Hello guest, if you read this it means you are not registered. Click here to register in a few simple steps, you will enjoy all features of our Forum.

About Proto-Germanic
#16
PopGenist82:
“I advocate a population approach - the glottogenesis of proto-Germanic must be where the proto-Germanic tribes coalesced. The dominance of R1b-U106 and I1, now attested beyond dispute in Iron Age and Roman era Germanic and Nordic people, places the Germanic homeland centred on Jutland (but being more expansive than that) within the cultural context of the NBA.”

Does the expansion of these paternal lineages agree temporally with the Germanic expansion? If not, then they are not related to the expansion of Germanic languages but are either older or younger phenomena. It would be upside-down to just decide that they must be connected to the Germanic expansion. How would such a decision be any more credible than any other arbitrary decision concerning other (probably mostly extinct) languages?

PopGenist82:
“The Baltic zone & central -eastern Sweden are a periphery. Lang’s thesis about Bronze Age Germanic colonists in the east Baltic is in serious need of update, as they’re clearly “Balto-Slavs”.”

You are welcome to show your evidence supporting that claim. Was your Balto-Slavic spoken in Bronze Age Sweden? Stone Cist graves spread from Sweden to East Baltic.
Kaltmeister, JMcB, Rodoorn And 1 others like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
#17
(10-06-2023, 02:00 AM)Jaska Wrote: Rodoorn:
“I will only contribute once to why Jastorf was indeed an area where a form of proto-Germanic was spoken. Which does not at all hinder the speaking of a form of proto Germanic in parts of Scandinavia.”

Thank you, your comment was informative and intriguing. However, Koch himself supports Scandinavia as the Pre- and Proto-Germanic homeland. Jastorf and Unetice are not as credible options. Or do you have arguments stronger than Koch presents?

Koch 2020: 38:
“As to the whereabouts of Pre-Germanic during the Nordic Bronze Age (~1700–600 BC), advances in recent years have not upset, as the least controversial view, a homeland in Southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic. Therefore, Pre-Germanic would have been approximately coterminous with the Nordic Bronze Age. Its timespan as proposed here (~1900–500/400 BC) contains all of that archaeological period’s usual date range (~1700–600 BC) extended into the final metal-using stage of the Scandinavian Neolithic and the first 150 years of the Nordic Iron Age.”

Koch 2020: 76:
“It is also noteworthy that the totals for Old English and Old High German, languages situated entirely on territories that had been Celtic speaking, do not show higher percentages of CG words than Old Norse, the territory of which was completely disjoint from what had been Celtic. In fact, the Old English and Old High German totals are lower. All and all, it is worth remembering that the highest total on the Celtic side is Goidelic and the highest in Germanic is Norse, languages that were not in contact in historical times until the Viking period, and that Viking-period loans are almost always easily recognized and have been excluded from the Corpus.”
“Here we review points consistent with an essential facet of our hypothesis: the Bronze Age—when Welsh and then Iberian copper reached Scandinavia and Scandinavian rock art and Iberian warrior stelae shared iconography—was also the horizon to which many Celto-Germanic words are most plausibly attributed.”
https://www.wales.ac.uk/Resources/Docume...ic2020.pdf

About 38,  about 1900 BC the Unetice culture of Middle Elbe Saale and Harz was prosperous, so 'Pre-Germanic during the Nordic Bronze Age (~1700–600 BC).... a homeland in Southern Scandinavia extending into northernmost Germany along the Baltic' correct but with middle Elbe Saale and Harz at that time (1900 BC) as initial hub (see VandKilde) and a radiance the other way around, so not from but towards Southern Scandinavia. That Unetice collapses about 1500 BC is also a fact and that this changed most probably the configuration (NBA in MBA/LBA in prosperity)  is also likely. But that is clearly after the 'split' or 'birth' of pre Germanic (Koch states: ~1900 BC) .

VandKilde about EBA and the relationships at that time:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._Outskirts

"By c. 2000 bc , metals and other commodities travelled along well-established local, regional, and super-regional networks, which even incorporated the British Isles and Únětician hubs at the Middle Elbe–Saale. Back in Scandinavia, metal and metal-related culture provided a comparative advantage when navigating local competition for influence and leadership. The transculturally global was strategically appropriated locally, using the reinvention of tradition as a principal strategy. The first metal boom caused friction and slow social change, rather than a social revolution. The real tipping point came in 1600–1500 bc , when the nearly full-blown NBA emerged, through engagement with a considerably expanded world."

"The geographically wide-spread Únětice koiné emerges as generally important, particularly the hub at Halle-Saale (Fig. 13). In parallel with Scandinavia, different worlds intersect in the great hoard of Dieskau 2 (cf. von Brunn 1959). This hoard, with its c. 69 metal objects and 106 amber beads, is a key find of the Middle Elbe– Saale hubs that were especially concentrated in the Halle–Saale area. Despite its much larger volume, Dieskau 2 has a structure and content that strikingly recall the Scandinavian hoards: Pile, Gallemose, and Skeldal, in particular. Like these, Dieskau includes several local flanged axes (Únětice-type) and similarly incorporates other worlds, namely the Nordic area (amber necklaces), the British area (developed bronze flat axe with rain pattern), and the Eastern Alpine–Danubian region (several ösenhalsrings)."

"This may underpin the idea posited above, concerning the involvement of personal relations: a group of cosmopolitans emulated each other while agreeing on a ceremonial format, with axes being by far the most abundant element of each deposition, followed by rings and spiced with rarer items."

Koch 2020: 76: indeed we can also mention the NW block area, in which for example intimate/vulgar words with a -p in English as in Dutch like piss, poop etc survived the sound shift even unto today!
Jaska likes this post
#18
(10-05-2023, 09:42 PM)PopGenist82 Wrote: I advocate a population approach - the glottogenesis of proto-Germanic must be where the proto-Germanic tribes coalesced.
The dominance of R1b-U106 and I1, now attested beyond dispute in Iron Age and Roman era Germanic and Nordic people, places the Germanic homeland centred on Jutland (but being more expansive than that) within the cultural context of the NBA.

The Baltic zone & central -eastern Sweden are a periphery. Lang’s thesis about Bronze Age Germanic colonists in the east Baltic is in serious need of update, as they’re clearly “Balto-Slavs”.

Bit short of time so short story. With regard to R1b U106 the oldest sample is PLN001, just after 2900 BC from the upper Elbe in Bohemia.  That sample is pure Steppe like. From the same Elbe the Single Grave people went also short after 2900 BC to the North Sea area, see Egfjørd (2021). See also the works of Iain mc Donald.

For I1 are better experts around here, Jonik, an JmcB, but the short story there is that  I-M253 emerged in NBA. Isn't it Jonik and JmcB?
JonikW and jdbreazeale like this post
#19
Rodoorn, it is OK for me that the Nordic Bronze Age culture since 1500 BCE is connected to the Germanic lineage. This is early enough to explain the earliest proposed centum-loanwords into Finnic and Saami probably around 1000 BCE, followed by Paleo-Germanic loanwords already showing some changes (PIE *ō > *ā), later followed by Proto-Germanic, Northwest Germanic and Proto-Scandinavian loanwords into Finnic and Saami. I have no problem with Germanic lineage developing in Central Europe before that.
Rodoorn and jdbreazeale like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
#20
We have been accustomed for ages to seeing specialists, often historians or archaeologists, but unfortunately, also linguists, claiming to solve the problem of localizing Proto-Germanic without taking the slightest account of what is a massive linguistic element for this problem, if not the only significant linguistic element: the ancient Germanic lexical transfers in pre-proto-Saami and pre-proto-Finnic. Ignorance, bad faith, lazy obedience to a tradition never questioned (this is the case of Ringe in what he writes about Jastorf), we have here a complete catalogue of what can lead to the sterilization of a research field. Fortunately, the linguistic schools of the Ural-speaking countries (Finland in the lead) have managed to keep this field alive, following the great Germanist Jorma Koivulehto. As for amateurs, nothing new, since dealing with a linguistic problem without any linguistic argument is their favorite sport. In this regard, I see nothing else to do than let people chat. I will therefore not waste my time reminding that any haplogroup cuisine is not and will never be a linguistic argument. For my part, the only problem that remains is this: could a Balto-Finnic language have intervened in the linguistic process which led from late pre-Proto-Germanic to Proto-Germanic proper? Wiik thought it for some wrong reasons. As I have explained, Schrijver thinks so for reasons that are at least more likely but are surely not as clear as he seems to believe. Heikkilä (in "Bidrag til...") defends a thesis irreconcilable with that of Schrijver, without completely closing the door to a Balto-Finnic intervention in the genesis of Proto-Germanic. As far as I am concerned, I admit that I am a little tortured by the evidence that with this question I am entering into an area that is beyond my skills (1). This is why I never stop bothering all the competent linguists I can contact with this question that obsesses me.

(1) My knowledge of Finnish is that of a not-very-gifted student (my few Finnish ancestors have no reason to be proud of me), my knowledge of Saami is less than elementary (despite the fact that an old man devoted his last years of life trying to teach me the basics of northern Saami), and my knowledge of Samoyedic languages is simply pitiful.

edit: I hope Jaska will forgive me, but I have the annoying tendency to make a typo and write "Häkkinen" instead of "Heikkilä". I did it this morning, I fixed it, but I know it will happen again.
Jaska, JMcB, jdbreazeale like this post
MyHeritage:
North and West European 55.8%
English 28.5%
Baltic 11.5%
Finnish 4.2%
GENETIC GROUPS Scotland (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)

Papertrail (4 generations): Normandy, Orkney, Bergum, Emden, Oulu
#21
About pre-Germanic, I post here a copy of a short post previously posted on the first GenArch:
I am reluctant to talk about the early days of the branch leading to Proto-Germanic. In the absence of serious positive linguistic clues, we are reduced to pure speculations where appeals to archaeological considerations (we know their little informative value regarding linguistics) and/or genetics (same thing) compete with personal preferences. I write "positive linguistic clues". The absence of significant innovations shared among other Indo-European dialects is a significant negative indicator, as Winfred Lehmann abruptly points out: "In view of the absence of common innovations shared among other dialects, such as the augment, I assume that Germanic broke off independently — early — from Proto-Indo-European. Its archaic structure has been pointed out variously (...)". Another negative clue (which is worth what it's worth) is that when Don Ringe applies his "lexico-cladistic" method to the Germanic case, it crashes miserably. Reduced to interpreting (speculatively) this failure Ringe writes:
[img][Image: 0Ni1urz.jpg][/img]
[img][Image: tgahT1n.jpg][/img]
I would like to point out that this (interrogative) conclusion is in fact quite related to Lehmann's assertion, although on as different grounds as possible.
This shows that the idea that the Germanic branch came out of the same pot as the Italo-Celtic is perhaps ultimately nothing but a... preference.
Speaking of preferences, my own preferences are quite angry to see most guys dismissing these people, who had been there since the end of the Neolithic, and their language, very probably the daughter of that spoken by the first Indo-European settlers of Scandinavia. However, these certainly did not all come from the southwest (via Denmark). There is every indication that the early Corded Ware settlers of Sweden were closely related (if not the same) to the Corded Ware of Estonia and Finland. I add in passing that the best qpAdm models for Swedish Battle Axes are obtained by taking Estonian Corded Ware as an Indo-European source.
Manofthehour, jdbreazeale, JMcB And 1 others like this post
MyHeritage:
North and West European 55.8%
English 28.5%
Baltic 11.5%
Finnish 4.2%
GENETIC GROUPS Scotland (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)

Papertrail (4 generations): Normandy, Orkney, Bergum, Emden, Oulu
#22
In complement to my post devoted to Celtic loans, I'll tell again that the idea, central in Koch's work, of a long-lasting mutual intelligibility between Celtic and Germanic has always puzzled me. I found by chance a text, written by Paul Roberge ("Contact and the History of germanic languages" in "The Handbook of language contact"), that is convergent with my doubts:
Quote:After the southward migration of Italic groups from the last third of the second millennium BCE, one might suppose that Celtic and Germanic would have developed together for a longer period as closely related,mutually intelligible dialects in a situation of contact (Pokorny 1936: 508). One problematic aspect of this hypothesis is that there are no incontestible common innovations between them in phonology and grammar, to the exclusion of the other Indo-European branches; Germano-Celtic correspondences are confined to the lexicon (Polomé 1972: 64; Evans 1981: 242–3). For Evans (1981: 252–3), this is in itself a strong indication that the two groups were not in close association until a fairly late period.
Strabo, jdbreazeale, Jaska And 2 others like this post
MyHeritage:
North and West European 55.8%
English 28.5%
Baltic 11.5%
Finnish 4.2%
GENETIC GROUPS Scotland (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)

Papertrail (4 generations): Normandy, Orkney, Bergum, Emden, Oulu
#23
About Sails

I delved into one of the articles published in "The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited" (Kristiansen et al. ed. Cambridge University Press), namely "European Prehistory between Celtic and Germanic: The Celto-Germanic Isoglosses Revisited", by Paulus van Sluis, Anders Richardt Jørgensen, and Guus Kroonen. Today I only want to talk about one detail that really irritated me, their treatment of PGmc *sigla ("sail"). They write:
Quote:"The combined archaeological and linguistic analysis of the isogloss SAIL (*siglo-|*sigla-) points to an IA loanword from C to G, sails only becoming common in Scandinavia during the same period."

It is truly annoying to observe the mania of prehistorians to produce dogmas and the ease with which these dogmas become embedded in the place like a mussel on a rock. The dogma to which I am referring is that Scandinavia did not know the use of sail before the Middle Ages. Its only justification is a line from Tacitus and an alleged absence of evidence of presence as if the absence of evidence was equivalent to evidence of absence. I say "alleged" because this evidence exists. To be convinced of this, it is enough to read Boel Bengtsson's thesis "Sailing Rock Art Boats A Reassessment of Seafaring Abilities in Bronze Age Scandinavia and the Introduction of the Sail in the North". I'll just quote the summaries of the opening and of the concluding chapters:

Quote:The sail is currently thought to have emerged and developed in Scandinavia, or the 'North', between the seventh or eighth and ten centuries AD. This should be set against the widespread use of sail in the Mediterranean by c. 2000 BC and by at least the sixth century BC around the British Islands. The main reason for a belief of its relatively late introduction in Scandinavia is a lack of firm archaeological evidence of boat remains attesting to its use. Nonetheless, in southern Scandinavian rock art, in the period ranging from approximately 1700 BC to AD 400, there are boat carvings with attributes that can be interpreted as masts and sails, suggesting that the art of sailing was known and possibly used here much earlier than currently accepted of these particular images have been long known and yet completely omitted from any consideration of the usage of sail in the North. Instead, one line by the Roman historian Tacitus where he describes the 'Suiones' as lacking sail has (see Chapter Three), despite its questionable accuracy, been established as truth that the sail was not known in the North before AD 98. (...)
Within southern Scandinavian rock art, dating between 1700 BC and AD 400, there clearly exist boats with mast and sail like attributes. Despite this evidence the rock art has hitherto been omitted from any discussion on the introduction of the sail in the North. Instead the received opinion appear to conclude that the sail did not arrive here until between the seventh or eighth and the tenth century AD.
By examining the evidence of propulsion within the rock art boat material, in combination with experimental sail trials in Bronze Age type boats, and by comparing the knowledge gained from this with what is known about the transition from paddling to sailing in Ancient Egypt and Oceania, this thesis argues that the sail was used in Scandinavia in the early Bronze Age and that its use, as a complement to paddling, was widespread by c. 1300 BC. The driving forces behind its development was emerging exchange networks along with the early formation of centres of power in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries BC, which together would have intensified the need for mobility and communication over increasingly larger distances. The sail would have been a vital tool for the formation and development of these early centres of power, as the combination of sail/paddles would not only have allowed for more frequent long distance journeys through a wider range of weather conditions, but also increased flexibility in terms of the choice of routes and requirement for less manpower. In addition, the sail and the understanding of its use might have further enhanced the status of an individual leader. The emergence of the sail would also help explain how communications across such a large geographic area as southern Scandinavia, could be maintained at a frequency that allowed for a distinct Nordic tradition to develop and change in relative unison throughout the entire Bronze Age – a period from 1700–500 BC. This thesis suggests that the sail would first have been experimented with in the relatively sheltered archipelagos around the Scandinavian coasts, which would have offered a near ideal environment with negligible tide, weak and predictable currents as well as relatively predictable weather systems. Here a population used to boats in its everyday life and which had built up the necessary skills for experimentation, including seamanship and the ability to successfully predict the weather, would have started using the sail for relatively short trips. Although initially at least, it is likely that the sail would have been used for downwind, straight line purposes only, the sailing range would probably have increased relatively quickly to at least 90 degrees to the wind in response to increasing needs for mobility and trade. The evidence suggest this transition might have begun already before c. 1550 BC and that it can be put in direct relationship with the peak of the early Bronze Age 'chiefdoms' between 1500—1100 BC (Kristiansen & Larsson 2005:204), during which time also increased competition between rival chieftains might have offered a direct incentive for trying to expand on existing sailing abilities."

Read this text (around 140 pages) and you will undoubtedly be as convinced as I am that this dogma is nothing but bullshit. I therefore remain firmly attached (as firmly as the mussel on its rock) to the idea that Olr. seól is a loan from Proto-Germanic, and not the other way around. I see another argument in the fact that the proto-Finnic *purjëh > Finn. purje ("sail") is a loan from Proto-Germanic, namely PGmc *buriz ("favorable wind"). Here is the corresponding entry in Läglös:
[img][Image: WsKlXBK.jpg][/img]

About *buriz, Orel gives:
Quote:*buriz II sb.m.: ON byrr ‘fair wind’, OE byre ‘event, opportunity’, WFris bur ‘wind’, MLG bore-los ‘without fair wind’. Related to Slav *bur’a ‘storm’

About  "purje" as a Baltic loan. After Läglös Junttila rejects this hypothesis. He states:
Quote:purje ‘sail’ ~ Lith. burė, Latv. bura id. (Thomsen 1890: 124 163–64 Baltic *burjė). Finnic < Germanic *burja- (~ Old Norse byrr ‘tailwind’, Koivulehto 1970: 182). Most probably the Baltic words are also < Germanic.

It is difficult to imagine how someone could have the idea of "carrying wind, favourable wind" without having the idea of sail. About the semantic shift from "favourable wind" to "sail", Läglös states: "Die Deutung as germ. Lehwort ist lautlich and semantisch problemlos".
Strabo, Kaltmeister, JMcB And 2 others like this post
MyHeritage:
North and West European 55.8%
English 28.5%
Baltic 11.5%
Finnish 4.2%
GENETIC GROUPS Scotland (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire)

Papertrail (4 generations): Normandy, Orkney, Bergum, Emden, Oulu
#24
(10-06-2023, 02:11 AM)Jaska Wrote: PopGenist82:
“I advocate a population approach - the glottogenesis of proto-Germanic must be where the proto-Germanic tribes coalesced. The dominance of R1b-U106 and I1, now attested beyond dispute in Iron Age and Roman era Germanic and Nordic people, places the Germanic homeland centred on Jutland (but being more expansive than that) within the cultural context of the NBA.”

Does the expansion of these paternal lineages agree temporally with the Germanic expansion? If not, then they are not related to the expansion of Germanic languages but are either older or younger phenomena. It would be upside-down to just decide that they must be connected to the Germanic expansion. How would such a decision be any more credible than any other arbitrary decision concerning other (probably mostly extinct) languages?



You seem to think migrations were just happening willy-nilly and randomly as the wind blows
But they were not, and happened in specific times, often associated with broader climactic events and cultural changes. These are ripe conditions for language change.
You make these objections based on nothing. It would be more economical for you to garner a basic understanding of what the data shows


Quote:PopGenist82:
“The Baltic zone & central -eastern Sweden are a periphery. Lang’s thesis about Bronze Age Germanic colonists in the east Baltic is in serious need of update, as they’re clearly “Balto-Slavs”.”

You are welcome to show your evidence supporting that claim. Was your Balto-Slavic spoken in Bronze Age Sweden? Stone Cist graves spread from Sweden to East Baltic.


Haha no, Balto-Slavic was not spoken in Bronze Age Sweden.
I really would have thought that every enthusiast studying the region would be aware that the BA East Baltic groups, according to present state of evidence, were not Scandinavians.  it has been discussed in forums and detailed in publications for several years now.
This is easily demonstrable by the fact that the individuals from Bronze Age Latvia have ancestry from gained from Narva culture or other such HG-rich groups. They do not derive from Sweden or Scandinavia. Again, this is very clearly corroborated by Y-DNA which is distinctive between the I1 and R1b-u106 rich groups in Scandinavia and the R1a-ZZ283 and I2a1b- rich groups of the East Baltic region. The latter is found in ancient, historic and modern Balto-Slavic populations. Thus the link is documented in time and space, and is undeniable. Even amateurs like yourself can test it out with easy to run applications such as G25 / Vahaduo 

So Lang's theory for that specifci aspect is not supported by data. A competent and honest scholar with assimilate the evidence and move with it.
#25
(10-06-2023, 07:47 AM)Rodoorn Wrote:
(10-05-2023, 09:42 PM)PopGenist82 Wrote: I advocate a population approach - the glottogenesis of proto-Germanic must be where the proto-Germanic tribes coalesced.
The dominance of R1b-U106 and I1, now attested beyond dispute in Iron Age and Roman era Germanic and Nordic people, places the Germanic homeland centred on Jutland (but being more expansive than that) within the cultural context of the NBA.

The Baltic zone & central -eastern Sweden are a periphery. Lang’s thesis about Bronze Age Germanic colonists in the east Baltic is in serious need of update, as they’re clearly “Balto-Slavs”.

Bit short of time so short story. With regard to R1b U106 the oldest sample is PLN001, just after 2900 BC from the upper Elbe in Bohemia.  That sample is pure Steppe like. From the same Elbe the Single Grave people went also short after 2900 BC to the North Sea area, see Egfjørd (2021). See also the works of Iain mc Donald.

For I1 are better experts around here, Jonik, an JmcB, but the short story there is that  I-M253 emerged in NBA. Isn't it Jonik and JmcB?



The data points can be observed easily. I1 moved into into Scandinavia from the continent, as there is an I1 individual from German TRB. This is consistent with genome-wide models which show a 'southwestern' shift from early Swedish battle Axe to the Flint Dagger horizon. 

In considering glottogenesis using a 'population approach', there are two phases : 

A) the formation phase : the embryonic brewing, mixing and assimilating of tribes which would eventually coalsece into a future coherent group

This can be illustrated :
In the case of Germanic, the formative phase took at least 800 years, begning with an early wave from the East Baltic, then the wave from northwestern Europe
This unique history explains the position of Germanic within the IE tree. As a comparison, I have also illustrated the distinctive formation of the East Baltic cairns, for jaska's & JMcB's benefit.
Lastly, to sooth the evidence for Saami-Germanic loans, I have illustrated in purple the routes of contact between the northern periphery of Germania (central-east Sweden) and their contacts with trade partners further to the northeast.

[image] [Image: 1e1fZYN.png][/image]

B) the expansion phase: successful and widespread languages must have had a mechanism to enact their expansion., usually entailing at least some migration
There's nothing new here, we know the historic migrations of Germanic groups, although the quesiton of LBA exodus from Scandinavia needs to be further assessed. Unlike Poland & the Scandinavian regions, Germany remains under-sampled for the post-BB period.
Rodoorn likes this post
#26
Popgenist82:
Quote:“You seem to think migrations were just happening willy-nilly and randomly as the wind blows. But they were not, and happened in specific times, often associated with broader climactic events and cultural changes. These are ripe conditions for language change.”

Depends what do you mean by “randomly.” Every migration had its reasons, but we cannot always find these. Every migration always concerns language, because people talk. But which language and with which result (bringing to new region only loanwords or totally new language or neither), we cannot see from DNA.

Popgenist82:
Quote:“You make these objections based on nothing. It would be more economical for you to garner a basic understanding of what the data shows”

I only told you that you cannot randomly choose a language for every migration. You must check if the migration matches any linguistic results concerning time, place, and direction of expansion. You surely can understand this? Then, if you still disagree, feel free to present arguments why you do disagree.

Popgenist82:
Quote:“Haha no, Balto-Slavic was not spoken in Bronze Age Sweden.
I really would have thought that every enthusiast studying the region would be aware that the BA East Baltic groups, according to present state of evidence, were not Scandinavians.  it has been discussed in forums and detailed in publications for several years now.”

You talked about Lang’s model, so I assumed you knew that there were several different groups in the East Baltic Region. As I said, the Stone Cist graves arrived there from Sweden. Do you understand and accept this?

Popgenist82:
Quote:“This is easily demonstrable by the fact that the individuals from Bronze Age Latvia have ancestry from gained from Narva culture or other such HG-rich groups. They do not derive from Sweden or Scandinavia.”

I did not talk about them. 

Popgenist82:
Quote:“So Lang's theory for that specifci aspect is not supported by data. A competent and honest scholar with assimilate the evidence and move with it.”

You misunderstood what Lang actually wrote. He is not claiming that all people in East Baltic Region were Germanic speakers, only those found in the Stone Cist graves in Coastal Estonia (all of the males R1a; see Saag et al. 2019). These graves were also made in Southwest Finland and they are a part of cultural horizon related to Nordic Bronze Age culture.

If you try to disprove someone’s view, you should first know what that person’s opinion really is and what it is based on.

Popgenist82:
Quote:“In considering glottogenesis using a 'population approach', there are two phases :

A) the formation phase : the embryonic brewing, mixing and assimilating of tribes which would eventually coalsece into a future coherent group

B) the expansion phase: successful and widespread languages must have had a mechanism to enact their expansion., usually entailing at least some migration”

So, what is the actual methodology in your population approach? To me it still seems that you just decide arbitrarily that Germanic language must be connected to certain population movement. Where is the evidence you base your decision on?

The scientific method is:
1. We take the linguistic results as the starting point.
2. We look if there is a match in genetic or archaeological data, concerning time, place, and direction of expansion.
3. If there is a match, good: we can then preliminarily connect certain language to certain genetic or cultural expansion in that particular time and place (although this connection is not automatically true for other times or places).
4. If there is no match, we must reject the assumed connection and keep on searching.
jdbreazeale, JMcB, Kaltmeister like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
#27
(10-07-2023, 04:19 AM)Jaska Wrote: The scientific method is:
1. We take the linguistic results as the starting point.
2. We look if there is a match in genetic or archaeological data, concerning time, place, and direction of expansion.
3. If there is a match, good: we can then preliminarily connect certain language to certain genetic or cultural expansion in that particular time and place (although this connection is not automatically true for other times or places).
4. If there is no match, we must reject the assumed connection and keep on searching.

Sure, I have taken the linguistic results of Napolsky, Janhunen, Aiko, Nichols and several others, and confirmed the migratory path for what they propose
But you seem to have a very unusual & selective appplication of the scientific method, right through to 'altering' Uralic family tree to suit your theory.

Quote: As I said, the Stone Cist graves arrived there from Sweden. Do you understand and accept this?

are you saying that the stones themselves were brought in from Sweden ? If so, you need rock DNA Smile
Otherwise, the people buried in them evidently were not. But im not excluding future sampling might reveal the occasional Nordic peson, I have of course no objection to such a possibility.
#28
Popgenist82:
Quote:“Sure, I have taken the linguistic results of Napolsky, Janhunen, Aiko, Nichols and several others, and confirmed the migratory path for what they propose”

Migratory path of what actually? Uralic to Finland on your map, or what are you talking about here? 

Popgenist82:
Quote:“But you seem to have a very unusual & selective appplication of the scientific method. Right through to even manipulating the Uralic family tree so that it fits your theories”

False accusations. I take into account all relevant, valid evidence, as every scientist should. My theories follow the result, not the other way round, and I will always turn my coat to support the best-argued views, as every scientist should.

Do you have any concrete examples to show us what have you misunderstood in my theories?

Popgenist82:
Quote:“are you saying that the stones thmeselves were brought in from Sweden ? If so, you need rock DNA
Otherwise, the people buried in them were not.”

The grave type and the Nordic Bronze Age culture in general arrived from Sweden.
The people were not what? From Sweden? Based on which data? How about their ancestors?

So, could you now tell us on what basis you disagree with Lang’s view and which view exactly? That would be a good starting point for a discussion.
Kaltmeister and JMcB like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)
#29
(10-07-2023, 05:06 AM)Jaska Wrote: Popgenist82:
Quote:“Sure, I have taken the linguistic results of Napolsky, Janhunen, Aiko, Nichols and several others, and confirmed the migratory path for what they propose”

Migratory path of what actually? Uralic to Finland on your map, or what are you talking about here? 

Popgenist82:
Quote:“But you seem to have a very unusual & selective appplication of the scientific method. Right through to even manipulating the Uralic family tree so that it fits your theories”

False accusations. I take into account all relevant, valid evidence, as every scientist should. My theories follow the result, not the other way round, and I will always turn my coat to support the best-argued views, as every scientist should.

Do you have any concrete examples to show us what have you misunderstood in my theories?

Popgenist82:
Quote:“are you saying that the stones thmeselves were brought in from Sweden ? If so, you need rock DNA
Otherwise, the people buried in them were not.”

The grave type and the Nordic Bronze Age culture in general arrived from Sweden.
The people were not what? From Sweden? Based on which data? How about their ancestors?

So, could you now tell us on what basis you disagree with Lang’s view and which view exactly? That would be a good starting point for a discussion.

You did change the position of Samoyedic in the Tree, did you not ? This idea has not exactly taken off. 

I'm content with the discussion to date, if we can call it that.
Anyhow, I suspect you came here to be told how amazing you are by Angles, instead he got a serving of me Smile So ill leave you all to it.
#30
PopGenetist82:
Quote:“You did change the position of Samoyedic in the Tree, did you not ? This idea has not exactly taken off.”

I demonstrated that (1) lexical level is prone to several distorting processes, which diminish its value for taxonomic purposes (https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/85674/44638); (2) that the assumed Proto-Finno-Ugric sound changes seem implausible (https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/19684); (3) that Samoyedic shares sound changes with Ugric branches Hungarian, Mansi, and Khanty (most recently https://www.academia.edu/103067313/An_ol...metal_name).

Recent view of Grünthal et al. 2022 is based on the absence of earlier than Late Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords in Samoyedic, and I agree that it seems highly improbable that all 14 words could have been later disappeared from Samoyedic. However, this cannot disprove the evidence in other levels of language, like the shared sound changes – we have to take into account all the evidence, not only part of it. These pieces of evidence are both nonsimultaneous and concern different levels of language. Therefore, I present in my forthcoming article a new, more precise model to account for all the valid relevant evidence: there will be several stages of disintegration between uniform Late Proto-Uralic and its daughter branches.

PopGenetist82:
Quote:“I'm content with the discussion to date, if we can call it that.”

Do you mean that you will not tell us on which question in Lang’s model you disagree and why? OK, it is your choice, then.

PopGenetist82:
Quote:“Anyhow, I suspect you came here to be told how amazing you are by Angles, instead he got a serving of me. So ill leave you all to it.”

You should never try to assess other people based on your own inner motivations; it usually goes all wrong. But I hope you will continue discussing here; although it would be nice if you gave more supporting arguments and evidence for your claims and accusations.
JMcB and Kaltmeister like this post
~ Per aspera ad hominem ~
Y-DNA: N-Z1936 >> CTS8565 >> BY22114 (Savonian)
mtDNA: H5a1e (Northern Fennoscandian)


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)