Embracing the Bell Beakers

[Rodoorn]

Anglesqueville,

Not sure how labor intensive this is, but it may be informative to run Plink calculation on WEHR_1192SkA Lech to relevant ancient samples.  Is he closer to these Oostwold BB & MBA samples or to the Danish Bronze Age samples?

@Anglesqueville

Indeed a trianglisation would be very informative!

I would be insane if rodoorn mom is closer to lech than lech to oostwoud.

[Anglesqueville]

distances from WEHR_1192Ska to ...


WEHR_1192SkA WEHR_1192SkA 0
I21402 France_Champagne_IA 0.254407
I4074 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.255395
I21399 France_Champagne_IA 0.256139
I19356 France_Champagne_IA 0.256268
I4069 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.256429
I4073 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.256661
I4075 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.256786
I20817 France_Champagne_IA 0.25747
I5750 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.259025
I4076 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.259667
I5748 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.26003
I4068 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.261563
I4067 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.266955
NEO857_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.294117
I12083 Netherlands_MBA_LBA 0.299852
finnmum finnmum 0.300078
I12082 Netherlands_MBA 0.300527
NEO815_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.303206
I11973 Netherlands_MBA 0.30377
VK582_A Denmark_IA.imputed_Allentoft 0.304229
VK213_A Denmark_IA.imputed_Allentoft 0.304635
RISE47_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.305108
VK214_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.306563
NEO951_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.309535
NEO590_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.310172
NEO93_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.310637
VK521_A Denmark_IA.imputed_Allentoft 0.310706
NEO946_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.311272
VK532_A Denmark_IA.imputed_Allentoft 0.311328
NEO752_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.311944
NEO563_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.311992

[Mitchell-Atkins]

distances from WEHR_1192Ska to ...


WEHR_1192SkA WEHR_1192SkA 0
I4074 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.255395
I4069 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.256429
I4073 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.256661
I4075 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.256786
I5750 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.259025
I4076 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.259667
I5748 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.26003
I4068 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.261563
I4067 Netherlands_BellBeaker 0.266955
NEO857_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.294117
I12083 Netherlands_MBA_LBA 0.299852
finnmum finnmum 0.300078
I12082 Netherlands_MBA 0.300527
NEO815_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.303206
I11973 Netherlands_MBA 0.30377
RISE47_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.305108
VK214_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.306563
NEO951_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.309535
NEO590_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.310172
NEO93_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.310637
NEO946_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.311272
NEO752_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.311944
NEO563_A Denmark_BA.imputed_Allentoft 0.311992

Took out the Iron Age samples so it was just Oostwold, Holland Bell Beaker & Bronze Age vs Danish Bronze Age.

Thanks for doing this

[Anglesqueville]

This is probably off-topic, but as there has been a lot of talk about Rodoorn's mother, I point out that I have just found a model for her which is undoubtedly close to optimal, and which seems historically reasonable to me.

finnmum
Denmark_IA.imputed_Allentoft_VK213
Alt-Inden-S1 = IND003


Transversions only:

finnmum  hetrate:    0.166 valid snps:    173046 samples:    1
Denmark_IA.imputed_Allentoft_VK213  hetrate:    0.163 valid snps:    174687 samples:    1
Alt-Inden-S1  hetrate:    0.000 valid snps:    122593 samples:    1

best coefficients:    0.649    0.351
totmean:      0.649    0.351
boot mean:    0.673    0.327
      std. errors:    0.783    0.783


fixed pat  wt  dof    chisq      tail prob
          00  0    13    3.878        0.992417    0.649    0.351
          01  1    14    9.231        0.815988    1.000    0.000
          10  1    14    17.818          0.2152    0.000    1.000
best pat:          00        0.992417              -  -
best pat:          01        0.815988  chi(nested):    5.352 p-value for nested model:      0.0206946


Transitions included:

finnmum  hetrate:    0.164 valid snps:    882798 samples:    1
Denmark_IA.imputed_Allentoft_VK213  hetrate:    0.162 valid snps:    890277 samples:    1
Alt-Inden-S1  hetrate:    0.000 valid snps:    643676 samples:    1


best coefficients:    0.706    0.294
totmean:      0.706    0.294
boot mean:    0.713    0.287
      std. errors:    0.352    0.352


fixed pat  wt  dof    chisq      tail prob
          00  0    13    9.443        0.738691    0.706    0.294
          01  1    14    13.236        0.508052    1.000    0.000
          10  1    14    28.727      0.0113765    0.000    1.000
best pat:          00        0.738691              -  -
best pat:          01        0.508052  chi(nested):    3.792 p-value for nested model:      0.051488


I rarely achieve such good adjustments when I model modern ones with old ones, which unfortunately I often do because the people in my family who have been tested are insatiable for these things.

[Rodoorn]

@Anglesqueville thanks for time and effort! @Mitchell-Atkins

Bit difficult for me to get something out of it, beyond what is too obvious.

In the first place how to judge those differences, how to put them in perspective. Certainly at population level.

That said some fragmentary thoughts....with an invitation to add it.

Imo Lech is from the BB samples closest to Rodoorn mom as she has a major NE Dutch ancestry so I'm inclined to think that Lech was not the place of birth of that sample but it could indeed be NE Dutch/NW Germany BB derived.

As said SGC is at stake in the case of BB NE Dutch as Danish IA....or is it the TRB factor? Just distance don't provide us such info of course.

For the rest it is obvious that the Champagne IA is as close to the Lech sample as Dutch BB (even a tad better). Looks a brainbreaker too!

[Mitchell-Atkins]

@Anglesqueville thanks for time and effort! @Mitchell-Atkins

Bit difficult for me to get something out of it, beyond what is too obvious.

In the first place how to judge those differences, how to put them in perspective. Certainly at population level.

That said some fragmentary thoughts....with an invitation to add it.

Imo Lech is from the BB samples closest to Rodoorn mom as she has a major NE Dutch ancestry so I'm inclined to think that Lech was not the place of birth of that sample but it could indeed be NE Dutch/NW Germany BB derived.

As said SGC is at stake in the case of BB NE Dutch as Danish IA....or is it the TRB factor? Just distance don't provide us such info of course.

For the rest it is obvious that the Champagne IA is as close to the Lech sample as Dutch BB (even a tad better). Looks a brainbreaker too!

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.

[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......

[Rodoorn]

@Mitchell-Atkins
Given what you have brought up and my posting on it, I would appreciate a response. Noblesse oblige. Thanks in advance!

[alanarchae]

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.

[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.

There is not ad hominem at Stevens. He has spun my words, and  I corrected this words, he neglected this and continued to give a false impression. That is no ad hominem that is a factual false by him.  And that is the real spoiler of the debate. Because Im convinced that it was the cause that Mitch gave a wrong impression too:' your mother is representative a NE Dutch BB.' Never stated that.

So when you favor are civilized debate you have to take back your acquisition of ad hominem. Or you must show that what I see as spinning and the continuation of spinning (even when I stated it very clear that he quoted me false) is not factual but a kind of ad hominem. 

When this is the case I will apologize but otherwise I expect this from you mr. Alanarchea. That keeps it sane. I hope we agree on that.

At stake is this:
"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!)" 

After this (the correction in red) I had to repeat the correction. No effect.


Why is this ad hominem? So a personal attack? And no observation of actual behavior, as I note.

Thanks in advance.

[Mitchell-Atkins]

I've said my peace. I've nothing further to add at the present.

[Rober_tce]

We should remember all users don’t personalize discussions, it isn’t allowed. I hope we can restart the discussion through correct form. Thank you all. 

Next step would be delete posts.

[Rodoorn]

We should remember all users don’t personalize discussions, it isn’t allowed. I hope we can restart the discussion through correct form. Thank you all. 

Next step would be delete posts.

I hope you will be monitoring this all and I guess is false quoting and/or putting other member words in the mouth even after I have posted to a fellow member about it, are maintained. This spoils a sincere debate. Thanks in advance.

[Rodoorn]

https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?...9#pid10199

@alanarchae

You were curious for the West German situation, this is the middle Rhine situation.

Grossmann (2016):

[alanarchae]

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.

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.