Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: “Holding the peace” Common goals and themes in Anglo-Saxon peacemaking ...

  1. #21
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,745
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Search and replace Denmark for North Dutch.....

    Most of the Scandinavians, as well as the closely related British Anglo-Saxons, are slightly pulled above the red trend line by their excess genetic affinity to Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG). This phenomenon appears to date back to at least 2275-2032 BCE, because Nordic_LN:RISE98 is clearly affected by it and dated to this period.

    My guess is that Single Grave populations from what is now Denmark and surrounds harbored much higher levels of WHG-related ancestry than the more easterly Corded Ware (aka Battle-Axe) Scandinavian groups, and they passed this onto present-day Scandinavians. Nordic_LN:RISE98, although from a burial site in what is now southern Sweden, might well be of Danish Single Grave origin.
    Source: Eurogenes blogspot

  2. #22
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,745
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    The NW populations of the Davidski figure and the Dutch Anthrogenica members on the Monte Runner (pen=0.001).



    See especially Finn and Finn Mom and their WHG level....compare it to the Scandics.

  3. #23
    Registered Users
    Posts
    785
    Sex
    Location
    Netherlands
    Ethnicity
    South-Dutch
    Nationality
    Dutch
    Y-DNA
    I2a2a1b2-CTS1977
    mtDNA
    H13a1a1

    Netherlands Belgium
    #20 and #21 are not about the North-Dutch.
    In #22 you present a handful of models with a poor fit, in which the samples of you and your parents are supposed to prove that the North-Dutch have elevated WHG levels. Now in modern Europeans the highest level of WHG is found in the Baltics.
    So I don't see what is proven here.

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

     Finn (05-17-2019)

  5. #24
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    1,534
    Sex
    Location
    Florida, USA.
    Ethnicity
    English, Scottish & Irish
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA
    I-A13243
    mtDNA
    H1e2

    England Scotland Ireland Prussia Italy Two Sicilies United States of America
    Interesting. Sometimes I get slightly higher WHG readings. For example, when I got my coords, David sent me this:

    1] "distance%=4.3975"

    JMcB_scaled

    Yamnaya_Samara,43
    Barcin_N,41.2
    WHG,15.8


    When I tried Finn’s model using all of the default setting on Poi’s Runner (Pen 0.001, 200 cycles & 120 batches) I got this:

    Sample Details - Fit - Anatolia Barcin N - WHG - Yamnaya RUS Samara
    1 Custom:AGUser_JMcB -4.0009 - 39.17 ,13.33 ,47.5
    2 Custom:AGUser_Radboud -4.0237 - 35.83 ,11.67 ,52.5
    3 Custom:AGUser_finn -4.6378 - 31.67 ,14.17 ,54.17
    4 Custom:AGUser_finn_dad -4.5574 - 34.17 ,13.33 ,52.5
    5 Custom:AGUser_finn_mom -4.4933 - 33.33 ,15 ,51.67


    On the other hand, if I stay with default penalty and increased the cycles to 1000 and the batches to 500 (which I’ve heard is more accurate), I get this:

    Sample Details - Fit - Anatolia Barcin N - WHG - Yamnaya RUS Samara
    1 Custom:AGUser_JMcB -4.7111 - 39.4 ,9 ,51.6
    2 Custom:AGUser_Radboud -4.2668 - 35.4 ,9.6 ,55
    3 Custom:AGUser_finn -5.2206 - 32.4 ,10 ,57.6
    4 Custom:AGUser_finn_dad -4.8522 - 34.2 ,10.2 ,55.6
    5 Custom:AGUser_finn_mom -5.0073 - 34 ,11.4 ,54.6


    Which leads me to a slightly related question. Huijbregts from your experience is it better to use 1000 cycles & 500 batches, as far as accuracy is concerned?
    Last edited by JMcB; 05-17-2019 at 12:19 AM.
    Known Paper Trail: 45.3% English, 29.7% Scottish, 12.5% Irish, 6.25% German & 6.25% Italian. Or: 87.5% British Isles, 6.25% German & 6.25% Italian.
    LivingDNA: 88.1% British Isles (59.7% English, 27% Scottish & 1.3% Irish), 5.9% Europe South (Aegian 3.4%, Tuscany 1.3%, Sardinia 1.1%), 4.4% Europe NW (Scandinavia) & 1.6% Europe East, (Mordovia).
    FT Big Y: I1-Z140 branch I-F2642 >Y1966 >Y3649 >A13241 >Y3647 >A13248 (circa 830 AD) >A13242/YSEQ (circa 975 AD) >A13243/YSEQ (circa 1550 AD).

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JMcB For This Useful Post:

     Finn (05-17-2019),  Jessie (05-22-2019),  Radboud (05-17-2019)

  7. #25
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,745
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Huijbregts View Post
    #20 and #21 are not about the North-Dutch.
    In #22 you present a handful of models with a poor fit, in which the samples of you and your parents are supposed to prove that the North-Dutch have elevated WHG levels. Now in modern Europeans the highest level of WHG is found in the Baltics.
    So I don't see what is proven here.
    21 and 22 are about North Dutch that have within available knowledge full roots in this little area. So indeed not all North Dutch but they stay North Dutch.....and I didn’t compare with the Baltics but with the Scandics.
    The interesting thing and that what you have asked for is the integration of TRB and SGC/BB, that as you know both existed in our auDNA region. This proces has in our three North Dutch samples a similarity with the Scandic/Anglo-Saxon ones and that’s remarkable!
    I guess this says more than an option of ‘Viking’ or early Middle age invasion..
    Last edited by Finn; 05-17-2019 at 05:21 AM.

  8. #26
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,745
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    @JMcB thanks my intuition is that higher cycles is better, still Finn Mom the most WHG, can you put the Norwegians, Swedes and Saxons in the ‘high volumes mix’?
    Last edited by Finn; 05-17-2019 at 10:55 AM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (05-17-2019)

  10. #27
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,745
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Huijbregts View Post
    #20 and #21 are not about the North-Dutch.
    In #22 you present a handful of models with a poor fit, in which the samples of you and your parents are supposed to prove that the North-Dutch have elevated WHG levels. Now in modern Europeans the highest level of WHG is found in the Baltics.
    So I don't see what is proven here.
    So in other words this quote of Davidski in which I added North Dutch in casu to be seen as three North Dutch samples is not odd as you initially supposed but makes full sense.

    ‘Most of the Scandinavians, as well as the closely related British Anglo-Saxons and North Dutch, are slightly pulled above the red trend line by their excess genetic affinity to Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG). This phenomenon appears to date back to at least 2275-2032 BCE, because Nordic_LN:RISE98 is clearly affected by it and dated to this period.

    My guess is that Single Grave populations from what is now Denmark and surrounds like the Northern Netherlands harbored much higher levels of WHG-related ancestry than the more easterly Corded Ware (aka Battle-Axe) Scandinavian groups, and they passed this onto present-day Scandinavians and some North Dutch. Nordic_LN:RISE98, although from a burial site in what is now southern Sweden, might well be of Danish or even North Dutch Single Grave origin.’
    Last edited by Finn; 05-17-2019 at 10:55 AM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (05-17-2019)

  12. #28
    Registered Users
    Posts
    785
    Sex
    Location
    Netherlands
    Ethnicity
    South-Dutch
    Nationality
    Dutch
    Y-DNA
    I2a2a1b2-CTS1977
    mtDNA
    H13a1a1

    Netherlands Belgium
    Quote Originally Posted by JMcB View Post
    Interesting. Sometimes I get slightly higher WHG readings. For example, when I got my coords, David sent me this:

    1] "distance%=4.3975"

    JMcB_scaled

    Yamnaya_Samara,43
    Barcin_N,41.2
    WHG,15.8


    When I tried Finn’s model using all of the default setting on Poi’s Runner (Pen 0.001, 200 cycles & 120 batches) I got this:

    Sample Details - Fit - Anatolia Barcin N - WHG - Yamnaya RUS Samara
    1 Custom:AGUser_JMcB -4.0009 - 39.17 ,13.33 ,47.5
    2 Custom:AGUser_Radboud -4.0237 - 35.83 ,11.67 ,52.5
    3 Custom:AGUser_finn -4.6378 - 31.67 ,14.17 ,54.17
    4 Custom:AGUser_finn_dad -4.5574 - 34.17 ,13.33 ,52.5
    5 Custom:AGUser_finn_mom -4.4933 - 33.33 ,15 ,51.67


    On the other hand, if I stay with default penalty and increased the cycles to 1000 and the batches to 500 (which I’ve heard is more accurate), I get this:

    Sample Details - Fit - Anatolia Barcin N - WHG - Yamnaya RUS Samara
    1 Custom:AGUser_JMcB -4.7111 - 39.4 ,9 ,51.6
    2 Custom:AGUser_Radboud -4.2668 - 35.4 ,9.6 ,55
    3 Custom:AGUser_finn -5.2206 - 32.4 ,10 ,57.6
    4 Custom:AGUser_finn_dad -4.8522 - 34.2 ,10.2 ,55.6
    5 Custom:AGUser_finn_mom -5.0073 - 34 ,11.4 ,54.6


    Which leads me to a slightly related question. Huijbregts from your experience is it better to use 1000 cycles & 500 batches, as far as accuracy is concerned?
    First the simple technicalities. Next some remarks on your models. And I will finish with a comment about the Wild West on the nMonte runner.

    When I first wrote the nMonte code, I had to choose the values of cycles and batches.
    Because I wanted nMonte to be a common tool for different types of calculator data, I had to choose values on the safe side (high), which were 1000, 1000.
    When I updated to nMonte3 I reduced batch to 500.
    When the number of cycles is lowered, the runtime is shorter, but the algorithm may not yet be finished. My impression is that with the Global 25 there is usually no problem in reducing the number of cycles to 300.
    Lowering the batch number is different. This too reduces the run time, but also systematically produces different results. These differences are very hard to understand and undermine the comparability. Moreover lowering batch will also make the results less reproducible.
    I strongly advise everybody to stick to the default value of 500. I wish Poi had not opened up this choice.

    You didn't mention whether you use scaled or unscaled. Judging from the distances I guess it is scaled.
    I have always said that the distance should not be bigger than 1 for unscaled. I have hardly experience with scaled, but my impression is that the maximal distance of scaled should be 2.
    In other words: when the distance of your result is bigger than 1 for unscaled or 2 for scaled, you should consider this as a bad model and try to find a better one.

    I don't know who has invented this EEF/WHG/Steppe model for modern samples.
    In such a mixture model the target should be slightly younger than the admixtures, and the admixtures should be of the same age. Of cause you sometimes have to compromise, but here the maximum time lag is about 10.000 years!
    This model is an abomination. Small wonder that none of the results has a distance of less than 4.
    Of cause you can use this model with a fun status. But don't take the result seriously. You are doing nobody a favor by posting it.

    The motto of the nMonte runner seems to be 'anything goes'.
    The result is a chaos where everybody chooses a set different set of parameters and basic norms about penalty and distance are in disdain.
    Poi has opened a box of Pandora.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Huijbregts For This Useful Post:

     Dewsloth (05-17-2019),  MitchellSince1893 (05-17-2019)

  14. #29
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,745
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Huijbregts View Post
    First the simple technicalities. Next some remarks on your models. And I will finish with a comment about the Wild West on the nMonte runner.

    When I first wrote the nMonte code, I had to choose the values of cycles and batches.
    Because I wanted nMonte to be a common tool for different types of calculator data, I had to choose values on the safe side (high), which were 1000, 1000.
    When I updated to nMonte3 I reduced batch to 500.
    When the number of cycles is lowered, the runtime is shorter, but the algorithm may not yet be finished. My impression is that with the Global 25 there is usually no problem in reducing the number of cycles to 300.
    Lowering the batch number is different. This too reduces the run time, but also systematically produces different results. These differences are very hard to understand and undermine the comparability. Moreover lowering batch will also make the results less reproducible.
    I strongly advise everybody to stick to the default value of 500. I wish Poi had not opened up this choice.

    You didn't mention whether you use scaled or unscaled. Judging from the distances I guess it is scaled.
    I have always said that the distance should not be bigger than 1 for unscaled. I have hardly experience with scaled, but my impression is that the maximal distance of scaled should be 2.
    In other words: when the distance of your result is bigger than 1 for unscaled or 2 for scaled, you should consider this as a bad model and try to find a better one.

    I don't know who has invented this EEF/WHG/Steppe model for modern samples.
    In such a mixture model the target should be slightly younger than the admixtures, and the admixtures should be of the same age. Of cause you sometimes have to compromise, but here the maximum time lag is about 10.000 years!
    This model is an abomination. Small wonder that none of the results has a distance of less than 4.
    Of cause you can use this model with a fun status. But don't take the result seriously. You are doing nobody a favor by posting it.

    The motto of the nMonte runner seems to be 'anything goes'.
    The result is a chaos where everybody chooses a set different set of parameters and basic norms about penalty and distance are in disdain.
    Poi has opened a box of Pandora.
    Ok technically spoken you are master!! So we have to take your advice in account.

    Otherwise you may get stucked in 'pointillism'. in other words you stand in front if a painting but in stead of looking at the big picture you stand with your nose almost in the painting, so going into detail and more detail, deeper and deeper and deeper....but as a side effect the big picture disappears. What is left: lots of details without coherency..... This is exaggerated but that is in order to make the point clear.

    Davidski has drown the big picture. Single Grave people migrated to outmost NW Europe, Denmark, NW Germany, Northern Netherlands. They did not ionly evolved into Bell Beaker but they (gradually?) mixed with the TRB people of this area. The TRB were a mix of HG and ENF.

    This proces has caused similarities (in Steppe/HG and ENF mixture) between the Scandics, the early Saxons....and me , myself and I .

    Let me remind you that it was you who pointed that there were similarities between my genetic profile and that of the Sigtuna Vikings and the Anglo-Saxons. So it was the master himself....!
    Last edited by Finn; 05-17-2019 at 12:20 PM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (05-17-2019)

  16. #30
    Registered Users
    Posts
    2,745
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    Northwest European
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    To be complete this is the original posting:

    http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/0...be-bowmen.html

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (05-17-2019)

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Anglo-Saxon Tomb
    By spruithean in forum History (Medieval)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2019, 02:42 AM
  2. Anglo Saxon DNA Study.
    By JohnHowellsTyrfro in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 08-04-2018, 09:21 AM
  3. Huns in Anglo Saxon England?
    By JohnHowellsTyrfro in forum History (Medieval)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2017, 07:26 AM
  4. Anglo Saxon Haplogroups and Types
    By BillMC in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-09-2016, 05:46 PM
  5. I1 from Anglo-Saxon
    By Jean M in forum I1-M253
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 08:52 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
  •