(03-18-2024, 03:25 AM)Bollox79 Wrote: Hmm for anyone interested found a bit on the inhumations at Velkenburg... assuming these are the same ones in the paper from that site - they were pretty beaten up... pathology wise. Quoting this from a bit of the paper (which you can find here: https://archaeology.datastations.nl/file...ersion=2.0):
Some more information on the Roman cemetery at Valkenburg:
Apart from the genetically non-local individuals (Gallic?), sample CGG107753 has a presumably Rome_Imperial genetic profile ("0_4_3_1_WMed" cluster, S2 sheet in the suppl. excel file), belongs to J-L70->PF5430 and has local isotopes per the analysis above (burial number: I052). Unfortunately this sample is not directly RC-dated.
(03-17-2024, 08:13 PM)alanarchae Wrote: I don’t think i’ve seen a paper that tries to solve so many issues. It’s a hard one to get your head around. But it has the ring of truth about it. The complexity of genetic mixing in Scandinavia in the beinze and iron ages doesn’t surprise me though as Germanic has always looked like a peculiar branch that looks like a tug of war in several directions. I’m also not surprised by the eastern north sea subgroup surving fairly pure in its western end until the migration era or that it was a significant factor (admixed with eastern scandinavian overlay) in iron age Jutland. I just wonder how this fits into NW Block and the mystery of the Celtic-like Cimbri and Teutnes.
Is eastern north sea (esn) not just the NW Block area? Or is this also connected to Jutland?
My impression from the paper is that ESN is in the NW block area.....but correct me if I'm wrong.
(03-17-2024, 07:56 PM)cottager Wrote: In the end, where is the root of I1, the Eastern Baltic or the Danish Islands?
(03-18-2024, 12:07 PM)Rodoorn Wrote:
(03-17-2024, 08:13 PM)alanarchae Wrote: I don’t think i’ve seen a paper that tries to solve so many issues. It’s a hard one to get your head around. But it has the ring of truth about it. The complexity of genetic mixing in Scandinavia in the beinze and iron ages doesn’t surprise me though as Germanic has always looked like a peculiar branch that looks like a tug of war in several directions. I’m also not surprised by the eastern north sea subgroup surving fairly pure in its western end until the migration era or that it was a significant factor (admixed with eastern scandinavian overlay) in iron age Jutland. I just wonder how this fits into NW Block and the mystery of the Celtic-like Cimbri and Teutnes.
Is eastern north sea (esn) not just the NW Block area? Or is this also connected to Jutland?
My impression from the paper is that ESN is in the NW block area.....but correct me if I'm wrong.
I wonder... in my mind we might have two separate blocks originally (Hilversum vs. Elp) but perhaps they had blended already later on.
(03-18-2024, 03:47 PM)Rodoorn Wrote: According to the paper the East North Sea (ESN) genetic cluster is Bell Beaker derived.
ESN= NW block speakers!?
ESN/NW Block
yellow and blue area with regard to West Dutch/ and NE Dutch/ NW German Bell Beakers, according to archeologist Lanting (2007/2008):
same area in BA times, based on knives distribution by Butler, Arnoldussen and Steegstra:
I guess this is core NW Block.
As fare as I know Kuhn but also other linguists made a link between NW block with (Italo-)Celtic.....r survived
As there was likely a dominant bell beaker element in that area of the north sea I think it’s virtually a certainty that NW Block was a subset of Italo-Celtic as pretty well every other area dominated by bell beaker descendants who spoke IE are associated with that branch of IE. The group was rather peripheral to the big networks like Atlantic to the west, Nordic to the east and c Europe to the south. So it’s perhaps a local dialect which may have survived being replaced by bigger network dialects. Kind of like the way Lusitanian likely survived in Iberia because it spent a great deal of the post beaker era ‘out of then loop’. Ive always found the NW Block theory quite attractive and now a population that lasted untouched from beaker to the AD era has been found in the area it’s even more attractive.
Quote:As there was likely a dominant bell beaker element in that area of the north sea I think it’s virtually a certainty that NW Block was a subset of Italo-Celtic as pretty well every other area dominated by bell beaker descendants who spoke IE are associated with that branch of IE. The group was rather peripheral to the big networks like Atlantic to the west, Nordic to the east and c Europe to the south. So it’s perhaps a local dialect which may have survived being replaced by bigger network dialects. Kind of like the way Lusitanian likely survived in Iberia because it spent a great deal of the post beaker era ‘out of then loop’. Ive always found the NW Block theory quite attractive and now a population that lasted untouched from beaker to the AD era has been found in the area it’s even more attractive.
Virtually a certainty? Far from it. Dominant or majority ancestry cannot tell anything about the language: it is common that neighboring populations share the same dominant ancestry, yet they still often speak only distant or even unrelated languages.
When two populations admix, there are also other things than just numbers or majority ancestry to be taken into consideration. Language shift and expansion is a sociological phenomenon, not genetic. Language cannot be seen from the DNA, because language is not inherited in DNA. https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=503
03-19-2024, 06:50 AM (This post was last modified: 03-19-2024, 07:02 AM by old europe.)
(03-19-2024, 06:43 AM)Jaska Wrote: Alanarchae:
Quote:As there was likely a dominant bell beaker element in that area of the north sea I think it’s virtually a certainty that NW Block was a subset of Italo-Celtic as pretty well every other area dominated by bell beaker descendants who spoke IE are associated with that branch of IE. The group was rather peripheral to the big networks like Atlantic to the west, Nordic to the east and c Europe to the south. So it’s perhaps a local dialect which may have survived being replaced by bigger network dialects. Kind of like the way Lusitanian likely survived in Iberia because it spent a great deal of the post beaker era ‘out of then loop’. Ive always found the NW Block theory quite attractive and now a population that lasted untouched from beaker to the AD era has been found in the area it’s even more attractive.
Virtually a certainty? Far from it. Dominant or majority ancestry cannot tell anything about the language: it is common that neighboring populations share the same dominant ancestry, yet they still often speak only distant or even unrelated languages.
When two populations admix, there are also other things than just numbers or majority ancestry to be taken into consideration. Language shift and expansion is a sociological phenomenon, not genetic. Language cannot be seen from the DNA, because language is not inherited in DNA. https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=503
what you say is only partially true. It is much more evident in today society and even in ancient ones when you can see the birth of administrative-centralized states. Typical example, but not the only one of course, is the latinazation of western europe that happened without much demographic and/or genetic changes.
In the distant past of course sociological/linguistic changes were more on a one to one relationship with demographic/ genetics changes because these changes are brought up by human beings and human beings have dna
Quote:As there was likely a dominant bell beaker element in that area of the north sea I think it’s virtually a certainty that NW Block was a subset of Italo-Celtic as pretty well every other area dominated by bell beaker descendants who spoke IE are associated with that branch of IE. The group was rather peripheral to the big networks like Atlantic to the west, Nordic to the east and c Europe to the south. So it’s perhaps a local dialect which may have survived being replaced by bigger network dialects. Kind of like the way Lusitanian likely survived in Iberia because it spent a great deal of the post beaker era ‘out of then loop’. Ive always found the NW Block theory quite attractive and now a population that lasted untouched from beaker to the AD era has been found in the area it’s even more attractive.
Virtually a certainty? Far from it. Dominant or majority ancestry cannot tell anything about the language: it is common that neighboring populations share the same dominant ancestry, yet they still often speak only distant or even unrelated languages.
When two populations admix, there are also other things than just numbers or majority ancestry to be taken into consideration. Language shift and expansion is a sociological phenomenon, not genetic. Language cannot be seen from the DNA, because language is not inherited in DNA. https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=503
what you say is only partially true. It is much more evident in today society and even in ancient ones when you can see the birth of administrative-centralized states. Typical example, but not the only one of course, is the latinazation of western europe that happened without much demographic and/or genetic changes.
In the distant past of course sociological/linguistic changes were more on a one to one relationship with demographic/ genetics changes because these changes are brought up by human beings and human beings have dna
What part is not true in what I wrote? Or did you mean it is only part of the whole truth?
Your point agrees well with what I wrote about language. It cannot make any more credible the option that the Nordwestblock language was Italo-Celtic.
03-19-2024, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 03-19-2024, 09:37 AM by Rodoorn.)
(03-19-2024, 06:43 AM)Jaska Wrote: Alanarchae:
Quote:As there was likely a dominant bell beaker element in that area of the north sea I think it’s virtually a certainty that NW Block was a subset of Italo-Celtic as pretty well every other area dominated by bell beaker descendants who spoke IE are associated with that branch of IE. The group was rather peripheral to the big networks like Atlantic to the west, Nordic to the east and c Europe to the south. So it’s perhaps a local dialect which may have survived being replaced by bigger network dialects. Kind of like the way Lusitanian likely survived in Iberia because it spent a great deal of the post beaker era ‘out of then loop’. Ive always found the NW Block theory quite attractive and now a population that lasted untouched from beaker to the AD era has been found in the area it’s even more attractive.
Virtually a certainty? Far from it. Dominant or majority ancestry cannot tell anything about the language: it is common that neighboring populations share the same dominant ancestry, yet they still often speak only distant or even unrelated languages.
When two populations admix, there are also other things than just numbers or majority ancestry to be taken into consideration. Language shift and expansion is a sociological phenomenon, not genetic. Language cannot be seen from the DNA, because language is not inherited in DNA. https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=503
As fare as these things can be certain: yes.
The reason: we got here the core of the Bell Beakers in NW Europe. From these area there was a spread, most known to the Isles.
And as archeological can be shown settlements (I mentioned Eelde before) can be traced back to the BB and were left with the incoming Germanics about 400 AD. That's a serious continuity in population.
The people of the NW Block- and these area- was (still is) an interface in NW Europe. It would be difficult to share them unisono in between the proto-Germanic lineage.
From linguistic side see Kuhn (1962)- still a magnificent title: people between Germanics and Celtics-, see Schrijver (2017), see Kuzmenko:
PS The passage at stake:
"In the Netherlands, IA Southern Scandinavians’ ancestry became dominant in the place of a distinct Eastern North Sea population. The linguistic affiliation of this population is unknown. According to the linguistic ‘Nordwestblock’ hypothesis, the Netherlands may have harboured a language distinct from both Celtic and Germanic80. Given that ENS is a Bell Beaker subcluster, which is associated with Celtic languages in Britain and France, our results can alternatively be brought in line with theories of Celtic speakers, perhaps including the Frisii of the Roman Period, inhabiting the Dutch North Sea coast during the Early Iron Age 81. "
Rodoorn, there is no region in Europe where archaeological continuity has not been used to claim linguistic continuity. However, this method produces contradicting results, making the method totally unreliable. The fact remains that archaeological (or genetic) continuity cannot testify for linguistic continuity. https://www.alkuperasivusto.fi/Uralic.html
03-19-2024, 02:23 PM (This post was last modified: 03-19-2024, 02:31 PM by Rodoorn.)
(03-19-2024, 01:07 PM)Jaska Wrote: Rodoorn, there is no region in Europe where archaeological continuity has not been used to claim linguistic continuity. However, this method produces contradicting results, making the method totally unreliable. The fact remains that archaeological (or genetic) continuity cannot testify for linguistic continuity. https://www.alkuperasivusto.fi/Uralic.html
Well the fact that certain claims have been made more often doesn't mean that this claim is not accurat. Because it is quit obvious, from BB times (2400 BC) unto migration times (400 AD) the population knew a great continuity and the fundament of it (in that specific area = outmost NW continental Europe) was Bell Beaker and nothing else. But correct me if I'm wrong.
There are also been more claims about what the people of what in the paper has been called Eastern North Sea population- the paper claims that is was "distinctive" and also "BB related"- would have been spoken.
The only certainty from linguistic perspective with regard to the Dutch/NW German area we have is that with "In the Netherlands, IA Southern Scandinavians’ ancestry became dominant in the place of a distinct Eastern North Sea population." that this is contemporary with the occurance of kind of Germanic!
GBVPK Bell Beaker, Narbonne, South-France, 3890 C14 BP
from Seguin-Orlando's Heterogeneous Hunter-Gatherer and Steppe-Related Ancestries in Late Neolithic and Bell Beaker Genomes from Present-Day France formely known as the oldest DF27 relabelled R-L21.
Excited to see so much R-Z18 in this study. I wonder when they will release the data. It's particularly interesting to see a good amount of R-Z18 in the far north of Norway, especially since prior to this study the oldest R-Z372 sample was up there as well.
I hope future studies have far more Swedish samples. R-Z18 seems particularly oriented towards Sweden in modern times, so I'm wondering how early they had a significant presence there.
(03-19-2024, 05:05 PM)NewEnglander Wrote: Excited to see so much R-Z18 in this study. I wonder when they will release the data. It's particularly interesting to see a good amount of R-Z18 in the far north of Norway, especially since prior to this study the oldest R-Z372 sample was up there as well.
I hope future studies have far more Swedish samples. R-Z18 seems particularly oriented towards Sweden in modern times, so I'm wondering how early they had a significant presence there.
Looks like it spread there with the East Scandinavian and/or South Scandinavian ancestry. R-U106, R-L11, and maybe R-L238. The paper indicates the West Scandinavian ancestry didn't really move much once it arrived in Norway, and that is most strongly linked with R1a.
The P312+ branches are most likely more modern or related to ESE movements from Jutland.
![[Image: Lanting-Oostwoud.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/NfcVnGzt/Lanting-Oostwoud.png)
![[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-03-18-om-16-35-24.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/MG19PBrB/Scherm-afbeelding-2024-03-18-om-16-35-24.png)
![[Image: Scherm-afbeelding-2024-03-18-om-16-35-09.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/jjv7SdD9/Scherm-afbeelding-2024-03-18-om-16-35-09.png)
![[Image: Kuzmenko-2011.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/Xq6nhcxF/Kuzmenko-2011.png)
![[Image: Kuzmenko-2011-proto.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/bJCXh0zd/Kuzmenko-2011-proto.png)
