[1] "distance%=0.7027"Quote:
Originally Posted by Daco Celtic
DacoCeltic
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN,30
CELTIC,25.6
GERMANIC,21.2
GRECO-ROMAN,11
CELTIBERIAN,3
SLAVIC,2.2
VIKING-RUS,2.2
IBERIAN,1.8
AQUITANIAN,1.2
ALANIC,1
HUNNIC,0.6
JAPANESE,0.2
Printable View
[1] "distance%=0.7027"Quote:
Originally Posted by Daco Celtic
DacoCeltic
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN,30
CELTIC,25.6
GERMANIC,21.2
GRECO-ROMAN,11
CELTIBERIAN,3
SLAVIC,2.2
VIKING-RUS,2.2
IBERIAN,1.8
AQUITANIAN,1.2
ALANIC,1
HUNNIC,0.6
JAPANESE,0.2
[1] "distance%=1.2616"Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Ketch
JKetch_new
CELTIC,83.6
GERMANIC,9.4
CELTIBERIAN,3.2
AQUITANIAN,2.4
IBERIAN,0.8
VIKING-FINN,0.6
[1] "distance%=0.931"
JKetch_old
CELTIC,84.8
GERMANIC,9.8
VIKING-BRIT,2.4
IBERIAN,1.2
CELTIBERIAN,0.8
AQUITANIAN,0.6
LUSITANIAN,0.2
VIKING-FINN,0.2
[1] "distance%=1.236"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunalim
NW
ALANIC,40.8
IBERIAN,19.4
CELTIC,17.4
GRECO-ROMAN,7.4
GERMANIC,5.6
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN,4.2
PERSIAN,3.4
AFRICAN,1.2
SOUTHEAST-ASIA,0.6
[1] "distance%=1.9813"
Father
ALANIC,75
GRECO-ROMAN,21.8
PERSIAN,1.4
ILLYRIAN-THRACIAN,1
LEVANTINE,0.6
AFRICAN,0.2
In this calc you can detect an Irish if Viking-Brit is high.Quote:
Originally Posted by celticdragongod
It is really hard to make a calc which would properly distinguish Celtic and Germanic.
Grace O'Malley is definitely an Irish according to my calc.
Adding RISE174 and LBA Scotland should help.Quote:
Originally Posted by ph2ter
I think it is not hard but people don't want to do it. :)
When I say that people don't want to do it, what I mean is that NW Europeans are really obsessed about claiming that it is impossible to tell apart Celtic and Germanic. They don't want to know how Celtic they are, they want to be told that Celtic and Germanic are indistinguishable categories.
Everything in time. Not so fast. I am not sure that would help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
That's not true. The facts are that all Northwestern Europeans cluster together genetically. Any dna plot shows this. Some populations have had more drift but if you look at any calculators there is no division. If it was shown that there was a distinction many people would love it and in fact most Irish want to separate themselves from the surrounding area and actually embrace being told they have unique origins. Anyone looking objectively at genetics knows this to be untrue and wishful thinking. What exactly do you label as Celtic for starters? Do you really believe people don't want to be told they are Celtic? My experience has been the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
And my experience is also that people usualy love to be told that they are of Celtic descend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
And what do you label as Germanic for starters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
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.
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 ph2ter
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
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.
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
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 Peterski
I would not use the Dutch because they are "Euro-Mutts", they are super diverse and super ethnically mixed (Germano-Celto-Romance mixes).Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
These problems are only with labeling modern populations. But ancient populations were less mixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
For example ancient inhabitants of the Netherlands were quite different than the modern Dutch:
I4070 with R1b-U106 from North Holland, dated to 1900-1650 BCE, in Eurogenes K15 PCA:
As you can see, modern Dutch average plots between Ancient Dutch I4070 and Ancient Brits:
https://i.imgur.com/7KpjwVs.png
If I do my own G25 list I will add I4070 as one of Germanic samples (assuming that I4070 is in Global25):
https://i.imgur.com/yPxKZK0.png
I plot where the Dutch are on that so that doesn't mean anything. There might be ancient Dutch that plot differently. I'm not disagreeing that ancient samples might be more pure or whatever else but they should be called what they are not using a label like Germanic which is a language group. Not all the ancient genomes from Germany are "Germanic". That's my whole point. You can't label pre-Germanic and pre-Celtic genomes as that. The Irish spoke a Celtic language up to the recent past but they are mostly of pre-Celtic genetics i.e. Bell Beaker. It remains to be seen if they actually do have any "Celtic" genomics. We don't know yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
First / oldest Bell Beakers were probably neither Germanic nor Italic nor Celtic because they were older than these groups emerged.Quote:
Were Bell Beakers Celtic?
We could as well ask: were "Adam and Eve" Chinese, Germanic, Russian, Melanesian? No, they were too old to be any of those groups.
However, I think that by 900 BC (LBA) there were Celtic languages spoken in Britain. That is just few centuries before Pytheas of Massalia visited Britain:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythea...ery_of_Britain
How do you know this for sure? Linguistics is not exact science and if you ask different linguists, they usually have contradictory theories.Quote:
No they weren't
I4070 is not "pre-Germanic", he has typically Germanic Y-DNA, clusters autosomally with Scandinavians, and spoke a Germanic language - or Proto-Germanic or "old Germanic", you name it. But it is generally agreed that North Holland was among the oldest areas of Germanic settlement. Unlike Britain.Quote:
You can't label pre-Germanic and pre-Celtic genomes as that.
Celts evolved from Bell Beakers - Bell Beakers were ancestral to Celts.Quote:
but they are mostly of pre-Celtic genetics i.e. Bell Beaker
On the other hand, Germanic people also received Corded Ware input.
Call it Nordic, including it as Germanic would be simply incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
Like Grace said, I don’t understand the compulsion to equate everything with linguistic groups. That is the issue that people have with Celtic vs Germanic, not that they can’t be separated, but that nobody seems to agree what defines them.
e.g., most of my Ancestors 2000 years ago were Celtic, but a minority of my ancestors were Celts, and I’m not Celtic at all (well very little).
You know enough about genetics to know the answer. Even if populations spoke Celtic what does it mean genetically? That's what I've asked you previously about what does Celtic mean genetically? We have Hallstatt Celts but Irish and Scots don't cluster with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
I'm of the opinion that Germanic ethnogenesis was in the Nordic Bronze Age culture, so for me Nordic and Germanic is the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Ketch
At some point in time there was a population of Proto-Celts and that population later migrated in various directions, giving rise to different Celtic populations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
They were from Hallstatt Bylany - which was but one sub-branch of the Hallstat culture, probably mixed with local people similar to Bronze Age Hungarians.Quote:
We have Hallstatt Celts but Irish and Scots don't cluster with them.
Also those were Late Hallstatt samples, we don't heavy Early Hallstatt yet. And it is also unlikely that the Celtic ethnogenesis took place in Hallstatt culture.
Just like it is unlikely that Proto-Indo-Europeans were the Yamnaya. Yamnaya was only one sub-branch of Indo-Europeans, descended from something else.
Sredny Stog II for example was also an Indo-European culture.
DA111 and DA112 - the two Hallstatt Bylany samples - don't even cluster with each other. They have quite different results.Quote:
don't cluster with them.
And DA111 is genetically intermediate between modern Irish and modern French. So it could be partially ancestral to both groups.
I don't believe that Hallstatt were Proto-Celts just like I don't believe that Yamnaya were Proto-Indo-Europeans.
Hallstatt was one of early Celtic cultures, but not the oldest one and not Proto-Celtic (not ancestral to old Celts).
Yamnaya was also one of early subdivisions of Indo-Europeans, but not THE oldest culture ancestral to all IE groups.
Some branches of Indo-Europeans - such as Proto-Anatolians - split from the rest before the emergence of Yamna.
And Satem languages are descended from Sredny Stog (culture older than Yamnaya) which gave rise to Corded Ware.
Obviously then there needs to be more samples but people like the Irish are similar to other Northwestern Europeans so either the Celts are like the Irish or Irish are not just Celtic. Either way labelling ancient genomes by later language groupings is problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
Northern French are similar to the Irish too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
And wait for the study called "Genetic history of France", which will show that before the Roman conquest also Central France was like modern Northern France.
Recent study about the genetic history of Iberia showed, that modern Iberians are heavily mixed with Italians who migrated there during Roman rules.
The same conclusion will be reached about France, except Northern France which remained untouched by Roman/Italian settlers.
BTW, I suppose that there was also a migration of Iberians (maybe already Romanized Iberians) to Southern/Central France during Roman times.
Wasn’t that only in Scandinavia though? So why would Bronze Age Netherlands be included. Friesland/North NL is the ultimate R-U106 country, as opposed to typically Scandinavian I1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
Elp Culture in the Netherlands and North Germany also had links to Nordic Bronze Age, so it could be part of the Proto-Germanic world too:Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Ketch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture
^^^ It had cultural links to both Nordic and Atlantic cultures:
"a culture complex at the boundary between the Atlantic and the Nordic horizons."
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ronzAgeElp.png
^^^ People of this culture were already building typical Germanic longhouses:
"The culture is known for featuring the longhouse, housing people and animals in one and the same building. This construction shows an exceptional local continuity until the twentieth century, still being the normal type of farm in the lowlands of NW Europe and the Netherlands."
Southern English are actually closer to Northern French than Irish and of course populations like Belgians. I can't wait for that study Genetic History of France. I'm excited. Any news when it is coming out?
Probbably not in this decade, lol. I don't know if such study is underway, but eventually something like this will probably be published, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
I know that the study about genetic history of Poland will be published, but it was "coming soon" already in 2016, so... There is some delay.
Didn't you just score the highest Celtic in this thread?:Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Ketch
Quote:
Originally Posted by ph2ter
And why are Brits scoring more Celtic than me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
Two main reasons. Because:Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace O'Malley
1) the "CELTIC" group does not include any samples from Scotland or Ireland
2) the "CELTIC" group includes two gladiators who were partially Germanic
CELTIC:Hungary_Medieval_Szolad:SZ14
CELTIC:England_IA:HI1-I0156
CELTIC:England_Roman:3DT16 - this gladiator was partially Germanic, should be removed from "CELTIC"
CELTIC:England_Roman:6DT22
CELTIC:Hungary_Medieval_Szolad:SZ8
CELTIC:England_Roman:6DT3 - this gladiator was partially Germanic, should be removed from "CELTIC"
CELTIC:England_Roman:6DT23
CELTIC:England_Roman:6DT21
CELTIC:Germany_Medieval:STR_316
CELTIC:England_IA:I0160
CELTIC:England_IA:M1489
CELTIC:England_IA:L-I0789
CELTIC:Hungary_Medieval_Szolad:SZ24
^^^ And one sample is missing (this one can improve the calculator for Irish people, just like adding LBA Scotland):
6DT18 should be added to "CELTIC" (one of York gladiators, he could be of Gaelic or Hibernian origin).
England_Roman:6DT18
I scored the highest on a component called Celtic, and as I said most of my ancestors were Celtic (of culture), while being majority non-Celt of blood. I can’t even form a sentence in a Celtic language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
The component has a flaw, because it includes two samples who were not pure Celts:Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Ketch
England_Roman:3DT16
England_Roman:6DT3
^^^ Those two were mercenaries/gladiators of at least partially immigrant ancestry.
If ph2ter removes these two samples, your Germanic will probably increase and Celtic will be a bit lower.
And African-Americans can't form a sentence in an African language. Unless you count Ebonics as African. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Ketch
Aframs are circa 80% African by blood, I am 20-30% Celt by blood I guess? East Germans and Austrians have similar amounts of ancient Slav ancestry and they are equally not at all Slavic and nobody would consider them such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski
Yes, both the England Roman and England Anglo Saxon samples are flawed in this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peterski