makes them Turks? I will give you the following parts and try to put them in order of importance.

a) DNA
b) Language
c) Common historic memories
d) Culture

I would put them as: C, B, D, A

Try to tell an Azeri for example he is not a Turk because a DNA test says he's e.g mainly Caucasian.

Now i'm gonna use this nice map you posted and show you that it has actually better data that what you originally posted.

Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:






So, I will pick the results of Igenea for Finland, which is at least to say laughable.

http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=15 - http://www.igenea.com/index.php?content=49&id=15

Y-haplogroups in Finland


I   73 %
R1A   19 %
R1B   8 %


Below I will list published results from research that has been done so far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29 - Haplogroup-I :  40% according, unlike 73% that Igenea gives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29 -
Haplogroup-R1A : 8% in Sami populations only, which makes it insignificant to a total % of the Finnish population. Igenea gives 19%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29 - Haplogroup-R1B : 3.9% restricted only to Sami populations, while Igenea gives a total of 8% amongst Suomalaiset.

Now, the tragic part...Igenea has totaly missed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_N_%28Y-DNA%29 - N-Haplogroup which in Europe appears amongst Finns, Swedes and Lithuanians. Otherwise it appears amongst Uralic-speaking (e.g Sami Language) people in Asia. In Finland this http://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Y-DNA%20Project/default.aspx - haplogroup is at 60% of the population.





So, the last map you posted is accurate for Finland i would say, while the data from the table above are at least said catastrophic.

If i take my time to examine more the results i'm pretty sure i will find similar mistakes. Don't take it personally, no offence to you, my point is that you should be very carefull when it comes to commercial interests. Just compare and make your judgement. There are tons of publications out there to read and compare.

I will send a letter to Karolinska institutet and ask them to which organizations samples are given to. I'm interested how they would react when they see terms like "Vikinger".




-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 20:34
Dead


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 20:44
Dead


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 21:49
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

Turkic people stretch from China to Turkey and Ukraine. What makes them Turks? I will give you the following parts and try to put them in order of importance.

a) DNA
b) Language
c) Common historic memories
d) Culture

I would put them as: C, B, D, A

Try to tell an Azeri for example he is not a Turk because a DNA test says he's e.g mainly Caucasian.

 
Mate, Turkic people by no means can be considered as one nation/ethnos. There is nothing in common for example between Turks and Sakha people, apart from belonging to same language family.


-------------
.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 21:50
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


Thats not the order of importance.
its like this:
1. Culture
2. Common historic memories
3. Language

That make an "Ethnicy".

DNA has NOTHING to do with "ethnicy".


That's very correct. I'm sorry, I think i missunderstood you. I thought you considered DNA as an ethnic factor.


Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


And you forgot to tell me if YOU have ever done a DNA Testing and if you know your Y-DNA sequence. Wink

And if so if you can post a YSeach account name to compare it he he he



No i haven't. Have you? To be honest this thread and the minoan-anatolia thread are the only times i spend time talking about genetics here. If i will ever do it, i will try a some program offered by national study centers (like the Swedish one i told you) and not private companies.


Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:


And yeah your right about the N in the iGENEA Statistik.
Someone in the german section iGENEA Forum asked about it 2 month ago and got no answere why the Haplogroup Statistik is so totaly wrong.

Also, the Indigenious people statistiks have changed dramatically over time.
Russia had 30% Celts in their statistik at begin of this year. Was meanwhile fixed down to 10%.

Turkey had 20% Celts by begin of the year and now is fixed to 0%.....

Spain had an 7% "Viking", wich was fixed to "7% unsure"

BTW how could you say the other map I posted is "Right"?
You had been the one who doubted that there are gentical tests about people from 2000 years ago and this map is suposed to show haplogroups of 2000 years ago. You should doubt the map. LOL


I didn't noticed the 2000 years halogroups. I just noticed that some areas were fine compared to data i've seen. I won't doubt the map about Scandinavia since, that's the area I was verifying. Smile What i said earlier was not that there are no genetic tests on halogroups 2000 years ago, but that you need to have access to corpses found on graves of that time, which is not that easy. In any case, where's that map from really?




-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 21:54
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Mate, Turkic people by no means can be considered as one nation/ethnos. There is nothing in common for example between Turks and Sakha people, apart from belonging to same language family.


You're correct Anton. However, it is a matter of opinion for some people. And i don't mean in a nationalistic way at all. It depends on who you ask actually.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 02-Jun-2009 at 23:47
Dead


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 13:51
Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:

I just want to tell you one thing, Cyrus. I think you miss an important point here.

Firstly, there is no need to glorify your ancestry, because Iran has more ''glorious'' history than most countries. But then whether we consider just the real history or include your fantastical hypotheses as well, the truth is that it's completely indifferent. Look, I don't know you. So if you're a good father, a good husband, popular among your colleagues and friends, kindhearted etc. and if your ancestors, ALL your ancestors were slaves, dumb, stupid and whatever for all the history, even then, Cyrus, you're still the same good husband and father, the same kindhearted person. And contrariwise, if you're a horrible person, bad father, bad husband, everybody hates you etc., and if your ancestors ruled the world, were genius, superhuman etc., you'll still remain the same horrible father hated by everybody. Again, I don't know you, so I provided just two extremes, but I know one thing for sure: the fact that your ancestors were rulers of the world or whatever glorious history you consider has ABSOLUTELY NO influence on what kind of person you are. I am dissatisfied about many things about me, but I don't seek pseudohistoric theories glorifying Slovaks (and believe me, there are many!) to feel better, because I know that if I feel bad, this won't help. So I try to do something about the reasons why I feel bad. And as a Persian, I have no idea how you could be embarassed about your history (of course, there are always things to be embarassed about, but I think you get it).

And please don't take this as insult because it is not meant so, but it's clear that your agenda is Iranian nationalist, for the simple fact that you start threads about Iranians or Iran very often, and your hypotheses always include Iran or Iranians.

I don't know what you think about me, I am a researcher of the ancient Iranian history (pre-Achaemenid era), my current research is about the relations between Iranian and Germanic peoples, I don't want to to glorify any of them, but my aim is to discover the historical facts, maybe it is proved Iranians were a savage and uncivilized nation in this era, the important point is who they were and where they lived, for this purpose I have to compare them with other peoples to find possible connections, if I just wanted to glorify my ancestors then I would connect Iranians to the most civilized nations of the ancient world who lived in the same region in the Middle East (like Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, ...), many Iranian ultra-nationalists try to do it and say Iran, as the cradle of civilization, has been always the motherland of Iranian peoples, but should I believe it too?


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 17:24
It is interesting to compare these two maps:
 
1. Distribution of haplogroup R1a
 
 
2. Place names similar to Saksen
 
 
Saksonija, Latvia : http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/latvia/map/m4549488/saksonija.html - http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/latvia/map/m4549488/saksonija.html
Saksony, Russia: http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/m4197466/saksony.html - http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/m4197466/saksony.html
Sakson, Russia: http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/m4197465/sakson.html - http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/m4197465/sakson.html
Saksan, Russia: http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/p9176922/saksan.html - http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/p9176922/saksan.html
Saksan, Russia: http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/p9176924/saksan.html - http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/p9176924/saksan.html
Saksen, Kazakstan: http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.1881673/Seksen/ - http://nona.net/features/map/placedetail.1881673/Seksen/
Saksonota, Uzbekistan: http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/uzbekistan/map/p490963/saksonota.html - http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/uzbekistan/map/p490963/saksonota.html


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 18:24
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

2. Place names similar to Saksen
 

 

This is the fourth time you post this ridiculous map and you still haven't managed to remove the names that have no connection whatsoever with the Saxons (most of them, that is). Why do you still add the names already proven unconnected (eg the Latvian coffee shop Saksonija)?


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 03-Jun-2009 at 18:48

And I have said it several times that please believe that Saxons didn't come from the sky and there could be some connections between them and other peoples of the world.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 08:34
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

And I have said it several times that please believe that Saxons didn't come from the sky and there could be some connections between them and other peoples of the world.



Aye, and that was explained. The Coffee shop named Saksonija is one example. You think that place was founded by Saxons also? 
Therein lies the biggest errors of your methods. You never check something up. Instead, you see something remotely similar to "Scythian" and *boom*-  immidiately you invent an origin of the place or thing without any background reading whatsoever. If you spent five minutes doing some reading you wouldn't make such embarrassing mistakes as claiming a German restaurant in Latvia to be an ancient Scythian settlement.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 09:21
For those who don't know, I should mention when I posted that map in "Germanic, a subgroup of the Iranian languages" thread, one of our members named Roberts who lives in Lativa said:
 
Originally posted by Roberts Roberts wrote:

Lol, Cyrus, by that name Saksonija there is one road-by cafe named in Latvia on that map location. Nothing more. Certainly nothing to do with Saxons from Germany.
 
and when I said:
 
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

 
Map of that road-by café: http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/latvia/map/m4549488/saksonija.html - http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/latvia/map/m4549488/saksonija.html
 
Some people who live in this café:
 
http://www.dating.lt/nepraats/ - http://www.dating.lt/nepraats/
http://www.chebra.lt/reinis2/?lg=en - http://www.chebra.lt/reinis2/?lg=en
http://www.chebra.lt/harlej/?lg=en - http://www.chebra.lt/harlej/?lg=en
http://www.chebra.lt/prikoze/?lg=en - http://www.chebra.lt/prikoze/?lg=en
http://www.chebra.lt/atpisies/?lg=en - http://www.chebra.lt/atpisies/?lg=en
http://www.chebra.lt/ketucis2/?lg=en - http://www.chebra.lt/ketucis2/?lg=en
http://www.chebra.lt/Shamais/?lg=en - http://www.chebra.lt/Shamais/?lg=en
 
Do you know why these Latvians call it a city?
 
My name:  Nepraats 
Birthday:  1964-05-25 
Relation type:  Any
My country:  Latvia
My city:  Saksonija
 
He replied:
 
Quote Thats some wierd stuff. There is no city, town or village named after Saksonija in Latvia. By best luck it can be a single house named after that name in that place. You can check yourself by visiting this site -
http://www.vietas.lv/eng/index.php - http://www.vietas.lv/eng/index.php - and in upper right corner by using search box you can find any village, town or administrative unit in Latvia.
Those links above are random dating generators with random pictures and completely wrong place names.
 
and when I thanked for the link that he gave and showed the large and historical city of Saksoneja there: http://www.vietas.lv/eng/index.php?p=11&id=6127 - http://www.vietas.lv/eng/index.php?p=11&id=6127 he replied:
 
Originally posted by Roberts Roberts wrote:

So it's Saksoneja.
 
and then again said:
 
Quote Saksonija is not the same as Saksoneja. And I don't know the names of every village in Latvia.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 11:22
Curys Shamiri: Have you analyzed the ethymology of all those names on your map? Have you also studied how old they are and what language they are in and in which context every name was created??


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 11:59
I don't want to say that all those names certainly relate to Scythians but we know for sure that Scythians called their land Saksen, as Pliny, Strabo and other ancient historians and geographers have mentioned and we also know that Scythians lived in those regions, especially in Germany and Poland, a book which has been written by the greatest Iranologists of the world is The Cambridge History of Iran, by William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yarshater, R. N. Frye, J. A. Boyle, Peter Jackson, Laurence Lockhart, Peter Avery, Gavin Hambly and Charles Melville, this book talks about the Scythian presence in these region and has provided several evidences, for example look at this page:  http://books.google.com/books?id=vRR8dfI7j_kC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&&source=bl&ots=tgIv73v2NJ&sig=wb-dpPZkfDC5ImCvWJeqagZ-L30&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA192,M1 - The Cambridge History of Iran, page 192
 


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 12:23
Does the majority of historians and archaeologists in Poland, Germany and other nearby countries agree to the descriptions and interpretations about Scythian precense given in that book?


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 12:42

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I don't want to say that all those names certainly relate to Scythians but we know for sure that Scythians called their land Saksen, as Pliny, Strabo and other ancient historians and geographers have mentioned

Well then, why have you used those place names?? 

Look, you say you are not nationalist, and you want to conduct serious research about the relation between Iranians and Germans, but then you have to reconsider your methodology. Because so far it fell under the definition of pseudohistory.

Since you haven't studied linguistics for instance, you should be very very very cautious about using names and words as evidence. What I can advise you is to read some linguistic books, especially those dealing with etymology and phonology. I have a few myself, so I can send it to you for your conveniece.

I agree with Carcharodon, you have to know etymologies of those names and the context in which these names were given to those places, e.g. Saxon Street certainly relates to Saxons, but the street was just named after them. It's just coincidence that the street actually is in London (is it?), where Saxons once dwelled. But it can easily be in Regio di Calabria, for instance. In my hometown we have plenty of streets like čínska, berlínska, madridská etc. This doesn't mean that there is any further relation between the cities/places.

Also you have been told that numerous places in your map do not relate to neither Saxons nor Sacae.



-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 12:46
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Does the majority of historians and archaeologists in Poland, Germany and other nearby countries agree to the descriptions and interpretations about Scythian precense given in that book?
Of course, why do they want to deny it?! If you just search for "Archaeology" and Poland" then you will find this wesbite: http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/english.html - http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/english.html  (the website of Poznań Archaeological Museum), look at this page: http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/index_kluzycka.html - http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/index_kluzycka.html
 
The Bronze Age and The Dawn of The Iron Age
Hill-fort inhabitants and warlike Scythians
(c. 1400 - 400 BC)
 
For example it says:
 
 6. In the 19th century a hoard was found in Witaszkowo, Gubin District, which was dubbed The Scythian Gold Hoard. A replica of this hoard can be seen in this exhibition. It includes an akinakes dagger fitting [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot49.html - 43 ], an upper fitting of the sword’s sheath [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot50.html - 44 ], a fish-shaped fitting [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot51.html - 45 ], a quatrefoil appliqué [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot52.html - 46 ] which had probably belonged to a piece of armour or a shield, two necklaces [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot53.html - 47 ], [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot54.html - 48 ], a whetstone ferrule [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot55.html - 49 ] and part of a pendant [ http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/muz_eng/wyst_wlkp/k_luzycka/fot56.html - 50 ].
 
Gubin, Poland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gubin,_Poland - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gubin,_Poland  (Prior to 1945, Gubin was part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guben - Guben in Germany. In 1945 the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oder-Neisse_line - Oder-Neisse line was chosen as the new German-Polish border at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Conference - Potsdam Conference .)


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 12:54
The precense of artifacts from a certain place or people found in another place doesn´t have to indicate the precense of that people. For example: here in Sweden we find several roman artefacts in tombs from the iron age, but still the Roman empire didn´t encompass Scandinavia. From the Viking age we find a Buddha (in Helgö) and Chinese coins in graves. That doesn´t indicate Indian or Chinese precense in Viking age Sweden.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 13:22
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

The precense of artifacts from a certain place or people found in another place doesn´t have to indicate the precense of that people. For example: here in Sweden we find several roman artefacts in tombs from the iron age, but still the Roman empire didn´t encompass Scandinavia. From the Viking age we find a Buddha (in Helgö) and Chinese coins in graves. That doesn´t indicate Indian or Chinese precense in Viking age Sweden.
 
If you don't want to deny it then you certainly know what "Warlike Scythians" means, the above picture shows "Fortresses destroyed by the Scythians", how could they destroy them if they were not present there?! Would you please yourself search about it? For example look at the website of Poland.com, as you read here: http://travel.poland.com/texts/en/t-ap-4-4.php - http://travel.poland.com/texts/en/t-ap-4-4.php  it says they were destroyed by the Scythians.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 14:58
The relations between Iranian and Celic peoples is also interesting, as I said in this thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=26885&PN=2 - Did ancient Iranians have blue eyes and red hairs? , we know, according to the ancient Greek sources, ancient Iranian-speaking people (Aryans) usually had red hair, this is a good website about the red-hair: http://www.redheads.ie - http://www.redheads.ie  you can read here: http://www.redheads.ie/Origins-Red-Hair.htm - http://www.redheads.ie/Origins-Red-Hair.htm
 
Quote
The Origins of Red Hair
 
Red hair is often assumed to have emerged with the Celts, but the gene for redheadedness existed long before the Celts came into being, at the start of the first millennium BC around the headwaters of the Rhine, the Rhone and the Danube. One theory is that red hair arrived in Europe with the Iranic-speaking steppe tribes who lived the areas north of and around the Black Sea from 4,000 years ago to the 6th century. Today, there is a surprising number of redheads in Afghanistan, Iran and the Urals, as well as in Azerbaijan and Georgia. It is possible that this "Iranic" ginger trait was transferred to other populations, including the Celts, whose original hair color was various shades of brown and black in general.
 
Today I read something interesting which relates to it from a newspaper:
 
 
http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2009/0604/schools/071.html - http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2009/0604/schools/071.html
 
Irish step dancing

The show "Celts!" traces the history of the Celtic culture and its peoples from its start in ancient times in Persia, crossing Eastern and Western Europe into modern-day Britain and Ireland. Dancers portray characters from traveling people to woman warriors. "Celts!" will be performed at 2 p.m. Sa...


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 15:47
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

If you don't want to deny it then you certainly know what "Warlike Scythians" means, the above picture shows "Fortresses destroyed by the Scythians", how could they destroy them if they were not present there?! Would you please yourself search about it? For example look at the website of Poland.com, as you read here: http://travel.poland.com/texts/en/t-ap-4-4.php - http://travel.poland.com/texts/en/t-ap-4-4.php  it says they were destroyed by the Scythians.
 
Just because a travel site on the internet says it was like that it doen´t mean it really was so. Archeological evidence can many times be interpreted in many ways, so one shall be careful before making statements.
 
So it should really be interesting to know if there is any concensus among Polish and German historians and archaeologists about the Scythian presence.
 


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 04-Jun-2009 at 22:50
Dead


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 06:27
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I don't want to say that all those names certainly relate to Scythians but we know for sure that Scythians called their land Saksen, as Pliny, Strabo and other ancient historians and geographers have mentioned and we also know that Scythians lived in those regions, especially in Germany and Poland, a book which has been written by the greatest Iranologists of the world is The Cambridge History of Iran, by William Bayne Fisher, Ilya Gershevitch, Ehsan Yarshater, R. N. Frye, J. A. Boyle, Peter Jackson, Laurence Lockhart, Peter Avery, Gavin Hambly and Charles Melville, this book talks about the Scythian presence in these region and has provided several evidences, for example look at this page:  http://books.google.com/books?id=vRR8dfI7j_kC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&&source=bl&ots=tgIv73v2NJ&sig=wb-dpPZkfDC5ImCvWJeqagZ-L30&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA192,M1 - The Cambridge History of Iran, page 192
 
Cyrus I have already dealt with this map in the Original Inhabitants of England thread, why must you recycle such tired theories.  Here is what I said regarding this map:
Originally posted by King John King John wrote:

Cyrus, allow me to draw your attention to the map key for a moment.  In this key you will see that the areas of the Scythian culture are marked with a boundary represented by a line of short dashes broken by a dot.  The area for which this is a boundary only goes slightly past the Dnieper River and does not touch the Vistula.  The other boundaries demarcated on this map are the Lusatian Culture and Hallstatt culture.
 As you can see the boundaries of this map would indicate that aside from raids the Scythians were mostly in Ukraine and the surrounding area.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 07:31
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

 
Just because a travel site on the internet says it was like that it doen´t mean it really was so. Archeological evidence can many times be interpreted in many ways, so one shall be careful before making statements.
 
So it should really be interesting to know if there is any concensus among Polish and German historians and archaeologists about the Scythian presence.
If you don't want to believe the historical facts then hundreds historical and archaeological books about the Scythian presence can't change your false belief, first you need to know totally about the history of this region, I suggest that you read this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=PTB0gn_qwTcC - A history of Eastern Europe By Robert Bideleux, Ian Jeffries (Published by Taylor & Francis, 2007)
 
You can read in  http://books.google.com/books?id=PTB0gn_qwTcC&pg=PA134&lr=#PPA134,M1 - this page :
 
 
then if you want to know more about the Lusatian culture, read this book -> http://books.google.com/books?id=S6aUBuWPqywC&pg=PA317 - Historical dictionary of Poland, By George J. Lerski, Jerzy Jan Lerski, Piotr Wróbel, Richard J. Kozicki :
 
 
There are several books about it by Polish historians and archaeologists, for example look at this book: http://www.95bellstreet.com/?page=shop/flypage&product_id=44079&CLSN_1063=124103757410637d2b679e1f63af0a81 - The Scythian Influence in the Area of Lusatian Culture by Bukowski, Zbigniew (Published by Warsaw Polish Academy of Sciences Institute of the History of Material Culture )


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 13:45
Still the extent and nature of Scythian precense is debated in European Archaology (except by migrationists and nationalistic historians). Unfortunately there are some people who are not up to date with the most rescent research, they still tend to explain history in simplified terms of migration and diffusion.
 
One must always be a little carefull with such explanatory models.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 20:36
I don't know since when eurocentrists have decided to deny the presence of Scythians and other Iranian-speaking people in Europe, but as you read in this thread, genetic evidences also support this historical fact which has been mentioned in almost all ancient sources too, you can't change recorded history just because you don't like to be any connection between Saxons and Saksens (Scythians).


Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 21:08

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I don't know since when eurocentrists have decided to deny the presence of Scythians and other Iranian-speaking people in Europe, but as you read in this thread, genetic evidences also support this historical fact which has been mentioned in almost all ancient sources too, you can't change recorded history just because you don't like to be any connection between Saxons and Saksens (Scythians).

No one here said or implied anything even close to your claim about eurocentrists.



-------------
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 05-Jun-2009 at 21:34
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

I don't know since when eurocentrists have decided to deny the presence of Scythians and other Iranian-speaking people in Europe, but as you read in this thread, genetic evidences also support this historical fact which has been mentioned in almost all ancient sources too, you can't change recorded history just because you don't like to be any connection between Saxons and Saksens (Scythians).
 
Noone here has any eurocentric agenda, but one must always be careful when one interprets archaeological and historical data. Also DNA requires meticolous studies when one shall try to translate them into real conditions regarding migrations and settlement patterns.
 
And supeficial similarities between place names are even more difficult since such similarities often can be severly misleading.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 18:02
What can be your reason for denying this historical fact except eurocentrism when all archaeological, historical, genetic and other evidences strongly support it?!! We see the anthropological evidences also say the same thing, anthropologists consider Saxons as belonging to a Nordic-Iranan type (Type D), am I wrong? You can read many things about the Nordic-Iranian type in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=B10QrRCmtZsC&printsec=frontcover - The People By J. L. Angel , you can read http://aryannordicalpinealiens.blogspot.com/2008/10/greeks.html - here :
 
According to Angel, "Nordic-Iranians were tall and muscular, strong-necked, and probably included tawny-haired blue- or green-eyed blonds as well as brunets." Angel also mentions the "noteworthy resemblances" of this type "to Anglo-Saxons".


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 18:17
It seems that it is you who have some Irano-centric agenda with all your strange postings in different threads that denies all archaeological, linguistic and historical facts.


Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 18:58
These are just strange for you, because if you read historical sources then you see that almost all related ones talk about these things, I say "Nordic-Iranian", not pure Germanic, Nodic or Iranian, the problem is that the people like you never want to believe that there could be any influence from the east, so you won't even say that Saxons were Germanized-Scythians (Saksens).


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 19:02
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

These are just strange for you, because if you read historical sources then you see that almost all related ones talk about these things, I say "Nordic-Iranian", not pure Germanic, Nodic or Iranian, the problem is that the people like you never want to believe that there could be any influence from the east, so you won't even say that Saxons were Germanized-Scythians (Saksens).
You have been shown wrong on this point many times, and when you are shown wrong you change the terms of comparison so that your theory seems to work better, this doesn't change the fact that the theory is not supported by facts.  For instance if you look at the map above you will see that the Scythians were nowhere near where the Saxons live/lived.  There isn't even an archaeological find in Saxon areas that relates to the Scythians.


Posted By: Falchion
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 19:19
Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Cyrus Shahmiri wrote:

What can be your reason for denying this historical fact except eurocentrism when all archaeological, historical, genetic and other evidences strongly support it?!! We see the anthropological evidences also say the same thing, anthropologists consider Saxons as belonging to a Nordic-Iranan type (Type D), am I wrong? You can read many things about the Nordic-Iranian type in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=B10QrRCmtZsC&printsec=frontcover - The People By J. L. Angel , you can read http://aryannordicalpinealiens.blogspot.com/2008/10/greeks.html - here :
 
According to Angel, "Nordic-Iranians were tall and muscular, strong-necked, and probably included tawny-haired blue- or green-eyed blonds as well as brunets." Angel also mentions the "noteworthy resemblances" of this type "to Anglo-Saxons".


These "anthropological types" you speak of are obsolete. Angel's cstudies are mostly from 1940's. That's when nazi-scientists racial theories became popular. Their studies where politically motivated in proving that the "Aryan race" is some blue eyed blond Nordic supermen who conquered most of Eurasia as Scythians, Vikings, Germans etc.
Angel used measuring skulls and other questionable methods to prove these theories. Unfortunately they knew nothing of DNA that goes much deeper than the color of ones hair or the size of a persons nose.

Anthropology has changed a lot after Angel's time especially when modern DNA research started to really play a role in science.

The Saxons tribal name comes from the Seax which is derived from a word for "knife" in ancient Germanic languages because they used a particular very recognizable type of knife a lot. It as nothing to do with Scythians whose name comes from an old IE word for archer.


Posted By: Dacian
Date Posted: 06-Jun-2009 at 22:05
Intresting indeed mostly the fact that even though the thracians were the most numerous people (according to Herodot) their traces remain only in the bulgarians if I read the maps correctly.

Furthermore as long as it is a dacian marker as they say and there is nowhere around how did they found it (more questions on this as acording to things known so far thracians and dacians were more or less "the same")

Especially when you surely can extinguish a culture if you put alot of effort into it....but extinguishing a population takes many more times the effort and timespan (even with the XXth century industrialization methods it failed miserably - Hitlers attempt)


With the usual "only time and other research will prove or disprove it" it goes along with the other studies as reference. Good info


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 03:06
---


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 10:25
Originally posted by Dacian Dacian wrote:

Intresting indeed mostly the fact that even though the thracians were the most numerous people (according to Herodot) their traces remain only in the bulgarians if I read the maps correctly.

Furthermore as long as it is a dacian marker as they say and there is nowhere around how did they found it (more questions on this as acording to things known so far thracians and dacians were more or less "the same")


What you just mentioned is a reason why i was skeptic to those results and i even mentioned your example earlier. For example, in Romania, there should be huge amounts of "Thracian"/"Dacian" markers. Basically, "Thracian markers" should be all over the balkans. For example there were even Thracian communities in Piraeus and Athens. Even, the line before the Isthmus had Thracian settlements. I have never heard of a "Thracian genocide" that could make the most numerous group of people of the ancient world to dissappear. Otherwise it would have been recorded.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 10:43
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

Quote Furthermore as long as it is a dacian marker as they say and there is nowhere around how did they found it

They claim its found in Dacian mummies.
"Nowhere around" (less than 1%) in modern populations.


Yes, but how is it possible for Romania not to have a big amount of Dacian? I mean, personally I see Romanians as Latinized indegious people of Dacia and greater Thrace. Can you recall an event that totally vanished them from the face of earth?

Btw, i got response from the swedish biobank.

What they told me is the following (translation below)


Visst är det möjligt idag via den genetiska profilen att få en uppskattning
av en individs genetiska ursprung. Men att gå djupare än så på individnivå
är inte seriöst. Det finns många mer eller mindre seriösa företag runt om i
världen som erbjuder genetiska tester.


Sjukvården kan tyvärr inte ge några tips om pålitliga företag.


Mer information på http://www.genteknik.nu/ - www.genteknik.nu

Translation
Ofcourse it is possible today, through genetic profiles get an estimation of an individuals genetic origins. But to go deeper than that in an individual level is not serious. There are many serious and non serious companies around the world that can give you a genetic test.

Unfortunately we can't tell you which ones are trustworthy.

You can get more info about that on http://www.genteknik.nu/ - www.genteknik.nu

So basically, they are just a database. The analysis is done by the organization they linked me to.


But however, it seems that you got no indicators if you're Bavarian or Russian or whatever. You just got a trace geographically where your genes are most common right?







-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 11:11
...


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 11:17
Dead


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 11:35
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:



I looked up where each of the loci are common.
Again, these are the loci that iGENEA knew when they rated me "Germanic" instead of "Slavonic" (well, they knew 2 more loci, wich I cant get stats on)



Somewhere on IGENEA they wrote that they have not fully analyzed Slavonic yet, so that could be a reason.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Barbapapa
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 12:20
---


Posted By: Carcharodon
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2009 at 13:05
Originally posted by Barbapapa Barbapapa wrote:

I finaly checked some things.



these are loci from the second panel I got by an update to more markers.
They did not know these when they said "Germanic":



 
Maybe somewhat OT, but what computer program do you use when you make those maps?
Just curious, I want to start making maps too.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net