German GEDmatch results

[Ketchup]

40 pages in and hm looks like there's a shitton of "East German" and other results from migrant communities on this thread.

I wanted to see more Northern, NW and Southern German results. Hopefully I get to see them because damn. A lot of these are just Slavic transplants or something or have heavy Slavic ancestry.

update yeah there was more of that but I saw some good results after that.

[Johnson Reed]

From Czech, to Scandinavian, to British, to French. More of an Empire with a common tongue than a proper nation, no offence. (Same for the French and Italians).

Sorry for the horrible necro, but I was looking through this thread to try to find a German average that is weighted for my 1920 White American average.

I would say Germans are kind of like the European version of Latin Americans - mostly a mix of 3 components (Germanic, Slavic, and North Italian vs Iberian, Amerindian, and African), where the ratios of mixture vary, but almost all have double digit percentages of admixture from the original Germanics that gave them their language, just like almost all Latin Americans have double digit percentages of admixture from Iberians.

So if the genetic covers the cline from one neighbor to the other then it's not a "proper nation"?

If it's referred to the spread of the cline than this is naturally bigger than the genetic spread in a smaller country, like Luxemburg. Btw. not just in Germany, France and Italy, but also on the British Isles you have notable genetic clines within not too big geographic areas. Only by quick and as recent expansions as possible you get big areas settled without notable genetic clines. But wouldn't it feel somewhat strange to out of all things connect an artificial newly settled entity, like Australia, with a "proper nation" and reject that for the natural conditions in the old world, if the country is somewhat bigger, has a numerous population and hence will represent a notable bigger spread in the natural bio-geographic cline?

Otherwise just countries with the removal of the grown bio-geographic cline and quick resettlement would be "proper nations", i. e. essentially a preceeding genocide would be a requirement.

There is essentially no genetic cline or regional diversity among the Irish. Ethnically Irish people are essentially the same regardless of which region we are from. You couldn't tell from a GEDmatch whether an Irishman is from Derry or Cork, whereas it would be trivial to tell a Hamburger and a Municher, a Venetian or a Palermitan apart from their GEDmatch.

I have nothing against Germans (I have some distant ancestry myself, and think they got a raw deal after the war), but they aren't a cohesive genetic nation the way the Irish or Portuguese are. Germans are hardly unique in that way, though. Italians, French, and Greeks are the same way.

[Johnson Reed]

In the table it may look like they have less because I made models including CHG as a component, but that is not the case at all, in fact, CHG is related to ANE. I think distance does a better job of telling which of the two is more related to ANE.

Distance to:	ANE
0.36847175	Georgian_Khevs
0.36907417	Georgian_Tush
0.38858010	Georgian_Svan
0.39124975	Georgian_Kart
0.39500619	Italian_Molise
0.39587957	Georgian_Kakh
0.39679046	Italian_Abruzzo
0.39878091	Sicilian_West
0.39992026	Georgian_Megr
0.40109671	Maltese
0.40117618	Italian_Basilicata
0.40210575	Italian_Apulia
0.40388285	Sicilian_East
0.40422662	Georgian_Imer
0.40425048	Georgian_Ajar
0.40445560	Italian_Campania
0.40596152	Italian_Calabria
0.41088986	Georgian_Laz

What do the modern Irish score on this model? What about the ancient Irish?


Ireland_EBA.SG,0.1255847,0.1272797,0.0618477,0.063 308,0.03098,0.0191503,0.0053267,0.006769,-0.0022497,-0.001883,0.0002707,0.0082427,-0.0130327,-0.027983,0.033975,0.024529,0.000956,0.0075167,0.00 09217,0.011339,0.0088593,0.0093563,0.0003697,0.014 2187,0.005788

IrishModern,0.133361,0.134098,0.061169,0.048864,0. 037788,0.019352,0.003293,0.004713,0.003568,0.00292 7,-0.006971,0.00584,-0.014189,-0.014076,0.025935,0.005215,-0.011145,0.001894,0.000597,0.001776,0.005114,0.001 279,0.000293,0.014407,0.000661

[Johnson Reed]

all known Vandal personal names from the migration period are clearly Germanic (like Geiserich, Gelimer, Godigisel, Gunderich, Gunthamund, Hilderich, Hunerich and Thrasamund)

I'm not sure if this proves anything about their ethnic origin, though. James is a Hebrew-origin name, but King James wasn't of Hebrew origin. Ditto with King George and being Greek, or Paul von Hindenburg not being of Latin descent just because his given name is of Latin origin.

[rothaer]

(...)
There is essentially no genetic cline or regional diversity among the Irish. Ethnically Irish people are essentially the same regardless of which region we are from. You couldn't tell from a GEDmatch whether an Irishman is from Derry or Cork, whereas it would be trivial to tell a Hamburger and a Municher, a Venetian or a Palermitan apart from their GEDmatch.

I have nothing against Germans (I have some distant ancestry myself, and think they got a raw deal after the war), but they aren't a cohesive genetic nation the way the Irish or Portuguese are. Germans are hardly unique in that way, though. Italians, French, and Greeks are the same way.

Ireland is an island surrounded by much water and has no direct neighbours. The contact with populations across the seas is restricted and there will over time evolve a homogenisation of the population without.

Iberia is surrounded 80 % by water and 20% by the Pyrenees and has then experienced a resembling internal homogenisation.

Both your examples are the results of geographic anomalies and what is presented here as "proper nations" is also based on that. We are all free individuals so that is fine. I just find it misleading to define a "proper nation" that way that it can just emerge in a geographic anomaly. The common thing for a country and people on this planet is in broad strokes that it is an extract form the bio-geographic cline corresponding to its settlement area, that it genetically exhibits a cline connecting its neighbours.

It may show some homogenisation tendencies that are caused by the fact of being a reproduction community, though. But that's a function of time, size and degree of seclusion.

[Peterski]

By the way this data suggests that Anglo-Saxons came from Schleswig-Holstein and not from France's coast as Rothaer once suggested:



^^^ It shows the depopulation of Schleswig-Holstein at the time of the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain. What else could cause that?

[rothaer]

By the way this data suggests that Anglo-Saxons came from Schleswig-Holstein and not from France's coast as Rothaer once suggested:



^^^ It shows the depopulation of Schleswig-Holstein at the time of the Anglo-Saxon migration to Britain. What else could cause that?

The same that made possible the Slavic expansion over half of Europe, the Justinianic plague.

[Peterski]

^^^
No it was emigration of the Angles, Jutes and Saxons.

[Peterski]

And why would the Justinianic plague favour Slavs? Were Slavs immune to it?

[rothaer]

I'm not sure if this proves anything about their ethnic origin, though. James is a Hebrew-origin name, but King James wasn't of Hebrew origin. Ditto with King George and being Greek, or Paul von Hindenburg not being of Latin descent just because his given name is of Latin origin.

Although I searched for abt. one hour I could not find - this is crazy - my original statement and what competing assumption it exactly referred to. Was it an ethnic Celtic origin?

However, the exact name form is indicative - not a proof, ofc. - of the spoken language of the bearer and thus also his ethnicity. So Enrico, Fernando and Rodrigo will almost disprove ethnic Germans, while the forms Heinrich, Friednand and Roderich would suggest such.

In the same manner the name James does close to exclude a Hebrew, Paul does close to exclude a Roman and George does close to exclude a Greek, doesn't it?