Page 128 of 175 FirstFirst ... 2878118126127128129130138 ... LastLast
Results 1,271 to 1,280 of 1742

Thread: Population genomics of the Viking world (bioxiv, 2019, Copenhagen)

  1. #1271
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,513
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    What is very significant in the Yorkshire sample is that I recognize many Friso-Saxon words like (sorry somewhat phonetic)

    mun is you must, in my language you say mout'n (the way he pronounces it is almost the same)
    lowp is jump in Yorkshire, lop'n is walking here
    yat is gate, in my language also jat, one of the oldest streets in my town was the seagate:
    https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oude_K...kIntJat_RA.JPG
    stoop is stoup and is in Yorkshire a doorpost here a doorstep!
    ewwer is ooier (pronounced the same way) is udder
    milkcow is mėlkou
    teem is pouring in my language is teemen when you are sad pour much teers, itching

    Looks all no coincidence to me.....
    dae ye ken o brod Scots. In pairt o ma yinger days ma hoose wis in the mickle toon o Dundee. Ye micht no ken whar thon toon is. Its on the east o Scotland on the river Tay. An auld toon that s ower echt huner years old. Eh wis a bairn in thon toon. Eh bided there fur mony a year. We coonted like such: ane, twa, three, fower, fev, seeks, seevin, echt, nine ten, eleevin et. Ma grand faither spake affy browd Scots saying hings like 'em awa doon the toon the day tae beh a muckle tin o pent fur ma hoose. Ell see ye the nicht but a dinnae ken whit oor'. Aw the auld fowks spake like thon. Em still bilingual.
    Last edited by alan; 09-27-2020 at 09:16 PM.

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     Ariel90 (09-28-2020),  David Mc (09-28-2020),  Dewsloth (09-27-2020),  JMcB (09-27-2020),  Revmac (09-28-2020),  Saetro (09-29-2020),  [email protected] (09-28-2020),  sktibo (09-30-2020)

  3. #1272
    Registered Users
    Posts
    848
    Sex

    @Finn: I remember very well the paradigma from before genetic testing in much of Western archaeology, of "Pots not People". Many of those scholars had to be beaten to accept the Neolithic demic diffusion and the Copper Age Indo-Europeans from the steppe, even though in both cases, no reasonable observer could have come to any other conclusion but demic diffusion. I mean especially the Neolithic spread completely different cultural worlds and racial phenotypes, but some argued in the most absurd ways for regional continuity, so it was only with the genetic results, they could be silenced. But now they hang on like "this were just very extreme and very exceptional cases, but then, there was continuity again", when it was not. They just need more fine scaled instruments and more and larger data bases, because the differences will be more fine grained within the already steppified European world to really see the difference.
    Of course, nobody can know for sure what really happened, because sometimes major shifts in the material culture don't correspond all too well with a population replacement, whereas small, almost not noticeable ones, can have a huge demographic and genetic impact. So while I can assure you that the Bronze and Iron Age transitions in particular are big enough to explain a major demic diffusion and spread of new patrilineages, I can't prove it, as can other authors not prove the opposite of regional continuity from the Late Neolithic. Without the right samples, nobody can really know, but just speculate based on the inconclusive evidence available. But that there was direct continuity without major upheavals from the SGC to Germanics is something I deny altogether. This is, from my point of view, almost impossible. Not completely so, which means we have to wait for more data to be absolutely and 100 % sure, but I don't think so.
    You could convince me of a Nordic Bronze Age province being the cradle of Proto-Germanic people, somebody just has to deliver the I1 and R1b-U106 guys from one of these, at best living and surviving together to the Iron Age, no problem with that, but not earlier than that and with many major and shifting influences in between. But just let the data coming, I'm happy either way, its not like I have big stakes in this and I'm fine with any conclusion based on true evidence. I'm just thinking it being not very likely, that's all I'm saying.
    We really need samples from different regions, times and social strata to really solve this. Unfortunately, like with the British and Irish regions, much of the Bronze and Iron Age being cremated and not all too much left...
    Last edited by Riverman; 09-27-2020 at 08:49 PM.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (09-27-2020),  Revmac (09-28-2020),  uintah106 (09-27-2020)

  5. #1273
    Registered Users
    Posts
    489
    Sex
    Location
    NYC
    Ethnicity
    Semi-Synthetic Scandi
    Nationality
    American
    Y-DNA (P)
    N-Z1936 (Z1927)
    mtDNA (M)
    H1h
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-Z56 (Y60904)
    mtDNA (P)
    French, I think

    Denmark Norway Germany Italy Ethiopia
    Anyway, I wouldn't be so drastic as to call the influence from I1 and others the de-Indo-Europeanisation of Germanic. Think of it as a regional dialect of the West Indo-European spectrum with a bunch of additional words from a relatively aggressive neighbour that is the mystery of I1. I should have said Early Germanic was probably to a great degree mutually intelligible with Italo-Celto-Insular. Winfred Lehman, the leading Germanicist of the second half of the 20th century, said it was so it was. Meaning the U106 dialect.
    Last edited by Nibelung; 09-27-2020 at 09:05 PM.
    Scandinavian-love structure

    recent and recently discovered Swedish, Danish and Norwegian (many 4th/5th cousins)
    recent East/North German
    Anglo-Saxon from recent rural English (Derbyshire/Staffordshire) with possible trace Danish
    1/16 Bronze Age Swedish from Finland/Karelia
    medieval Norwegian and Danish via Ireland (possibly surviving structure)
    other English and German (regions unknown)
    other NW to NE European

    closest modern Sweden2
    closest ancient Sigtuna vik84001

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Nibelung For This Useful Post:

     Revmac (09-28-2020)

  7. #1274
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    @Finn: I remember very well the paradigma from before genetic testing in much of Western archaeology, of "Pots not People". Many of those scholars had to be beaten to accept the Neolithic demic diffusion and the Copper Age Indo-Europeans from the steppe, even though in both cases, no reasonable observer could have come to any other conclusion but demic diffusion. I mean especially the Neolithic spread completely different cultural worlds and racial phenotypes, but some argued in the most absurd ways for regional continuity, so it was only with the genetic results, they could be silenced. But now they hang on like "this were just very extreme and very exceptional cases, but then, there was continuity again", when it was not. They just need more fine scaled instruments and more and larger data bases, because the differences will be more fine grained within the already steppified European world to really see the difference.
    Of course, nobody can know for sure what really happened, because sometimes major shifts in the material culture don't correspond all too well with a population replacement, whereas small, almost not noticeable ones, can have a huge demographic and genetic impact. So while I can assure you that the Bronze and Iron Age transitions in particular are big enough to explain a major demic diffusion and spread of new patrilineages, I can't prove it, as can other authors not prove the opposite of regional continuity from the Late Neolithic. Without the right samples, nobody can really know, but just speculate based on the inconclusive evidence available. But that there was direct continuity without major upheavals from the SGC to Germanics is something I deny altogether. This is, from my point of view, almost impossible. Not completely so, which means we have to wait for more data to be absolutely and 100 % sure, but I don't think so.
    You could convince me of a Nordic Bronze Age province being the cradle of Proto-Germanic people, somebody just has to deliver the I1 and R1b-U106 guys from one of these, at best living and surviving together to the Iron Age, no problem with that, but not earlier than that and with many major and shifting influences in between. But just let the data coming, I'm happy either way, its not like I have big stakes in this and I'm fine with any conclusion based on true evidence. I'm just thinking it being not very likely, that's all I'm saying.
    We really need samples from different regions, times and social strata to really solve this. Unfortunately, like with the British and Irish regions, much of the Bronze and Iron Age being cremated and not all too much left...
    I will give a response tomorrow, the main thing is this:
    The Proto-Germanic unity was a point in time and space, which lasted probably some generations, but was lost immediately afterwards, when they radiated out, due to distance and mixture with local, related, probably even "Para-Germanic" populations. At the time of the Romans and other authors, this process had already progressed for many generations...’
    That’s nonsense IMO Germanics are a product of mingling of mix, no unified proto Germanics that appeared suddenly as a kind of new kids on the block on the scene.....
    Last edited by Finn; 09-27-2020 at 09:17 PM.

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

     Revmac (09-28-2020)

  9. #1275
    Registered Users
    Posts
    848
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    That’s nonsense IMO Germanics are a product of mingling of mix, no unified proto Germanics that appeared suddenly as a kind of new kids on the block on the scene.....
    I didn't deny that possibility, but let me explain that differently: Assume Proto-Germanics would have been the result of some, let's say "Para-Germanic people" meeting "Proto-Celtic" ones - for the sake of an argument. Just let us assume something along these lines. The point I was making, even if that kind of mixture was at the root of Proto-Germanics, that this was nothing happening in free space and without a timing. It happened in a specific place, at a specific time, with specific people. And it wasn't all the territory which we later see as early Germanic being included from the start and at the same time. That was what I was meaning. From which exact region and in which exact way they came up, I simply don't know and don't claim to know it for sure. But it happened, supposedly, fairly late and in a specific place and time, with specific "founding fathers". Even if those were already knowns to the region and came from different people before, they were still the founding fathers and formed, in a specific time and place, the Proto-Germanic people.
    I just don't see any sort of undifferentiated continuity without significant new impulses working out for the Nordic Bronze Age, even less so for anything before.
    Whether they were "the new kids on the block" is again something unknown. Rather not, but who knows for sure, without tracing the paternal lineages back? I1 and R1b-U106 belong, currently, to the most mysterious lineages still around in my opinion. For many others we have quite solid scenarios and can trace them back, but those two have so much unknown going with them, that without more data almost nothing is for certain other than a transalpine origin.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Riverman For This Useful Post:

     Ariel90 (09-28-2020),  jadegreg (09-27-2020),  JMcB (09-27-2020),  Revmac (09-28-2020),  uintah106 (09-28-2020)

  11. #1276
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    I didn't deny that possibility, but let me explain that differently: Assume Proto-Germanics would have been the result of some, let's say "Para-Germanic people" meeting "Proto-Celtic" ones - for the sake of an argument. Just let us assume something along these lines. The point I was making, even if that kind of mixture was at the root of Proto-Germanics, that this was nothing happening in free space and without a timing. It happened in a specific place, at a specific time, with specific people. And it wasn't all the territory which we later see as early Germanic being included from the start and at the same time. That was what I was meaning. From which exact region and in which exact way they came up, I simply don't know and don't claim to know it for sure. But it happened, supposedly, fairly late and in a specific place and time, with specific "founding fathers". Even if those were already knowns to the region and came from different people before, they were still the founding fathers and formed, in a specific time and place, the Proto-Germanic people.
    I just don't see any sort of undifferentiated continuity without significant new impulses working out for the Nordic Bronze Age, even less so for anything before.
    Whether they were "the new kids on the block" is again something unknown. Rather not, but who knows for sure, without tracing the paternal lineages back? I1 and R1b-U106 belong, currently, to the most mysterious lineages still around in my opinion. For many others we have quite solid scenarios and can trace them back, but those two have so much unknown going with them, that without more data almost nothing is for certain other than a transalpine origin.
    It's all a matter of perception Riverman!
    There are as such no proto-Germans waiting to be found. To exaggerate you would not find graves with people with 'proto-German' written on their skull!
    It are proto-Germans because we, nowadays, label them so. With or without good reason that's the question.

    A few months ago I discussed together with spruithaen with a Iranian guy he stated based on name giving the Germanics were rooted in Iran and that on a certain point in history they rushed right away into NW Europe....come on guys do me a favor. That's the brothers Grimm.

    The biggest chance if you want to find the R1b u106 'pushers' you must search in primarily in the 'southwestern sphere of Kristiansen' , the Dagger Period and spread and or the Sögel-Wohlde sphere, just based on the biggest hotspots nowadays that folows more or less the Sögel-Wohlde/ Elp area.....
    Last edited by Finn; 09-28-2020 at 07:59 AM.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     alexfritz (09-28-2020),  JMcB (09-28-2020)

  13. #1277
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by alan View Post
    dae ye ken o brod Scots. In pairt o ma yinger days ma hoose wis in the mickle toon o Dundee. Ye micht no ken whar thon toon is. Its on the east o Scotland on the river Tay. An auld toon that s ower echt huner years old. Eh wis a bairn in thon toon. Eh bided there fur mony a year. We coonted like such: ane, twa, three, fower, fev, seeks, seevin, echt, nine ten, eleevin et. Ma grand faither spake affy browd Scots saying hings like 'em awa doon the toon the day tae beh a muckle tin o pent fur ma hoose. Ell see ye the nicht but a dinnae ken whit oor'. Aw the auld fowks spake like thon. Em still bilingual.
    Wat dóchst kirrel? Wat hed dij kaalf aal te soezen? Dij haalf maale van n Finn kin mie nog meer vertellen mit zien taimkes over Yat en Jat en zokswat meer. Gekwedel en aans niks, wie binnen gain haalve Duutsers! Nee wie binnen degelke Viking luu.....en dat soll ik hom ais liek veur de kop knappen, netgeliek of hai 't verstaait of nait!

  14. #1278
    Registered Users
    Posts
    784
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a CTS11962+L1029+
    mtDNA (M)
    H80

    European Union Germany Italy
    found this PDF online
    maybe that context(s) has something to do with the formation of proto-Germanic
    Geno2.0 51SEURO 19WCEURO 13SCANDINAVIA 5ASIAMINOR 4EEURO 4GB/IRELAND 3ARABIA myOrigins 26ITA.PENINSULA 13GREECE&BALKANS 12SARDINIA 18GREATBRITAIN 14IRELAND 10CEN.EUROPE 8SCANDINAVIA DNA.Land 49NWEURO 27SEURO 13MED.ISLANDER 11SARDINIAN myHeritage 51.8NWEURO 33.2ITALIAN 7.9GREEK/S.ITALY 7.1BALKAN gencove 29NITALY 19EMED 15NBRITISLES 12SWEURO 10NCEURO 9SCANDINAVIA 6NEEURO GenePlaza 54.4NWEURO 37.6GREEK/ALBANIAN 5.6WASIAN 2.4SWASIA LivingDNA 70.7SGERMANIC 16.3TUSCANY 9.2N.ITALY 3.8SARDINIA

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to alexfritz For This Useful Post:

     Ariel90 (09-28-2020),  Aroon1916 (09-28-2020),  Finn (09-28-2020),  JMcB (09-28-2020)

  16. #1279
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,533
    Sex
    Location
    Groningen
    Ethnicity
    SGC+TRB Creool
    Nationality
    NL
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-V22

    Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by alexfritz View Post
    found this PDF online
    maybe that context(s) has something to do with the formation of proto-Germanic
    Indeed Alex, IMO it does, see a few postings ago:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post703974

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Finn For This Useful Post:

     alexfritz (09-28-2020),  JMcB (09-28-2020)

  18. #1280
    Registered Users
    Posts
    7,513
    Sex
    Omitted
    Y-DNA (P)
    L21
    mtDNA (M)
    H

    Quote Originally Posted by Finn View Post
    Wat dóchst kirrel? Wat hed dij kaalf aal te soezen? Dij haalf maale van n Finn kin mie nog meer vertellen mit zien taimkes over Yat en Jat en zokswat meer. Gekwedel en aans niks, wie binnen gain haalve Duutsers! Nee wie binnen degelke Viking luu.....en dat soll ik hom ais liek veur de kop knappen, netgeliek of hai 't verstaait of nait!
    I find written Dutch basically understandable in English but this is not true of German. Im not sure why but Dutch is faaaaar easier to read than German to an English speaker and my ability to speak broad Scots helps this even more. Though I did hear that German soldiers in WW1 found Scots far easier to understand than English soldiers when they captured each other. The Geordie dialect of NE England is much more like broad Scots than any other English dialect too. A Scot would understand strong Geordie far easier than English people (other than Geordies) would.
    Last edited by alan; 09-28-2020 at 10:30 AM.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to alan For This Useful Post:

     JMcB (09-28-2020)

Page 128 of 175 FirstFirst ... 2878118126127128129130138 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-11-2019, 07:20 PM
  2. Ethics in Studies of Population Genomics
    By Eвa in forum General
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-03-2018, 12:09 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2018, 10:12 PM
  4. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics
    By JMcB in forum Archaeology (Prehistory)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-30-2017, 02:03 PM
  5. A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics
    By Helgenes50 in forum French
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-11-2017, 03:44 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
  •