Embracing the Bell Beakers

[AimSmall]

Watch the personalized rhetoric and attacks.

[Rodoorn]

I truly have no interest in causing conflict with you when I share my views...which are subject to change as new info is discovered.

As it relates to sample, WEHR_1192SkA WEHR_1192Sk.  If your mother is representative a NE Dutch BB, then, per the PLINK results,  WEHR is closer to Holland BB than to NE Dutch BB.  

Average distance to Holland Bell Beaker is 0.259 vs 0.300 for your mother.

But as you know from various heated discussions, that is a Big if to many of your fellow GA members, because it treats NE Netherlands as an genetically isolated area since ~2000 BC.  I'm sure you can appreciate that without genetic evidence to support this position,  some of your fellow GA members remain skeptical and don't share your enthusiastic confidence that this is indeed the case.  

For example, what kept native Hollanders from moving to NE Netherlands area after the All Saints' Flood of 1170 (Allerheiligenvloed) or floods between ~2000 BC and 1000 AD.  When their homeland went under water, was there some invisible barrier that prevented these folks who had Holland Bell Beaker ancestry from settling in NE Netherlands?

IMO, your mother's close affinity to Danish Iron Age samples, and the known Saxon arrivals in Northern Netherlands shouldn't be downplayed/placed lower in importance than the Bell Beaker who lived there 2500 years prior to the Saxons.  We know they had a genetic impact on England, so why would NE Netherlands not be also be affected.  It may be hard to detect if the Saxons were genetically similar to the Native NE Dutch...much like Danelaw immigrants in England are hard to detect because they were genetically similar to the Angles & Saxons...and  on top of that, the Angles and Saxons weren't very different from the Iron Age Britons.  Some A-S samples plot very close to England_IA samples.

IIRC, as you have previously mentioned, these "Saxon" arrivals would come from a former SGC/Bell Beaker area in northern Germany and Jutland so they would probably look genetically very similar to the native NE Dutch.  But the inability to detect a difference doesn't mean they didn't have a genetic impact.

Like you, I hope actual ancient SGC/BB samples from NE Netherlands in the 2900-2200 BC timeframe are soon tested and published.  

I think we can agree that seeking the truth wherever leads is a the ultimate goal in these discussions.

Again, I don't seek to aggravate, just sharing my point of view.

I wonder why the preamble needs to be included. I can be fierce and direct. At the same time, I attach importance to being treated fairly and that my words are not spun. I also approach others sincerely, I don't play the man unless 'the blood from under my nails is removed'. And besides, I'm as failable as you, never too old to learn. After this preamble of mine...

Let's take a look at the content. I have never claimed that my mother (or I) am a proxy of NE Dutch BB and therefore not representative either.

I even indicated that in red but it doesn't stick. Mr. Stevens then just repeats it as if.....If you were in my place I don't think you would appreciate that either! And that reminds me of the words of a former US president, 'If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth'. But I insist that is not going to be the culture on genarchivist....(and therefore agree: 'seeking the truth wherever leads is a the ultimate goal in these discussions.' and also speaking the truth!)

My initial point was G25. G25 stated this:



With regard to the distance compared to the Germanic people (Anglo-Saxons), I have systematically expressed my surprise that Lech Wehr came closer to my mother's sample.

I don't underestimate the Anglo-Saxon influence at all (see my correspondance with @JonikW ) , I was just surprised. At the same time - and you may not know this at all - there is a whole discussion going on in Dutch archaeology/history (for a century now) about the impact of the Anglo-Saxon influx. The gist is that depopulation took place in the west of Friesland in the third century. After that the Anglo-Saxons came in. At the same time, the situation in Drenthe has been unclear; the tenor has been precisely that there has been reason for considerable continuity. With this background the surprise is even greater, you understand.

Did I then run away with that? In a sense I have sought out the contradiction. And I asked Angles to go into depth. Believing that Angles is simply reporting the results as they are. I did that precisely out of doubt.

Now the result is there. This partly shows a different picture than from G25. What is essentially different is that the distance from my mother to the BB samples does not take such forms as in G25. In other words: there seems (superficial?) to be not much difference. Also because of another method. Anyway the result:

WEHR_1192SkA Lech 0.299775
I4074 Netherlands_BB 0.304243
I4069 Netherlands_BB 0.305808
I4073 Netherlands_BB 0.305824
I4075 Netherlands_BB 0.307456
I5750 Netherlands_BB 0.307661
I4076 Netherlands_BB 0.309262
I5748 Netherlands_BB 0.309665
I4068 Netherlands_BB 0.311434
I4067 Netherlands_BB 0.313916


What is clear is that of the Bell Beakers the Lech samples still comes closest. At the same time, this is also distorted because they are "percentages" on a total of 900,000 SNPs (see info Angles) a difference of 0.01 is 9000 SNPs. Many or less?

Take in account: 'When considering more disaggregated data for 26 European populations, the smallest genetic distance (0.0009) is between the Dutch and the Danes, and the largest (0.0667) is between the Lapps and the Sardinians."  (wiki)

The difference in distance between Rodoorn mom, Lech and BB Dutch is: 0.004468. So way more than between Dutch and Danes   So still considerable?

The only thing I maintain after the Angles exercise is that based on the Lech from the Bell Beakers in combination with my mother's deep roots in the NE Dutch area, that WEHR_1192SkA Lech probably did not come from Lech itself but even from the NE Dutch BB context.

There is therefore an assumption that the population foundation laid by the Bell Beakers still has a distant echo (= not the same!!!) in the current NE Dutch population ('on the shoulders of'). That is an assumption on which you may differ. And I hear deep skepticism from some. That is possible, but imho it really lies more in the difference in how you view population development in this part of old Europe. For many Americans this is completely unbelievable, especially if you look at this from a strictly American perspective (= totally determined by their own context)... So for some it is clearly rude to take off those glasses for a moment.... imo a loss!

As for the rest - and apparently this is not yet completely clear after the two postings I have spent on this - I have little hope, unless the technology has to advance, that "sampleable" remains of SGC and BB will appear in NE Dutch area. But I like to be surprised.

Last but least, I propose to leave it at this and perhaps focus on the small difference in distance as Angles measured between Lech and Champagne IA, which are therefore at the same level as the Dutch BB. I guess that's the most fruitful at the moment......

could you please refrain from the ad hominems directed at Rich Stevens. It’s not a good look, is not doing you any favours and is not in the best spirit of civilised debate.

What a petty comment after Finn's thoughts... Have you even read what he said?

It is hard enough to have a civil discussion when you have Stevens twisting words of Rodoorn and accusing me of ethnonationalism. Unsubstantiated nonsense. Least you can do is show some understanding but then you have the brassneck to accuse Rodoorn of ad hominens. The fake British politeness doesn't help.

I don't expect a response from you. You Americans and Brits shut up when you get confronted. All deaf ears when someone says it how it is.

me and Rodoorn are good. I’ve been chatting away with him since that exchange. I just said it how it looked to me and he disagreed. We don’t have to agree or see things the same. Nor dwell on some disagreement like huffy kids. We said what we said and now it’s another day.

@alanarchae "are good" that's a bit too quick and easy a conclusion imo. You came for me out of the blue with a serious accusation of ad hominem against Stevens. My answer to that: just substantiate it and then - to put it in Dutch - 'I go deeply into the dust'. So with apologies. 

But no substantiation. No 'I was wrong' either. These are always a matter of choice of course! It would be nice...it would be sportive and it would be appreciated. But in this case: radio silence. 

Well, then you leave it to me, let us agree that there is no substantiation of ad hominem. That is also the reason why we continued to chat, I try to separate person and matter. And I plan to continue doing so!

[alanarchae]

I wonder why the preamble needs to be included. I can be fierce and direct. At the same time, I attach importance to being treated fairly and that my words are not spun. I also approach others sincerely, I don't play the man unless 'the blood from under my nails is removed'. And besides, I'm as failable as you, never too old to learn. After this preamble of mine...

Let's take a look at the content. I have never claimed that my mother (or I) am a proxy of NE Dutch BB and therefore not representative either.

I even indicated that in red but it doesn't stick. Mr. Stevens then just repeats it as if.....If you were in my place I don't think you would appreciate that either! And that reminds me of the words of a former US president, 'If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth'. But I insist that is not going to be the culture on genarchivist....(and therefore agree: 'seeking the truth wherever leads is a the ultimate goal in these discussions.' and also speaking the truth!)

My initial point was G25. G25 stated this:



With regard to the distance compared to the Germanic people (Anglo-Saxons), I have systematically expressed my surprise that Lech Wehr came closer to my mother's sample.

I don't underestimate the Anglo-Saxon influence at all (see my correspondance with @JonikW ) , I was just surprised. At the same time - and you may not know this at all - there is a whole discussion going on in Dutch archaeology/history (for a century now) about the impact of the Anglo-Saxon influx. The gist is that depopulation took place in the west of Friesland in the third century. After that the Anglo-Saxons came in. At the same time, the situation in Drenthe has been unclear; the tenor has been precisely that there has been reason for considerable continuity. With this background the surprise is even greater, you understand.

Did I then run away with that? In a sense I have sought out the contradiction. And I asked Angles to go into depth. Believing that Angles is simply reporting the results as they are. I did that precisely out of doubt.

Now the result is there. This partly shows a different picture than from G25. What is essentially different is that the distance from my mother to the BB samples does not take such forms as in G25. In other words: there seems (superficial?) to be not much difference. Also because of another method. Anyway the result:

WEHR_1192SkA Lech 0.299775
I4074 Netherlands_BB 0.304243
I4069 Netherlands_BB 0.305808
I4073 Netherlands_BB 0.305824
I4075 Netherlands_BB 0.307456
I5750 Netherlands_BB 0.307661
I4076 Netherlands_BB 0.309262
I5748 Netherlands_BB 0.309665
I4068 Netherlands_BB 0.311434
I4067 Netherlands_BB 0.313916


What is clear is that of the Bell Beakers the Lech samples still comes closest. At the same time, this is also distorted because they are "percentages" on a total of 900,000 SNPs (see info Angles) a difference of 0.01 is 9000 SNPs. Many or less?

Take in account: 'When considering more disaggregated data for 26 European populations, the smallest genetic distance (0.0009) is between the Dutch and the Danes, and the largest (0.0667) is between the Lapps and the Sardinians."  (wiki)

The difference in distance between Rodoorn mom, Lech and BB Dutch is: 0.004468. So way more than between Dutch and Danes   So still considerable?

The only thing I maintain after the Angles exercise is that based on the Lech from the Bell Beakers in combination with my mother's deep roots in the NE Dutch area, that WEHR_1192SkA Lech probably did not come from Lech itself but even from the NE Dutch BB context.

There is therefore an assumption that the population foundation laid by the Bell Beakers still has a distant echo (= not the same!!!) in the current NE Dutch population ('on the shoulders of'). That is an assumption on which you may differ. And I hear deep skepticism from some. That is possible, but imho it really lies more in the difference in how you view population development in this part of old Europe. For many Americans this is completely unbelievable, especially if you look at this from a strictly American perspective (= totally determined by their own context)... So for some it is clearly rude to take off those glasses for a moment.... imo a loss!

As for the rest - and apparently this is not yet completely clear after the two postings I have spent on this - I have little hope, unless the technology has to advance, that "sampleable" remains of SGC and BB will appear in NE Dutch area. But I like to be surprised.

Last but least, I propose to leave it at this and perhaps focus on the small difference in distance as Angles measured between Lech and Champagne IA, which are therefore at the same level as the Dutch BB. I guess that's the most fruitful at the moment......

could you please refrain from the ad hominems directed at Rich Stevens. It’s not a good look, is not doing you any favours and is not in the best spirit of civilised debate.

What a petty comment after Finn's thoughts... Have you even read what he said?

It is hard enough to have a civil discussion when you have Stevens twisting words of Rodoorn and accusing me of ethnonationalism. Unsubstantiated nonsense. Least you can do is show some understanding but then you have the brassneck to accuse Rodoorn of ad hominens. The fake British politeness doesn't help.

I don't expect a response from you. You Americans and Brits shut up when you get confronted. All deaf ears when someone says it how it is.

me and Rodoorn are good. I’ve been chatting away with him since that exchange. I just said it how it looked to me and he disagreed. We don’t have to agree or see things the same. Nor dwell on some disagreement like huffy kids. We said what we said and now it’s another day.

@alanarchae "are good" that's a bit too quick and easy a conclusion imo. You came for me out of the blue with a serious accusation of ad hominem against Stevens. My answer to that: just substantiate it and then - to put it in Dutch - 'I go deeply into the dust'. So with apologies. 

But no substantiation. No 'I was wrong' either. These are always a matter of choice of course! It would be nice...it would be sportive and it would be appreciated. But in this case: radio silence. 

Well, then you leave it to me, let us agree that there is no substantiation of ad hominem. That is also the reason why we continued to chat, I try to separate person and matter. And I plan to continue doing so!

Well if you felt my accusing you of ad hominem was in itself ad hominem then I apologise. I think referring to Rich as ‘Stevens’ several times is what made me flip. I don’t know about social niceties in Holland but it comes across as hostile or treating someone as under your authority here if you suddenly switch from first name to surname terms. Kind of like an old fashioned head master to his pupils or a seargant or officer to his men.

[Rodoorn]

could you please refrain from the ad hominems directed at Rich Stevens. It’s not a good look, is not doing you any favours and is not in the best spirit of civilised debate.

What a petty comment after Finn's thoughts... Have you even read what he said?

It is hard enough to have a civil discussion when you have Stevens twisting words of Rodoorn and accusing me of ethnonationalism. Unsubstantiated nonsense. Least you can do is show some understanding but then you have the brassneck to accuse Rodoorn of ad hominens. The fake British politeness doesn't help.

I don't expect a response from you. You Americans and Brits shut up when you get confronted. All deaf ears when someone says it how it is.

me and Rodoorn are good. I’ve been chatting away with him since that exchange. I just said it how it looked to me and he disagreed. We don’t have to agree or see things the same. Nor dwell on some disagreement like huffy kids. We said what we said and now it’s another day.

@alanarchae "are good" that's a bit too quick and easy a conclusion imo. You came for me out of the blue with a serious accusation of ad hominem against Stevens. My answer to that: just substantiate it and then - to put it in Dutch - 'I go deeply into the dust'. So with apologies. 

But no substantiation. No 'I was wrong' either. These are always a matter of choice of course! It would be nice...it would be sportive and it would be appreciated. But in this case: radio silence. 

Well, then you leave it to me, let us agree that there is no substantiation of ad hominem. That is also the reason why we continued to chat, I try to separate person and matter. And I plan to continue doing so!

Well if you felt my accusing you of ad hominem was in itself ad hominem then I apologise. I think referring to Rich as ‘Stevens’ several times is what made me flip. I don’t know about social niceties in Holland but it comes across as hostile or treating someone as under your authority here if you suddenly switch from first name to surname terms. Kind of like an old fashioned head master to his pupils or a seargant or officer to his men.

Well if mentioning Stevens was the thing.....then this is imo not intended as an ad hominem, so a personal attack.

Because in the Netherlands and certainly in my region calling someone with the surname is getting a bit more on distance, certainly no degradation. On the contrary...Calling him Richard is on the continent more a kind of "old boys" and "informal". Well rmstevens2 is no "Rich" or "Richard" for me....

And as you have seen sometimes I call him mr Stevens and sometimes Stevens for me this has the same connotation.

I use it as follows:
"From the Style Book NRC Handelsblad: Generally speaking, we mention someone for the first time in an article
name in full, with (all) initials and any titles. Then just the last name."

You called me "dude" which is not only in the Anglo-Saxon world but also on the continent more "as under your authority". So in that respect

Anyway as this is the miscommunication I hope this cleared the case, let's shake hands and continue the debate!

[alanarchae]

What a petty comment after Finn's thoughts... Have you even read what he said?

It is hard enough to have a civil discussion when you have Stevens twisting words of Rodoorn and accusing me of ethnonationalism. Unsubstantiated nonsense. Least you can do is show some understanding but then you have the brassneck to accuse Rodoorn of ad hominens. The fake British politeness doesn't help.

I don't expect a response from you. You Americans and Brits shut up when you get confronted. All deaf ears when someone says it how it is.

me and Rodoorn are good. I’ve been chatting away with him since that exchange. I just said it how it looked to me and he disagreed. We don’t have to agree or see things the same. Nor dwell on some disagreement like huffy kids. We said what we said and now it’s another day.

@alanarchae "are good" that's a bit too quick and easy a conclusion imo. You came for me out of the blue with a serious accusation of ad hominem against Stevens. My answer to that: just substantiate it and then - to put it in Dutch - 'I go deeply into the dust'. So with apologies. 

But no substantiation. No 'I was wrong' either. These are always a matter of choice of course! It would be nice...it would be sportive and it would be appreciated. But in this case: radio silence. 

Well, then you leave it to me, let us agree that there is no substantiation of ad hominem. That is also the reason why we continued to chat, I try to separate person and matter. And I plan to continue doing so!

Well if you felt my accusing you of ad hominem was in itself ad hominem then I apologise. I think referring to Rich as ‘Stevens’ several times is what made me flip. I don’t know about social niceties in Holland but it comes across as hostile or treating someone as under your authority here if you suddenly switch from first name to surname terms. Kind of like an old fashioned head master to his pupils or a seargant or officer to his men.

Well if mentioning Stevens was the thing.....then this is imo not intended as an ad hominem, so a personal attack.

Because in the Netherlands and certainly in my region calling someone with the surname is getting a bit more on distance, certainly no degradation. On the contrary...Calling him Richard is on the continent more a kind of "old boys" and "informal". Well rmstevens2 is no "Rich" or "Richard" for me....

And as you have seen sometimes I call him mr Stevens and sometimes Stevens for me this has the same connotation.

I use it as follows:
"From the Style Book NRC Handelsblad: Generally speaking, we mention someone for the first time in an article
name in full, with (all) initials and any titles. Then just the last name."

You called me "dude" which is not only in the Anglo-Saxon world but also on the continent more "as under your authority". So in that respect

Anyway as this is the miscommunication I hope this cleared the case, let's shake hands and continue the debate!

Well my understanding of dude (which admittedly is an americanism) is a term on friendly light hearted (almost silly) informality. Maybe I don’t understand the term though as in the uk it’s only used in that way - and it’s used only v  rarely as a concious comedic f Americanism to lighten things up. 

But as you say, we may all be suffering in translation here! I agree let’s move on.