The genetic history of Scandinavia from the Roman Iron Age to the present

[sheepslayer]

Funny - this sample is coming up on my FTDNA aDNA matches list as L513-->S5668 (which I am). is this a misread somewhere?

I also have him at R-L21 > DF13 > L513 > S5668 > Z16340 > BY4152

[Finn]

Slogans, caricatures and emotional appeals, the usual stuff. Explain only how the notion of multi-polarity can be logically compatible with the definition of a proto-language.

Explain how a proto Germanic language was spoken in only a relative small area, in obviously splendid isolation.

Total weird to retouche all other area's out of the PGmc picture.

[anglesqueville]

For vk213 I used the complete clusters from Reich_54.1:

pop: England_IA hetrate: 0.124 valid snps: 861199 samples: 11
pop: England_IA_Roman.SG hetrate: 0.119 valid snps: 946446 samples: 6

The models I got are very dirty ones: enormous standard-errors, and very high p-values for the nested models without England_IA. VK213 is obviously a special case, but I definitely think that allelic tools (for not speaking of G25) are not the most suitable for this kind of question.




left pops:
Denmark_IA.SG_vk213
Sweden_BAC.SG
Sweden_Ansarve_Megalithic.SG
England_IA

right pops:
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Czech_Vestonice16
Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic.SG
Russia_Kostenki14.SG
Ukraine_Mesolithic
Indian_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG
Russia_Arkhangelsk_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG
Israel_PPNB
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Ukraine_GlobularAmphora


best coefficients: 0.590 0.193 0.217
totmean: 0.590 0.193 0.217
boot mean: 0.585 0.192 0.223
std. errors: 0.451 0.125 0.524


fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
000 0 12 8.389 0.75404 0.590 0.193 0.217
001 1 13 8.814 0.786861 0.763 0.237 0.000
010 1 13 11.404 0.577021 0.441 0.000 0.559
100 1 13 12.620 0.477596 0.000 0.120 0.880
011 2 14 14.630 0.403884 1.000 0.000 0.000
101 2 14 79.271 3.86199e-11 0.000 1.000 0.000
110 2 14 13.922 0.455549 0.000 0.000 1.000
best pat: 000 0.75404 - -
best pat: 001 0.786861 chi(nested): 0.425 p-value for nested model: 0.51459
best pat: 110 0.455549 not nested


*************************************************


left pops:
Denmark_IA.SG_vk213
Sweden_BAC.SG
Sweden_Ansarve_Megalithic.SG
England_IA_Roman.SG


best coefficients: 0.045 0.139 0.817
totmean: 0.045 0.139 0.817
boot mean: -0.985 0.020 1.965
std. errors: 29.898 4.820 34.639


fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
000 0 12 7.133 0.848682 0.045 0.139 0.817
001 1 13 8.774 0.789776 0.765 0.235 0.000
010 1 13 8.879 0.782051 -0.506 0.000 1.506 infeasible
100 1 13 7.362 0.882526 0.000 0.134 0.866
011 2 14 14.842 0.389021 1.000 0.000 0.000
101 2 14 79.259 3.88251e-11 0.000 1.000 0.000
110 2 14 9.057 0.827403 0.000 0.000 1.000
best pat: 000 0.848682 - -
best pat: 100 0.882526 chi(nested): 0.229 p-value for nested model: 0.632216
best pat: 110 0.827403 chi(nested): 1.694 p-value for nested model: 0.193031

[anglesqueville]

Explain how a proto Germanic language was spoken in only a relative small area, in obviously splendid isolation.

Total weird to retouche all other area's out of the PGmc picture.

Well, let's forget Germanic for an instant. Give me one only example of a "multipolar" (to use your words) proto-language. That is to say, a known case where the phonological shift(s) defining a proto-language would have appeared independently in several disjoint zones. Or at least cite a study that would point in this direction. My request is actually purely formal. Of course, you won't be able to answer this query, because such a thing is simply impossible in the context of the tree model. I am not talking about an arborescent model in the strict neogrammarian sense, but of a modern arborescent model, which takes into account as much as possible "lateral" interferences. As soon as you speak of proto-language, you implicitly follow the principles of the tree structure, because the notion of a proto-language is consubstantial with it. So simply proclaim that you refuse these models, that is to say, in short, that you refuse historical linguistics as a whole, and stop talking about proto-Germanic. And also stop talking about a Germanic linguistic family, because it's the same thing. Others have tried it before you (others who nevertheless knew a little more linguistics than you). I am thinking in particular of the Italian linguist Angela Marcantonio, who claimed to prove in a famous book (famous but not in the good sense of the term) the non-existence of the Indo-European family, then that of the Uralic family. This poor woman claimed to dream of "another linguistics". We are still waiting for it.

[Kunig]

Well, let's forget Germanic for an instant. Give me one only example of a "multipolar" (to use your words) proto-language. That is to say, a known case where the phonological shift(s) defining a proto-language would have appeared independently in several disjoint zones. Or at least cite a study that would point in this direction. My request is actually purely formal. Of course, you won't be able to answer this query, because such a thing is simply impossible in the context of the tree model. I am not talking about an arborescent model in the strict neogrammarian sense, but of a modern arborescent model, which takes into account as much as possible "lateral" interferences. As soon as you speak of proto-language, you implicitly follow the principles of the tree structure, because the notion of a proto-language is consubstantial with it. So simply proclaim that you refuse these models, that is to say, in short, that you refuse historical linguistics as a whole, and stop talking about proto-Germanic. And also stop talking about a Germanic linguistic family, because it's the same thing. Others have tried it before you (others who nevertheless knew a little more linguistics than you). I am thinking in particular of the Italian linguist Angela Marcantonio, who claimed to prove in a famous book (famous but not in the good sense of the term) the non-existence of the Indo-European family, then that of the Uralic family. This poor woman claimed to dream of "another linguistics". We are still waiting for it.

Although we uphold the modern Language Tree model, the people within which a proto-language develops can themselves be polythetic culturally & genetically. The case of proto-Germanic, or better yet the pre-proto-Germanic streams- is a prime example (BAx, Late northern BB, continental TRB coalescing into Nordic BA)

[anglesqueville]

Although we uphold the modern Language Tree model, the people within which a proto-language develops can themselves be polythetic culturally & genetically. The case of proto-Germanic, or better yet the pre-proto-Germanic streams- is a prime example (BAx, Late northern BB, continental TRB coalescing into Nordic BA)

That's not what Finn says:

I even doubt one single "initial area of formation of Proto-Germanic" c.q. linguistic Urheimat also the formation of PGmc was 'multipolair' and in a wide area....with a very long time range (see Koch, Ringe). That doesn't combine with a linguistic Urheimat concept.

For once it was very clear. It is indeed a question of the formation area of the proto-Germanic language. So you have to imagine the specifical phonological shifts occurring independently in several places, like mushrooms bursting from the ground in the fall. Or not even like that, because we know that fungi are connected under the soil surface. Well, in short, it's absurd.

[Finn]

That's not what Finn says:
For once it was very clear. It is indeed a question of the formation area of the proto-Germanic language. So you have to imagine the specifical phonological shifts occurring independently in several places, like mushrooms bursting from the ground in the fall. Or not even like that, because we know that fungi are connected under the soil surface. Well, in short, it's absurd.

I know what you are aiming at, the Verner's law, the formality.

But to pinpoint that with accuratesse you need evidence, a source, inscriptions. But of course none of this all.

That makes this absoluteness of you even more fare fetched and in fact absurd (no foundation):

All these elements converge towards a single credible hypothesis: the PGmc formed in a region in constant contact with the coastal regions of the Eastern Baltic. This region cannot be located elsewhere than in middle Sweden.

[draugr]

Thanks so the VK213 fossil the foreign bride was the one with the heaviest British_IA trace.

[draugr]

The Allentoft paper found the earliest occurrence in a ~4,000-year-old individual from Falköping in southern Sweden (NEO220)."

These were the I1 samples from the paper: (sample number, location and Age, BC cal midpoint):

NEO93, Strøby Ladeplads, Denmark, -1788
NEO220, Falköping 5, Sweden, -2036
NEO223, Falköping 5, Sweden, -2018
NEO223, Falköping 5, Sweden, -1974
NEO228, Falköping 5, Sweden, -1891
NEO261, Sillvik, Sweden, -1945
NEO563, Bybjerg, Denmark, -1405
NEO815, Vasagård, Denmark, -1524
NEO857, Lollikehuse, Denmark, -1718
NEO875, Toftum Mose, Denmark, -2036

It matches modern distribution

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....-I1-haplogroup

[Jon]

I believe the initial call of Z290 might have been a result of one of the posters here using a computer program, or it may have been made by the authors. FTDNA probably did a little more analysis on the sample.

Thanks people. Do you think my 'Irish missionary' theory holds any water? Or could this have been a more indigenous individual? The authors clearly label the sample as 'British/Irish', and the fact that it's medieval and church-based to me screams medieval Christian missionary activity, which was still streaming out of Ireland especially...