About Proto-Germanic

[Anglesqueville]

^^ 

 Your couple of qpAdm-runs don't work for disproving the existence of an IBD-cluster, as you claimed. At best they show that you fundamentally misunderstand the utility of IBD-modelling as compared to regular admixture-modelling of deep ancestry when it comes very closely related genomic ancestries (ie basics).

You hit the nail on the head. With IBDs, many problems arise for amateurs (and perhaps not only for amateurs). First, generating a list of IBDs is never an easy task. With ibdseq, which works on non-phased genomes, it is only serious; with ancIBD (which is very demanding in terms of phased data) it becomes a hassle if the authors have not prepared the work themselves (the case of Allentoft). When a list is generated, the troubles are not over, I would even say that this is where they really begin. Because what to do with this list? We can obviously be content to exploit it naively, by going fishing for results. I have been content with that so far, but with the growing feeling that this approach is very limited. So we must go beyond this point. Allentoft and McColl have chosen to use hierarchical clustering techniques. I am currently experimenting with several hierarchical clustering programs in R, and I am struggling. In short, all this represents a lot of work, and work that is not easy for people who are not professional bioinformaticians. So believe me, we are not done with this, and we are not done with people criticizing these new approaches without having made the effort to understand them (let alone experiment with them).

[CowboyHG]

@ Naudigastir

Your couple of qpAdm-runs don't work for disproving the existence of an IBD-cluster, as you claimed. At best they show that you fundamentally misunderstand the utility of IBD-modelling as compared to regular admixture-modelling of deep ancestry when it comes very closely related genomic ancestries (ie basics).

No I understand the utility of IBD modelling. I am not denying the existence of a the aforementioned IBD cluster,  so your comments are strawmans or failure to appreciate that IBD and more traditional modelling still need to correlate. 
Read again what the cornerstone of the claim in the Danish isles paper,-  ''Y chromosome haplogroup I1 is one of the dominant haplogroups in present-day Scandinavians, and we here document its earliest occurrence in an approximately 4,000-year-old individual from Falköping in southern Sweden (NEO220). The rapid increase in frequency of this haplogroup and associated genome-wide ancestry coincides with increase in human mobility seen in Swedish Sr isotope data, suggesting an influx of people from eastern or northeastern regions of Scandinavia, and the emergence of stone cist burials in Southern Sweden.

So we do in fact need to correlate the specific IBD cluster with genome-wide ancestry, and identify the source(s) of HG rise in the LNBA Scandinavia

You haven't been very specific about uniparentals beyond the I1-level yourself

This comment  fails to understand that significance I pointed out that I1 appears in Toftum Mose exaclty the same time as the earliest Falkoping samples.
The subsequent success of haplotypes within in later Germanic groups is not the point of discussion. This has been clarified 3 times.

''Do I need to remind you once again that this is based on examination of samples across the whole time-span during which the shift is occurring? By the way, here is a link to the thesis they actually reference, which deals not only with the Falköping gallery-grave, but Falbygden and Västergötland at large''

Ok, but Falkoping are the cornerstone of the proposal ''we here document its earliest occurrence in an approximately 4,000-year-old individual from Falköping in southern Sweden
I correctly pointed out that in fact the data we have from Falkoping show a ''local''-ish isotopic signature and it is the 3500 bp individuals which show the alleged eastern affinities. 
My point is fair and accurate, but Im not going to waste more time on mobility isotopies because it is just not that sensitive a discipline, sorry if that's your bag 

Logical fallacy? You wrote a blatantly false statement about the chronology about PWC and were corrected. Simple as that. Rather than belittling and strawmanning other people's arguments you can just admit you were wrong and move on. Talking about “saving face”…

No actually I did not make any chronological errors. 
I simply said that 'at this time (~22/2000 BC) eastern Sweden was occupied by PWC' . In your haste to prove me wrong, you googled up a date that PWC actually ended c. 2300 BC
This changes nothing, and displays that you don;t understand much about archaeology, because peoples and civilizations dont end at the stroke of midnight (unless there’s some kind of grand natural calamity) and further (as we have seen multiple times) their populations still hangs around for centuries after the classic taxa becomes less visible to classical archaeology.
Your deflection  tactics aside, the fact remains that it is for you to prove a migration from eastern Sweden to SW Sweden at this time. If that can be done, great. But it still misses the point about gallery graves, which represent a result of local demographic growth and expansion into marginal land, more deeply linked to large migrations via Northwestern Europe

And im not going to get into the history of paradigmatic pitfalls espoused on this thread

[Rober_tce]

Please stay on topic and don`t personalize. Thanks.

[Strider99]

@Russki

Hello Russki. As agreed upon, I am replying to your post in this thread instead as to avoid derailing the other thread with off-topic information.

Judging by the samples from McColl (and the IA samples from Margaryan's 2020 study), there does not appear to have been a significant influx of Continental autosomal ancestry and paternal lineages in Southern Scandinavia between the LBA and EIA. We can see that the Danish Isles and Scania are largely the same in the BA as they are in the EIA. If the hypothetical population movement that you mention occurred, I think it's likely that we'd be able to spot that in the samples and that there'd be much less continuity.

In regards to I1, it has not been found in the Battle Axe culture so far. You are of course correct however that the BAC was dominated by R1a, in particular Y2395, although it should be kept in mind that the sample size for that culture is still small.

I should add that I did not claim a (relative) continuity in Y-DNA lineages in Southern Scandinavia since the BAC, but rather since the LN. In fact, very clear discontinuity between the MN (FBC, PWC, BAC, SGC) and the Nordic LN is visible in Southern Scandinavia. This is also clear archaeologically. In Scandinavian archaeology it is often talked about how "the flint dagger replaced the battle axe as the symbol of warriorhood" and it is interesting that aDNA largely supports that notion as well. I have attached a table of the archaeological chronology in Scandinavia below just as a reminder:



To answer your request about the studies, here are some links to the ones I find the most relevant to this topic:

100 ancient genomes show repeated population turnovers in Neolithic Denmark

The genomic ancestry of the Scandinavian Battle Axe Culture people and their relation to the broader Corded Ware horizon

Genomic Steppe ancestry in skeletons from the Neolithic Single Grave Culture in Denmark

Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

Repeated plague infections across six generations of Neolithic Farmers

Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia

[Jaska]

By the way, Southern and even Central Germany is not even a realistic proposal. It's undisputed that it's the core area of the Celtic peoples, and this year 2024 we've got West-Hallstattkreis samples in the G25 format. The realistic proposal is the Lower Elbe basin. This area had dense contacts with the Celtic material culture, but was not Celtic per se.

As I said, early Celtic contacts can be located in Southern Sweden:
https://www.academia.edu/84137635/Celto_...h_and_West

We cannot explain contacts with Saami and Finnic from Elbe, but we can explain them from Southern Sweden.

[Anglesqueville]

McColl V2 has just been published (unfortunately, without an access number to the data). There are some modifications to the previous version, including this major one:

The Eastern Scandinavians first detection 6-800 years after the earliest Corded Ware populations in Scandinavia (Extended Data Fig.-9A), and the presence of a Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, not well represented by the three waves of Hunter-Gatherers previously identified in  Scandinavia, points to an additional, late arrival into Scandinavia by the ancestors of the Eastern Scandinavians. The Hunter-Gatherer ancestry suggests a link across the Baltic or from the northeast along the Baltic coastline. With regards to their Steppe-related ancestry, the Corded Ware individuals from Lithuania (4842–4496 BP), Latvia (4833 BP) and Estonia
(4638–4400 BP) are not well-modelled by the Eastern Scandinavians, suggesting a source region further north (Supplementary Fig. S5.28). Notably, Corded Ware and Hunter-Gatherer genomes from Finland and the northeast coast of Sweden are not represented in the dataset, and may also be a suitable source for the Hunter-Gatherer ancestry in Eastern Scandinavians.
Such a location would be consistent with strontium isotopes of the Late Neolithic Swedes of Central Sweden which link with eastern and northern Sweden, Finland and possibly Karelia and with similarities in pottery styles between Late Neolithic Sweden and the Kiukainen culture (4500–3800 BP) of southwestern Finland and the Åland Islands. Combined, the results point to the presence of an unsampled hunter-gatherer population, likely carrying I1 haplogroups, admixing with a Corded Ware-related population, similar to those of Scandinavia, to form the Eastern Scandinavians somewhere between Finland and Northeast Sweden. At present, no genomes from this region and time period exist.

[Æsir]

Where is @Rodoorn

It would be manly to apologize @Anglesqueville

[Jaska]

Even though old DNA usually is not preserved in Finland, the isotopic results from nearby regions could help to bridge some gaps. In optimal case there could be a group of first-generation immigrants from Finland, whose genetic profile would be distinct from local people.

It is possible that Germanic language lineage spread to Scandinavia via Estonia or Finland, although genetic or archaeological results alone can never prove it. There are possible Pre-Proto-Germanic loanwords in West Uralic, which are not contradicting with what we know about the development of Germanic lineage. Actually we know very little about it: between the Corded Ware expansion ca. 2800 BCE and the early Celtic contacts at the late 2nd millennium BCE in Southern Sweden, we do not know much about the whereabouts of Germanic language lineage. It could have circled around in the Northeastern Europe.

[Anglesqueville]

For Tomenable who asked about VK214 in his deleted post. With ancIBD, the three first matches of VK214 are with people from the East_Scandinavian cluster (McColl):

id1 id2 longest > 8 cM Sum > 8cM number > 8cM
VK214 NEO228 11.3433003425598 37.6329123973846 4
VK214 NEO220 13.3188962936401 30.1467955112457 3
VK214 NEO261 9.97580289840698 27.8676986694336 3

[Anglesqueville]

I don't know if some people here read eurogenes, but just in case... As usual, the so-called rob has started to spread misinformation there following the update of McColl's study, and my fear is that some, through ignorance of the reality of what has been said here, will be fooled. McColl hypothesizes that the East Scandinavian cluster where I1 is experiencing an explosive flowering (with in particular the guys from Falköping) has one of its sources in a North Scandinavian or Finnish group that has not yet been identified. No one, neither McColl nor anyone here, has claimed or even imagined that this hypothetical group ("Finnish HG" as rob calls it) would be identifiable in any way with Proto-Germanic. The chronological context of this hypothesis is the end of the Neolithic, therefore, in the terminology used by McColl, the Paleo-Germanic period. We may be less intelligent than the Eurogenes, but even we know that a millennium and a half do not count for nothing.