New improved World Medieval G25 unscaled calculator

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ph2ter

And my experience is also that people usualy love to be told that they are of Celtic descend.

---

Yes that has been my experience. Some people can even get irate if you tell them they are similar to other populations. A lot of people are very hung up on identity politics. You need the ability to be objective on these subjects and have an open mind. I've changed my stance numerous times over the years when different dna studies have come out. If there was some study that came out that was able to measure if populations were Celtic or Germanic I would take that on board too. The facts are that all the populations that claim to be Celtic in different parts of Europe don't have any genetic closeness or connectivity even when taking geographic into consideration i.e. Western Europe. What is apparent is that people that have close geographic vicinity all share close genetic distance other than when their are geographic barriers which are usually mountain ranges. One needs to be pragmatic and leave any old biases aside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

And what do you label as Germanic for starters?

Why do we use samples from Italy (Collegno), Hungary (Szolad) and Britain (Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms) as Germanic, when it is known that Germanic people are not native to these areas? We should use as Germanic samples from natively Germanic areas, such as Scandinavia, North Germany and North Netherlands.

Those far away from home were mixed with locals.

---

I personally don't like labels such as Germanic or Celtic. Why don't Roman Britons who are labelled Celtic cluster with Hallstatt Celts? For starters we don't even know yet whether people like the Irish have had any historical Celtic input from populations that were considered Celtic on the Continent. Don't they have samples from those areas that you mentioned in your post?

These Late Bronze Age Scottish samples are significantly more similar to modern British/Irish people than to Germanic populations.

Which means that in any calculator they would improve Celtic scores and reduce Germanic scores for Irish/British people like Grace:

https://i.imgur.com/HdWw2fM.png

https://i.imgur.com/q0jybsw.png

https://i.imgur.com/o5NgDbx.png

https://i.imgur.com/i9J2liK.png

And RISE174 from Iron Age South Sweden was "super Germanic" - more than any modern population (because even modern Scandinavians are mixed).

So I'm not sure why this guy is not included as Germanic, but some Anglo-Saxon who was mixed with Celts is included and that's why the Irish score it.

=====

Well, I guess I'm this mean guy who says "ghosts don't exist according to science" when you are having fun and telling ghost stories near a bonfire... :)

So I will stop spoiling your fun and stop criticizing. I think this is an awesome calculator anyway.

Maybe I will create my own, similar list of G25 samples - and then people who are not afraid of not scoring Germanic will have an opportunity to try it.

Can we agree that Late Bronze Age Scotland was not Germanic?

Maybe it is arguable whether they were Celtic or not, but surely they were not Germanic.

So they could be labeled as "Caledonian" or "Pictish" or "Ancient Scottish" etc., whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

And RISE174 from Iron Age South Sweden was "super Germanic" - more than any modern population (because even modern Scandinavians are mixed).

So I'm not sure why this guy is not included as Germanic, but some Anglo-Saxon who was mixed with Celts is included and that's why the Irish score it.

=====

Well, I guess I'm this mean guy who says "ghosts don't exist according to science" when you are having fun and telling ghost stories near a bonfire... :)

So I will stop spoiling your fun and stop criticizing. I think this is an awesome calculator anyway.

Maybe I will create my own, similar list of G25 samples - and then people who are not afraid of not scoring Germanic will have an opportunity to try it.

---

Yes create your own calculator and see if you can separate people today who are Dutch or Irish or any other Celtic vs Germanic population. I just don't agree with you saying that people don't want to be one thing or the other. That's never been my experience. There is no mega Celtic identity though and the same for Germanic. All those Germanic populations don't cluster together either. This doesn't mean that people don't want to identify with their culture or history. I personally see myself very much as a Gael but I don't prescribe to any mega-Celtic identity. There isn't one. The populations that I feel have some shared history and closeness on the Celtic side are Scots, Welsh and Bretons. I don't really think other populations have much similarity at all. That's just my unbiased and truthful opinion. Genetics are another matter though and as I've said I'm eagerly awaiting that Cassidy paper to come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

Can we agree that Late Bronze Age Scotland was not Germanic?

Maybe it is arguable whether they were Celtic or not, but surely they were not Germanic.

So they could be labeled as "Caledonian" or "Pictish" or "Ancient Scottish" etc., whatever.

---

Those populations are neither Celtic or Germanic. Why the desire to name ancient populations with language groupings? I think your last sentence is more apt. I don't even think Scottish should be used because Scots after all only came into existence with Dal Riada and the Scoti it is like naming ancient Hinxtons as English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley

Yes create your own calculator and see if you can separate people today who are Dutch or Irish

---

I would not use the Dutch because they are "Euro-Mutts", they are super diverse and super ethnically mixed (Germano-Celto-Romance mixes).

Just look at Davidski's PCA graphs from Eurogenes - the Dutch overlap with everyone: the French, the Germans, the Scandinavians, the Brits.

Also "South Dutch" average in Eurogenes K13/K15 spreadsheets on GEDmatch is genetically similar to the southernmost of all Germans (from formerly Rhaetic-speaking territories). It means that Southern Dutch are at least as much (if not more) Non-Germanic (Celtic, Med, etc.) as South Germans.

If Irish score Dutch in G25, it is because the Dutch are mixed. Only North Dutch (Friesland etc.) are real Germanics in terms of genetics.

These facts (that the Dutch are huge mutts) have been proven by genetic studies:

1.

"Clinal distribution of human genomic diversity across the Netherlands despite archaeological evidence...", Investigative Genetics 2013:

https://investigativegenetics.biomed.../2041-2223-4-9

2.

"Whole-genome sequence variation, population structure and demographic history of the Dutch population", Nature Genetics 2014:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tch_population

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3021

Both of these studies show that genetic diversity within the Netherlands is huuge, especially for such a small country.

To put it simply, the genetic difference between North Dutch and South Dutch is the same or larger than between North and South Germans.

This is despite the fact, that from north to south in Germany there is ca. 750 kilometers, while in the Netherlands only ca. 250 kilometers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peterski

I would not use the Dutch because they are "Euro-Mutts", they are super diverse and super ethnically mixed (Germano-Celto-Romance mixes).

Just look at Davidski's PCA graphs from Eurogenes - the Dutch overlap with everyone: the French, the Germans, the Scandinavians, the Brits.

If Irish score Dutch in Global25, it is because the Dutch are mixed. Only North Dutch are actually real Germanics in terms of genetics.

These facts (that the Dutch are huge mutts) have been proven by genetic studies:

1.

"Clinal distribution of human genomic diversity across the Netherlands despite archaeological evidence...", Investigative Genetics 2013:

https://investigativegenetics.biomed.../2041-2223-4-9

2.

"Whole-genome sequence variation, population structure and demographic history of the Dutch population", Nature Genetics 2014:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tch_population

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3021

---

Well there you go another example of the problems with labelling people Celtic or Germanic genetically. That's my point they are language groups. I understand that people associate certain populations with being Celtic or Germanic and that is fine but when it comes to genetics how do you know if you can label them according to these later groups genetically? Were Bell Beakers Celtic? No they weren't. All you can say is that they were a Bronze Age population. From the looks of it they appear to be been descended from a Corded Ware group. Again how would you label Corded Ware? I think it can be actually not very helpful with using these labels. People now only think Celtic means Irish, Scots and Welsh. What about Austrians who are distant genetically to Irish and Scots? Do they not have Celtic ancestry? Anyway that is why I don't think it is helpful to label certain groups when using genetics. That is why studies like some of the recent ones are so informative.