With what ancient ethnicity do you most identify, and what has DNA told you ?

[Angela]

Very basic question: the word "ancient" in the title of the post, how long in the past does it refer to?

I guess that would be up to you, Farstar. Samples are available for comparison all the way back to the Mesolithic. People are generally looking at their best matches. I haven't seen anything show up in the first ten, even, that are before the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic, and usually it's Bronze and Iron Age.

Then,other factors come into play. My closest matches are to Balkan Bronze Age, a Roman settler in Spain of the Imperial Era,Pannonian Late Antiquity, and a Tuscan like post Minoan sample found in Crete, although I have respectable matches to a Latin and an Etruscan.

Should I "identify" myself with Balkan people? A lot of them are further from these Balkan Bronze Age samples than I am.

What the data is telling me if I look at all of it is that I'm descended from people who lived in Bronze and Iron Age Italy, mostly Northern Italy.

 

[Carlos]

you and your ancestor are obviously related to the Leader of the Free World. Congrats

... some of my ancestors:

Yes, very close relationships from the beginning to the end.

 

[Maciamo]

My point is that the Franks or Belgians/South Dutch have no or less influx form NW Germany and Danmark!

I don't understand why you get all worked up about this and why you vehemently try to prove that Belgians/South Dutch have no ancestry from Denmark. All Germanic peoples originated around Denmark (+ southern Sweden and Schleswig-Holstein) during the Nordic Bronze Age and Jastorf culture (Scandinavian Late Bronze/Early Iron Age). If you claim that Belgians and South Dutch have no ancestry from this region, then you are saying that they have no Germanic ancestry at all, and that Flemish/Dutch language south of the Rhine was adopted through cultural exchange with northern neighbours. I don't know of a single case of language adopted by an ancient population without migration. Anyway, denying that Belgians and South Dutch have Germanic ancestry (meaning from around Denmark between 1000 BCE and 100 BCE) goes completely against all genetic evidence.

For example, this 23andMe map of relatively recent "Scandinavian" (actually more Norwegian-Swedish) ancestry shows a clear gradient from Sweden to northern France.

The same gradient is found with Y-haplogroup I1

The ancestry that links more closely the Dutch and Danes (from Jutland at least) is what was named Northwest European ancestry by 23andMe, which peaks in Frisia.

It is more related to the distribution of R1b-U106 (although Y-DNA doesn't get diluted and could increase more quickly through noble or royal lineages in some places like Sicily). It also peaks in Frisia (over 50%, although it's not shown on the map).

But once again, that ancestry is found throughout Belgium, even if only at half the frequency of Frisia.

If you look at the phylogenetic tree, you can even see when each branch split from each other (check Yfull for the dates).

In my analysis of Belgian Y-DNA, I noticed that the Flemish have more affinity with the Saxons, with Germanic lineages in French-speaking Wallonia were often very close to Denmark. This is despite the fact that the Flemish are a bit more Germanic than the Walloons in autosomal percentages. When comparing segments of DNA in common with medieval or Iron Age samples, Flemings are closer to the Saxons, but some Walloons (not all) get remarkably close matches from Danish and Norwegian Vikings. So the Flemings have more Germanic DNA overall, but segments of DNA match better medieval Danish samples among Walloons.

The most likely explanation is that the Saxons moved out of Denmark earlier to colonise northern Germany. The Franks left Denmark later, but brought along lots of Saxons with them when they moved to Roman Belgium. The Frankish elite settled mostly in Wallonia (the Merovingians around Tournai and the Carolingians around Liege), while Saxons took what is now Flanders and the southern Netherlands. The Frankish elite adopted Latin, which with time became French (Frankish Latin).

In my toponymy of Belgium I pointed out that many Flemish place names are very close to Saxon ones (e.g. the ending -ingem or -gem, which is -ingham and -gham in southern England). In contrast, Walloon place names, though heavily Frenchified over time, often have roots related to the German -heim and -ingen, which are more Frankish than Saxon in origin.

Is IMO nonsens.The Ingvaeonic/ North Sea Germanic (in)flux was something above the Rhine not beneath.

The South Dutch and Belgians are more Rhenish IMO. A kind of Germanic but not necessarily (close) genetic connected to the Ingvaeonics/ North Sea Germans. There is no Germanic genetic unity. So the Franks don't need to be tight connected to the Saxons, Frisians etc.

When the Franks were an offshoot of the Ingvaeonic then they had to show up in this breakdown of mine, but nearly 2%. This is discutabel because my true ancestry made some assumptions in this respect. But still.

But the breakdown of the modern population is more illustrating, Flemish, West Germany and South Dutch are a kind of Rhenish cluster IMO. Quite on distance from the Danes etc.

So this is your evidence? FYI, the ethnic groups listed in the pie chart from MyTrueAncestry is just the number of samples that have relatively close matches to yours. It heavily depends on the number of samples tested from each region. If they were, say, 10,000 samples from each ethnic group, your chart would look completely different and far more homogeneous.

Anyway, to give you an example, this is what a Walloon got:



Overwhelmingly Germanic, with 18% Frankish, 10% Saxon, 24% Viking, 7.5% Lombard (from NW Germany), 5.5% Vandal (from Sweden), 8.5% Visigothic+Ostrogothic and 3% Alemanni+Thuringii. Less Celtic than you!

 

[Northener]

I don't understand why you get all worked up about this and why you vehemently try to prove that Belgians/South Dutch have no ancestry from Denmark. All Germanic peoples originated around Denmark (+ southern Sweden and Schleswig-Holstein) during the Nordic Bronze Age and Jastorf culture (Scandinavian Late Bronze/Early Iron Age). If you claim that Belgians and South Dutch have no ancestry from this region, then you are saying that they have no Germanic ancestry at all, and that Flemish/Dutch language south of the Rhine was adopted through cultural exchange with northern neighbours. I don't know of a single case of language adopted by an ancient population without migration. Anyway, denying that Belgians and South Dutch have Germanic ancestry (meaning from around Denmark between 1000 BCE and 100 BCE) goes completely against all genetic evidence.

For example, this 23andMe map of relatively recent "Scandinavian" (actually more Norwegian-Swedish) ancestry shows a clear gradient from Sweden to northern France.

The same gradient is found with Y-haplogroup I1

The ancestry that links more closely the Dutch and Danes (from Jutland at least) is what was named Northwest European ancestry by 23andMe, which peaks in Frisia.

It is more related to the distribution of R1b-U106 (although Y-DNA doesn't get diluted and could increase more quickly through noble or royal lineages in some places like Sicily). It also peaks in Frisia (over 50%, although it's not shown on the map).

But once again, that ancestry is found throughout Belgium, even if only at half the frequency of Frisia.

If you look at the phylogenetic tree, you can even see when each branch split from each other (check Yfull for the dates).

In my analysis of Belgian Y-DNA, I noticed that the Flemish have more affinity with the Saxons, with Germanic lineages in French-speaking Wallonia were often very close to Denmark. This is despite the fact that the Flemish are a bit more Germanic than the Walloons in autosomal percentages. When comparing segments of DNA in common with medieval or Iron Age samples, Flemings are closer to the Saxons, but some Walloons (not all) get remarkably close matches from Danish and Norwegian Vikings. So the Flemings have more Germanic DNA overall, but segments of DNA match better medieval Danish samples among Walloons.

The most likely explanation is that the Saxons moved out of Denmark earlier to colonise northern Germany. The Franks left Denmark later, but brought along lots of Saxons with them when they moved to Roman Belgium. The Frankish elite settled mostly in Wallonia (the Merovingians around Tournai and the Carolingians around Liege), while Saxons took what is now Flanders and the southern Netherlands. The Frankish elite adopted Latin, which with time became French (Frankish Latin).

In my toponymy of Belgium I pointed out that many Flemish place names are very close to Saxon ones (e.g. the ending -ingem or -gem, which is -ingham and -gham in southern England). In contrast, Walloon place names, though heavily Frenchified over time, often have roots related to the German -heim and -ingen, which are more Frankish than Saxon in origin.






So this is your evidence? FYI, the ethnic groups listed in the pie chart from MyTrueAncestry is just the number of samples that have relatively close matches to yours. It heavily depends on the number of samples tested from each region. If they were, say, 10,000 samples from each ethnic group, your chart would look completely different and far more homogeneous.

Anyway, to give you an example, this is what a Walloon got:

View attachment 11797

Overwhelmingly Germanic, with 18% Frankish, 10% Saxon, 24% Viking, 7.5% Lombard (from NW Germany), 5.5% Vandal (from Sweden), 8.5% Visigothic+Ostrogothic and 3% Alemanni+Thuringii. Less Celtic than you!

That's pan-Germanism.....fully outdated IMO. Just like with the Celts (Cornwell is not Scotland) there is no unique Germanic genetic profile. Too diverse. Not one size fits all.

It's based on old Romantic thoughts (and worse):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_P...ia/File:Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_2.jpg

The core is: there is no Germanic urheimat in Southern Scandinavia that went to other parts of NW Europe. So no departure place Denmark from where the Saxons and the Franks started. The Saxons are homegrown NW Germany, the Franks homegrown Rhineland.

As said as the Franks and Flemish are 'diluted Danes' why don't they come closer to my auDNA? In my case the Irish are much more closer than the South Dutch (and I guess this is for the most North Dutch the case).

It's a more likely picture that we have some regional clusters, around the North Sea (the Ingvaeonic), around the Rhine-Weser (Istvaeonic), Elbe-Germanic (Irminonic), and North Germans (Scandics).

They were all labeled Germanic by the Romans, not because they were genetic the same but because they were in the eyes of the Romans, more than the Celts, ultra barbaric (in the original sense of the word).

As said the Germanics are not genetically from one and the same 'source'. They were regional differentiated.

The North Sea region (North Dutch/above to IJssel to Denmark) was already since TRB times one big flux and reflux. So also genetic close.

See this picture of Fokkens (2015):

This is until now still the genetic split n the Netherlands (see research 2020 ^^^).

Franks is an umbrella for different tribes around the Rhine and Weser NL and DE (up to Gelderland, Overijssel (NL) and Emsland/ Munsterland DE). Salian is related to Salland in Overijssel (just above the Rhine). It is this conglomerate of tribes that went in post Roman times to the South Dutch, Belgian, North Rhine-Westphalian area's. All these area’s had also some "Gallo Roman" populations (substrate). Until now these area's West-Germany, South Dutch, Belgium, piece of Northern France (Lille etc) share the same kind of genetic cluster.

Saxon is an umbrella in which we can identify for example the Chauci (nowadays East-Friesland in Germany), they were early pirates around the Channel and could have influenced parts of Flandres. But heavily???

There was some Jutish presence (during migration time) but that is most likely concentrated in Westergo Friesland this area was in the third and fourth century depopulated. This was a strategic place around the North Sea (most western part of Friesland, just heading Anglia) and was populated bij Jutes (and before by Saxons), here we can find some important migration time jewelry hoards and in Wijnaldum there was most probably a seat of an important chieftain (Finn in Beowulf?). This area may have been part of an embryonal Danish Sea kingdom. But the whole West Coast of Holland and Flandres were not influenced by the Anglo-Saxon, Ingvaeonic stream!

So no Germanic Urheimat in Denmark, a kind of nucleus that from there spread all over the NW European place.....but regional clusters with the common name German at first developed vis a vis (and heavily influenced by) the Roman world.

Last but not least hapotypes like the 'Germanic' R1b U106/S21 already spread during the Bronze Age in West Europe (see Oostwoud sample 1800 BC). Nordic R1b U106 like Z18 is very seldom in Belgium....

 

[Northener]

I don't understand why you get all worked up about this and why you vehemently try to prove that Belgians/South Dutch have no ancestry from Denmark. All Germanic peoples originated around Denmark (+ southern Sweden and Schleswig-Holstein) during the Nordic Bronze Age and Jastorf culture (Scandinavian Late Bronze/Early Iron Age). If you claim that Belgians and South Dutch have no ancestry from this region, then you are saying that they have no Germanic ancestry at all, and that Flemish/Dutch language south of the Rhine was adopted through cultural exchange with northern neighbours. I don't know of a single case of language adopted by an ancient population without migration. Anyway, denying that Belgians and South Dutch have Germanic ancestry (meaning from around Denmark between 1000 BCE and 100 BCE) goes completely against all genetic evidence.For example, this 23andMe map of relatively recent "Scandinavian" (actually more Norwegian-Swedish) ancestry shows a clear gradient from Sweden to northern France.

The same gradient is found with Y-haplogroup I1

The ancestry that links more closely the Dutch and Danes (from Jutland at least) is what was named Northwest European ancestry by 23andMe, which peaks in Frisia.

It is more related to the distribution of R1b-U106 (although Y-DNA doesn't get diluted and could increase more quickly through noble or royal lineages in some places like Sicily). It also peaks in Frisia (over 50%, although it's not shown on the map).

But once again, that ancestry is found throughout Belgium, even if only at half the frequency of Frisia.If you look at the phylogenetic tree, you can even see when each branch split from each other (check Yfull for the dates).In my analysis of Belgian Y-DNA, I noticed that the Flemish have more affinity with the Saxons, with Germanic lineages in French-speaking Wallonia were often very close to Denmark. This is despite the fact that the Flemish are a bit more Germanic than the Walloons in autosomal percentages. When comparing segments of DNA in common with medieval or Iron Age samples, Flemings are closer to the Saxons, but some Walloons (not all) get remarkably close matches from Danish and Norwegian Vikings. So the Flemings have more Germanic DNA overall, but segments of DNA match better medieval Danish samples among Walloons.The most likely explanation is that the Saxons moved out of Denmark earlier to colonise northern Germany. The Franks left Denmark later, but brought along lots of Saxons with them when they moved to Roman Belgium. The Frankish elite settled mostly in Wallonia (the Merovingians around Tournai and the Carolingians around Liege), while Saxons took what is now Flanders and the southern Netherlands. The Frankish elite adopted Latin, which with time became French (Frankish Latin).In my toponymy of Belgium I pointed out that many Flemish place names are very close to Saxon ones (e.g. the ending -ingem or -gem, which is -ingham and -gham in southern England). In contrast, Walloon place names, though heavily Frenchified over time, often have roots related to the German -heim and -ingen, which are more Frankish than Saxon in origin.So this is your evidence? FYI, the ethnic groups listed in the pie chart from MyTrueAncestry is just the number of samples that have relatively close matches to yours. It heavily depends on the number of samples tested from each region. If they were, say, 10,000 samples from each ethnic group, your chart would look completely different and far more homogeneous.Anyway, to give you an example, this is what a Walloon got:View attachment 11797Overwhelmingly Germanic, with 18% Frankish, 10% Saxon, 24% Viking, 7.5% Lombard (from NW Germany), 5.5% Vandal (from Sweden), 8.5% Visigothic+Ostrogothic and 3% Alemanni+Thuringii. Less Celtic than you!

Some figures!Your statement is:the Belgian population is approximately 50% Germanic, of Frankish and Saxon stock that are finally rooted in Southern Scandinavia c.q. Denmark. In other words: 50% of Belgian genes is, transmitted through the Saxons and Franks, rooted in Germanic 'Urheimat' Denmark.

I'm very indigenous North Dutch. So I would be part of the same 'Germanic stock'. So if the Belgians are for 50% of the same stock than there must at least be some indications that the Belgians are close to me. Nothing of that all. In all calculators, pca's etc I'm close to the (early) Germanics but the Belgians have no show! 0,0. For example the Irish show up the Belgians don't.

I'm not a whiz kid and I take the pca's calculators etc with some salt but even then.....I can't swallow that the Belgians are for 50% diluted Danes. Can't be true. And ok it's only one sample (although I can do the same exercise with my parents; same kind of results).

So take some random autochtone Danes and North Dutch and the result will not be totally different (but be my guest prove otherwise!). I'm although connected with the Danes obviously not connected with the Franks that went into Belgium....

My approach is different I certainly think that the Franks went from the Rhineland to Belgium (and may be there are some thin lines with the Saxons but not sure), but that is not related to Denmark! The Germanics are genetically regional differentiated. No close knit. No genetic Urheimat. This is the Belgian/ South Dutch./ West German picture!

My true ancesty is interesting because is figures out the Danes, North Dutch and Flemish as part of the calculator.

My result:
1. North_Dutch (2.669)
2. Danish (3.057)
3. West_Scottish (4.211)
4. Norwegian (4.760)
5. Orcadian (4.813)
6. Irish (4.933)
7. West_Norwegian (5.076)
8. Southeast_English (6.210)
No Flandres

The global 25 of Eurogenes.

pen=0,001
"sample": "Test1:Northener",
"fit": 1.9476,
"Icelandic": 50,
"Swedish": 14.4,
"English": 7.2,
"Welsh": 6.2,
"English_Cornwall": 5.6,
"Norwegian": 2.8,
"Irish": 2.2,
"Latvian": 1.6,
"Lithuanian_PZ": 1.4,
"Lithuanian_VZ": 1,
"Orcadian": 1,
"Slovakian": 1,
No Belgium.

pen= 0
"sample": "Test1:Northener",
"fit": 1.8754,
"Icelandic": 37.4,
"English": 29,
"Welsh": 18,
"Lithuanian_SZ": 12.6,
"English_Cornwall": 1.8,
"Norwegian": 1,
"Irish": 0.2,
No Belgium.

The more specific NW European pca Celtic vs Germanic.

GvC
pen= 0,001
"sample": "Test1:Northener",
"fit": 1.5135,
"Hungary_Medieval_Szolad": 20.2,
"Italy_Medieval_Collegno": 19.2,
"Germany_Medieval_Germany_Medieval": 17,
"England_Saxon": 5.6,
"Scottish_Scottish": 5.4,
"Irish_Irish": 4.8,
"Finland_Levanluhta_IA_o": 4.4,
"German_German": 4.4,
"Dutch_Central_Dutch_Central": 3.4,
"Sweden_Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 3.2,
"Swedish_Swedish": 2.6,
"English_English": 2.4,
"Orcadian_Orcadian": 2.4,
"Dutch_North_Dutch_North": 1.6,
"Norwegian_Norwegian": 0.8,
"Dutch_South_Dutch_South": 0.6,
"Iceland_Viking_Age_Norse": 0.4,
"Slovakia_Poprad": 0.4,
"French_Nord": 0.2,
"French_Occitanie": 0.2,
"Iceland_Viking_Age_mixed": 0.2,
"Icelandic_Icelandic": 0.2,
"Scotland_LBA": 0.2,
"Scotland_MBA": 0.2,
"Belgian_Belgian": 0,

pen=0
"sample": "Test1:Northener",
"fit": 1.3816,
"Hungary_Medieval_Szolad": 17,
"Italy_Medieval_Collegno": 16,
"Finland_Levanluhta_IA_o": 13.2,
"Irish_Irish": 13,
"Germany_Medieval_Germany_Medieval": 11,
"Dutch_South_Dutch_South": 7.4,
"Dutch_North_Dutch_North": 6,
"Dutch_Central_Dutch_Central": 4.8,
"Scottish_Scottish": 4.2,
"Sweden_Viking_Age_Sigtuna": 4,
"Swedish_Swedish": 3.2,
"Norwegian_Norwegian": 0.2,
"Belgian_Belgian": 0,

 

[Northener]

Here some illustrations based on Lao (2013). They made 'abstact segments' but not difficult to see in K3 the 'Anglo-Saxons' in and K4 'the Franks'

I'm high in K3.....

In the middle Salland the heartland of the Franks (low in K3 and high in K4).

I guess you must adjust your theory, the Belgians are heavily influenced by the Germanic Frankish tribes that went from the NW banks of the Rhine to different parts of nowadays Belgium, South Dutch, Northern France and the German Rhineland!

 

[Farstar]

Emotionally, I feel, on a principal basis, Mediterranean, especially Western Mediterranean (East Iberia, South France, Italy). On a secondary basis, on a behaviour basis, I also feel Western European (UK, Germany, France, Benelux ...).

Genetically, it is not clear to me, since different calculators / oracles give conflicting information. The best I can say (23andme, even though 23andme is not "ancestral", it seems to have the lowest noise) I am overwhelmingly European, mostly Iberian, about 54%, Italian 11%, 17% French & German, and then smaller proportions of British & Irish and Broadly Northwestern European. My Y haplogroup is very specifically Irish, apparently (even though I need to learn more about it).

So, the summary is that I feel primarily Iberian (some call it Ibero-celtic, I do not know which is the better name) plus a secondary of Frank (which had historically a strong influence in Catalonia). Overall, emotionally I am satisfied, since I have several European origins, and I like this.

 

[Maciamo]

Some figures!Your statement is:the Belgian population is approximately 50% Germanic, of Frankish and Saxon stock that are finally rooted in Southern Scandinavia c.q. Denmark. In other words: 50% of Belgian genes is, transmitted through the Saxons and Franks, rooted in Germanic 'Urheimat' Denmark.

I'm very indigenous North Dutch. So I would be part of the same 'Germanic stock'. So if the Belgians are for 50% of the same stock than there must at least be some indications that the Belgians are close to me. Nothing of that all. In all calculators, pca's etc I'm close to the (early) Germanics but the Belgians have no show! 0,0. For example the Irish show up the Belgians don't.

I'm not a whiz kid and I take the pca's calculators etc with some salt but even then.....I can't swallow that the Belgians are for 50% diluted Danes. Can't be true. And ok it's only one sample (although I can do the same exercise with my parents; same kind of results).

So take some random autochtone Danes and North Dutch and the result will not be totally different (but be my guest prove otherwise!). I'm although connected with the Danes obviously not connected with the Franks that went into Belgium....

My approach is different I certainly think that the Franks went from the Rhineland to Belgium (and may be there are some thin lines with the Saxons but not sure), but that is not related to Denmark! The Germanics are genetically regional differentiated. No close knit. No genetic Urheimat. This is the Belgian/ South Dutch./ West German picture!

This expansion map is from the 3rd century CE, that is over a thousand years after the first Germanic expansion from the Danish Urheimat! I agree with that migration path from the Rhine to Belgium, but that doesn't confirm nor contradict anything we discussed.

My true ancesty is interesting because is figures out the Danes, North Dutch and Flemish as part of the calculator.

My result:
1. North_Dutch (2.669)
2. Danish (3.057)
3. West_Scottish (4.211)
4. Norwegian (4.760)
5. Orcadian (4.813)
6. Irish (4.933)
7. West_Norwegian (5.076)
8. Southeast_English (6.210)
No Flandres

So that's your big evidence?

These calculators show the genetic distance to modern populations. Modern Danes aren't the same people as Danes from 2500 to 3000 years ago. Anyway you are not a Dane. Even modern Danes from Jutland are quite different from those from the islands.

I have checked the same calculator for several Belgians. Each individual gets a different ranking of genetic distance. Some have West Germans as the closest match, others South Dutch, others Flemish, and two even get Southwest English. But in any case, all get North Dutch somewhere (GD usually between 8 and 10) and a few get Danish too (7.3 and 10). Individual comparisons with modern populations don't mean squat in term of ancient population movements. It's just a very broad genetic similarity from all the inherited ancestry.

What differentiates most the Belgians and South Dutch from the North Dutch is that the former have ancestry inherited from a bit everywhere in the Roman Empire. Using the old 23andMe ancestry data most people sout of the Rhine had traces (0.1 to 7%) of Italian, Iberian and Balkans ancestry, while North Dutch and Danes usually don't have any. That's because Roman legions were stationed along the Rhine border and legionaries often came from southern Europe. Parts of Wallonia had lots of Roman villas and also shows higher Italian ancestry.

Then there is the indigenous Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestry that differed on each side of the Rhine, as that river was a major geographic boundary that separated populations for millennia. After newcomers arrived (Belgic, Romans, Germanics) they mixed with the indigenous populations. That is one of the reasons why North and South Dutch are so different. It's not because the Germanic part of their ancestry doesn't share a common origin.

 

[Dou]

I feel closer to countries that are culturally closer, that is, Italy, France and Portugal.
Since I obtained these tests they have expanded my "range of sympathy" so to speak, before I only felt identified with my region of best known ancestry (Extremadura) but genetically the tests revealed me proximity to the western half of Iberia, especially in the North-Western.

I also confirmed through a last name that I have Galician ancestry.
So my places with which I currently identify (without order of importance) would be: Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Castile and Leon, Portugal, Extremadura and a little bit of Andalucia.

Unexpected things like Subsaharan ancestry and some similarity with Sardinia and Italy in other tests. Nor do I complain about my results because I thought these would be much more boring.

 

[Northener]

This expansion map is from the 3rd century CE, that is over a thousand years after the first Germanic expansion from the Danish Urheimat! I agree with that migration path from the Rhine to Belgium, but that doesn't confirm nor contradict anything we discussed.


[/SIZE][/FONT]

So that's your big evidence?

These calculators show the genetic distance to modern populations. Modern Danes aren't the same people as Danes from 2500 to 3000 years ago. Anyway you are not a Dane. Even modern Danes from Jutland are quite different from those from the islands.

I have checked the same calculator for several Belgians. Each individual gets a different ranking of genetic distance. Some have West Germans as the closest match, others South Dutch, others Flemish, and two even get Southwest English. But in any case, all get North Dutch somewhere (GD usually between 8 and 10) and a few get Danish too (7.3 and 10). Individual comparisons with modern populations don't mean squat in term of ancient population movements. It's just a very broad genetic similarity from all the inherited ancestry.

What differentiates most the Belgians and South Dutch from the North Dutch is that the former have ancestry inherited from a bit everywhere in the Roman Empire. Using the old 23andMe ancestry data most people sout of the Rhine had traces (0.1 to 7%) of Italian, Iberian and Balkans ancestry, while North Dutch and Danes usually don't have any. That's because Roman legions were stationed along the Rhine border and legionaries often came from southern Europe. Parts of Wallonia had lots of Roman villas and also shows higher Italian ancestry.

Then there is the indigenous Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestry that differed on each side of the Rhine, as that river was a major geographic boundary that separated populations for millennia. After newcomers arrived (Belgic, Romans, Germanics) they mixed with the indigenous populations. That is one of the reasons why North and South Dutch are so different. It's not because the Germanic part of their ancestry doesn't share a common origin.

What's your evidence that Belgians are for 50% diluted Danes? I see nothing.

I can see that I'm close to the Danes and the early Germanic tribes....but also that Irish, West Scottish people are closer than the South Dutch and even more the Belgians.

So how do you come to 50%? If the Belgians are for 50% diluted Danes they have to be closer to me (or the North Dutch/ Danish in general).

This expansion map is from the 3rd century CE, that is over a thousand years after the first Germanic expansion from the Danish Urheimat! I agree with that migration path from the Rhine to Belgium, but that doesn't confirm nor contradict anything we discussed.

That's totally nonsens. Germanic is not a coherent folk. Not something that lasted for thousand years. There is no Germanic genetic nucleus!

It's thousand years of turmoil and flux and reflux of migration and mixing.

May be the first Germanic culture you can speak of is the Jastorf culture (not core Danish but North Germany around Hamburg). But that's iron age. And even that's it's weird to think that at that moment from Norway to the Luneburger heath there was a coherent Germanic folk.

As said you can really speak of Germanic in the late antique. And at that time there were no indices there was at that time something genetic pan-germanic.

It's an old meme: 'das Herrenvolk' that went down from Scandinavia to other parts of NW.Europe. But the interesting thing of your topic 'With what ancient ethnicity do you most identify, and what has DNA told you ?' is that you can identify the Belgians with the Ingvaeonic tribes as much as you want, DNA tells you that it's differentiated

Modern DNA research, the calculator and pca's make clear that I'm not related to the Frankish tribes my wife SW Dutch/ Northern France is!

So in stead of debunking the Herrenvolk theory by stressing the diversity within the Germanic populations that is provided by modern research and DNA technology, you fuel the old theory without a good fundament.

Some have West Germans as the closest match, others South Dutch, others Flemish, and two even get Southwest English. But in any case, all get North Dutch somewhere (GD usually between 8 and 10) and a few get Danish too (7.3 and 10).

Yes that's what I'm saying Belgium, Northern France, South Dutch and West Germany are one cluster, North Dutch and Danes although not on the other side of the moon they are more on distance.

Then there is the indigenous Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age ancestry that differed on each side of the Rhine, as that river was a major geographic boundary that separated populations for millennia. After newcomers arrived (Belgic, Romans, Germanics) they mixed with the indigenous populations. That is one of the reasons why North and South Dutch are so different. It's not because the Germanic part of their ancestry doesn't share a common origin.

The answer is in sentence 1, because North Dutch are part of the North German Plain they share the population development with this area, specific around the North Sea. and you can't turn around the last sentence because they were called Germanic by the Romans they share a common stock!!! There are no indications (besides wishful thinking) that in the iron age people went from Denmark to the NW banks of the Rhine mixed there and became the Franks. That would take us back 80 years ago. Sincere.

So indeed the Germanic Franks influenced South Dutch/ Belgium/Northern France/ Rhineland Germany. But that they were called Germanic (not by themselves but by the Romans) doesn't mean they are genetically close to other Germanic people. Germanic was nothing more an nothing less than a sticker a label!

So in the end there is no evidence enough to state that the Belgians through the Franks are connected with Southern Scandinavia! In other words: there are no thick genetic lines between the Franks (Rhine-Weser Germans) and the the Danes (North Sea Germanic heirs).

There are more indications that in the area around the North Sea from North Dutch to Denmark there is a regional genetic cluster derived from the North Sea Germanics (after migration time North Dutch and Denmark got no really population shake up). And there is a regional genetic cluster around Belgium, South Dutch, West Germany, outmost Northern France, that consist of Franks (Rhine- Weser Germanics; originated not in Denmark but just above the Rhine) mixed with residues of Belgae and Romans (this cluster was beneath the Limes).The lines between these two clusters are pretty thin.

 

[Maciamo]

What's your evidence that Belgians are for 50% diluted Danes? I see nothing.

Here is what I wrote.

I have since estimated that my ancestral blend would be approximately 50% Germanic (about half from Denmark through the Franks and half from assimilated tribes in northern and western Germany), 35% Celtic and 15% Italic/Latin/Roman.

It's obvious that when a population like the Belgians is only 25% of Danish origin they are not going to look like pure Danes (or North Dutch) in autosomal comparisons.

So, I mentioned twice that Belgians have about 25% of ancestry from Denmark, not 50%. The remaining 25% are tribes that lived between the Rhine and Denmark and were neither properly Celtic nor Germanic culturally or linguistically, but genetically intermediate. They would have included branches of R1b-U106 not found or rare in Scandinavia or Frisia like DF96 (very common in Flanders). Another clade of R1b-U106 that is not Scandinavian but appears to be native to the northern Netherlands is U198 (also common in England).


As for the remainder of your comments, if you do not wish to believe that Germanic tribes expanded from a common core around Denmark, I am not going to argue with you. I have nothing to gain from convincing you.

 

[Northener]

First I want to make clear this is not offense! I like your contributions and your broad perspective.
It happens to be that the genetics of the Germanics have also my attention....so I say use the wisdom of the crowd on this forum! Together we can make a more accurat picture isn't it?

About your sum in this general Eupedia site you stated this:

The Franks, like other West Germanic tribes, is thought to have descended from Denmark or Schleswig-Holstein in the Early Iron Age (c. 500 BCE) through Lower Saxony. The Franks would have settled in the northeastern Netherlands, as far as the Rhine, circa 200 BCE.

So in the end the other 25% were also rooted in Denmark isn't it? So the simple sum is still 50%...But more important: what's the source that the Franks settled 200 BC around the Rhine?

The first and more general remark is that you still seem to make a difference between Celtic and Germanic, not only in cultural sense but also in genetic sense. IMO this dichotomy is not correct. As no one has found the "Celtic genome" not one has found a "Germanic genome".

The German wiki is clear in this respect too:

Der Germanenname bildete in der Antike einen völkerkundlichen Oberbegriff für eine Großgruppe zwischen Kelten und Skythen. Es handelte sich also in der Hauptsache um eine Fremdbenennung bestimmter Völker und nur zum geringeren Teil und wohl erst sekundär um eine Selbstbezeichnung der germanischen Völker für sich selbst. Die rechts des Rheins siedelnden Völker blieben vor Caesars gallischen Feldzügen (58–52 v. Chr.) weitgehend außerhalb des Horizonts der antiken Beobachter und wurden, als man von ihnen erfuhr, zunächst für Kelten gehalten oder zumindest nicht ausdrücklich von diesen unterschieden.

Anyhow I have a clear solution!

I have a solution because in the picture based on Lao (2013) you can see that there is a distinction between the "Anglo-Saxon" green segment K3 and the "Frankish" red segment K4. The blueprint of the genetic landscape is laid in the migration age and is nowadays still recognizable.

Salland the heartland of the Salian Franks in the circle is the crucial area, you see this area is red (frankish) and is very low in green (anglo-saxon). That's the key!

The red/ Frankish area is connected with the "Frankish" cluster South Dutch, Belgium and Rhineland Germany.

The green/ "Anglo-Saxon" or "Friso-Saxon" area is connected with Saxon area and that goes into Denmark. Illustrated by the PCA's and calculators of my auDNA that is close to the old Germanic tribes and the nowadays Danes.

So what about that!? Correct me if I am wrong and why?

 

[Northener]

By the way about U198 isn't that a Saxon marker?

SNPedia:

• R1b1b2a1a rs17222279 M467/S29/U198 Southern England + northern Germany Germanic (Anglo-Saxon)

Maarten Larmuseau et al (2109):

The most red U198 is the area (Groningen/ North Drenthe) that the Chauci (part of the later Saxons) already colonized in the Roman period. See this excellent work of Annet Nieuwhof:

http://jalc.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdfd43e.pdf?c=jalc;idno=0402a03

Nieuwhof (2017)

 

[Ygorcs]

That's pan-Germanism.....fully outdated IMO. Just like with the Celts (Cornwell is not Scotland) there is no unique Germanic genetic profile. Too diverse. Not one size fits all.

It's based on old Romantic thoughts (and worse):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_P...ia/File:Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_2.jpg

The core is: there is no Germanic urheimat in Southern Scandinavia that went to other parts of NW Europe. So no departure place Denmark from where the Saxons and the Franks started. The Saxons are homegrown NW Germany, the Franks homegrown Rhineland.

As said as the Franks and Flemish are 'diluted Danes' why don't they come closer to my auDNA? In my case the Irish are much more closer than the South Dutch (and I guess this is for the most North Dutch the case).

It's a more likely picture that we have some regional clusters, around the North Sea (the Ingvaeonic), around the Rhine-Weser (Istvaeonic), Elbe-Germanic (Irminonic), and North Germans (Scandics).

They were all labeled Germanic by the Romans, not because they were genetic the same but because they were in the eyes of the Romans, more than the Celts, ultra barbaric (in the original sense of the word).

As said the Germanics are not genetically from one and the same 'source'. They were regional differentiated.

The North Sea region (North Dutch/above to IJssel to Denmark) was already since TRB times one big flux and reflux. So also genetic close.

See this picture of Fokkens (2015):

This is until now still the genetic split n the Netherlands (see research 2020 ^^^).

Franks is an umbrella for different tribes around the Rhine and Weser NL and DE (up to Gelderland, Overijssel (NL) and Emsland/ Munsterland DE). Salian is related to Salland in Overijssel (just above the Rhine). It is this conglomerate of tribes that went in post Roman times to the South Dutch, Belgian, North Rhine-Westphalian area's. All these area’s had also some "Gallo Roman" populations (substrate). Until now these area's West-Germany, South Dutch, Belgium, piece of Northern France (Lille etc) share the same kind of genetic cluster.

Saxon is an umbrella in which we can identify for example the Chauci (nowadays East-Friesland in Germany), they were early pirates around the Channel and could have influenced parts of Flandres. But heavily???

There was some Jutish presence (during migration time) but that is most likely concentrated in Westergo Friesland this area was in the third and fourth century depopulated. This was a strategic place around the North Sea (most western part of Friesland, just heading Anglia) and was populated bij Jutes (and before by Saxons), here we can find some important migration time jewelry hoards and in Wijnaldum there was most probably a seat of an important chieftain (Finn in Beowulf?). This area may have been part of an embryonal Danish Sea kingdom. But the whole West Coast of Holland and Flandres were not influenced by the Anglo-Saxon, Ingvaeonic stream!

So no Germanic Urheimat in Denmark, a kind of nucleus that from there spread all over the NW European place.....but regional clusters with the common name German at first developed vis a vis (and heavily influenced by) the Roman world.

Last but not least hapotypes like the 'Germanic' R1b U106/S21 already spread during the Bronze Age in West Europe (see Oostwoud sample 1800 BC). Nordic R1b U106 like Z18 is very seldom in Belgium....

So what explains the remarkable linguistic homogeneity among all those diverse genetically differentiated populations speaking a Germanic tongue up until the Late Antiquity? Would they be a rare example of extremely conservative people in linguistic terms? Or would all people have started to speak the same language without virtually any gene flow between them?

 

[Northener]

So what explains the remarkable linguistic homogeneity among all those diverse genetically differentiated populations speaking a Germanic tongue up until the Late Antiquity? Would they be a rare example of extremely conservative people in linguistic terms? Or would all people have started to speak the same language without virtually any gene flow between them?

Linguistic homogenous? The Frisii of the Roman time spoke according to linguist Peter Schrijver (2018) a kind of Brittonic/Celtic..... by the way we don’t have real sources which language they spoke exactly only reconstruction based on early Middle Ages languages.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Ygorcs]

Linguistic homogenous? The Frisii of the Roman time spoke according to linguist Peter Schrijver (2018) a kind of Brittonic/Celtic..... by the way we don’t have real sources which language they spoke exactly only reconstruction based on early Middle Ages languages.....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

I'm clearly talking about the fact that they all now speak Germanic languages that started to diverge about 2000 years ago, so it cannot have been a case of one particularly successful Germanic language spreading only in the Middle Ages. You seem to claim there is no way all those people share a significant common ancestry that explains their common Germanic language family, so it can only be that the language spread without any migration, at least not any non-negligible numbers.

 

[Northener]

I'm clearly talking about the fact that they all now speak Germanic languages that started to diverge about 2000 years ago, so it cannot have been a case of one particularly successful Germanic language spreading only in the Middle Ages. You seem to claim there is no way all those people share a significant common ancestry that explains their common Germanic language family, so it can only be that the language spread without any migration, at least not any non-negligible numbers.

No what I state is that we don’t no exactly which language the people in the different parts of NW Europe during the Iron ages. No written sources no tape recorders The ideas about that are based on sources from the Middle Ages and later. That are reconstructions.
There is some evidence that in the Frisian case the ‘germanization” came with the migration of Saxons (and Jutes).


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum

 

[Carlos]

I feel closer to countries that are culturally closer, that is, Italy, France and Portugal.
Since I obtained these tests they have expanded my "range of sympathy" so to speak, before I only felt identified with my region of best known ancestry (Extremadura) but genetically the tests revealed me proximity to the western half of Iberia, especially in the North-Western.

I also confirmed through a last name that I have Galician ancestry.
So my places with which I currently identify (without order of importance) would be: Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Castile and Leon, Portugal, Extremadura and a little bit of Andalucia.

Unexpected things like Subsaharan ancestry and some similarity with Sardinia and Italy in other tests. Nor do I complain about my results because I thought these would be much more boring.

With your permission. I have never met an Asturian. Imagine like this without putting the names of the countries or anything, and with the Atlas on my knees the territories are better.

Ok I have the other nMontes with a 56 from Huelva, taking out France and Italy, but why do I have to take out France and Italy. My grandmother would not have told me, I have no one in Huelva, but well that nothing happens if it is for the delighted tartessos.

I was thinking about the uniform tone in my gray map in comparison, it is as if in Andalusia the group of Spaniards more or less had mixed very well, somewhat stronger Aragón and Huelva but there is a certain uniformity than in the map of the partner where there is more contrast . That or that I am an alien, I prefer my hypothesis.

 

[Duarte]

@Dou @Carlos

Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk

 

[Dou]

^Duarte being a Brazilian you could consider the possibility of Italian ancestry, do you know anything about your genealogy?

I was thinking about the uniform tone in my gray map in comparison, it is as if in Andalusia the group of Spaniards more or less had mixed very well, somewhat stronger Aragón and Huelva but there is a certain uniformity than in the map of the partner where there is more contrast . That or that I am an alien, I prefer my hypothesis.

There may be several reasons for that, the most common is a lack of reference samples that match your genome. With the exception of Huelva and Aragón, you do not show relevant similarity with other areas. Historically the regions of southern Spain were repopulated by those of the northwest.